±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that in failing to file an appeal brief contesting the decision taken against her, the Appellant did not discharge her burden to demonstrate that the impugned judgment erred on a question of law or fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that there appeared to be an implied administrative decision when the Appellant did not receive any decision on her first written demand in 2011 and that that application also seemed not to be receivable ratione materiae. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.

On the decision to postpone the separation on medical grounds, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that a staff member had a right to be compensated for a service-incurred injury. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT erred in law in determining the decision to postpone the Appellant¡¯s separation on medical grounds until the end of the disciplinary process was lawful. Noting that the Appellant did not provide any evidence in support of his claim of psychological suffering (or harm), ±¬ÁÏÍøAT did not award moral compensation. On the issue of the SLWOP, given the nature and seriousness of the allegations against the Appellant, ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal was receivable as the Appellant had partially prevailed before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT and was entitled to file an appeal to pursue the modification, annulment, or vacation of the impugned judgment. Noting that the crux of the matter before it was the issue of the exchange rate used to calculate the repatriation grant, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no fault in the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT finding that the correct rate was applied because the applicable rate was that which applied on the date of receipt of the proof of relocation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT committed any error...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was not persuaded that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT erred in procedure or otherwise exceeded its jurisdiction such as to warrant reversal of the judgment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no reason to differ from ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s findings that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA had no reason to refer the Appellant to a medical board and that the issue was not relevant as the Appellant did not contest that he was unfit for service, nor did he allege that his health problems were related to his service with ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further noted that, as the Appellant was over sixty years of age, he was not eligible for a disability...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, in light of the undertaking the Appellant had signed agreeing to work on the relevant education programme at the remuneration rate determined by ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA, his acceptance of that rate was not compatible with his subsequent claim for retroactive readjustments. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the extra and external activities as a lecturer for physical education did not have the consequence to modify the job duties or title of the Appellant¡¯s post. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT properly treated the question of the Appellant¡¯s additional work in light of PD A/3 related to the parallel education programme...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT refused the Appellant¡¯s application for an oral hearing, noting that the Appellant was not entitled to call evidence on appeal that she should have presented to ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly regarded itself as not competent to make medical findings contradicting the medical evidence. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT made no error in its finding that the ABCC¡¯s recommendation had no connection with the attempted recovery of monies which was allegedly paid to the Appellant by the United Nations Federal Credit Union (±¬ÁÏÍøFCU) by mistake. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was quite correct in its opinion that the...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s motion for leave to file additional pleadings on the basis that the Appellant had not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT decided to strike out the Appellant¡¯s additional submission and not to take it into consideration. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found no fault in the ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF Standing Committee¡¯s decision which was in full accord with the ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF Regulations. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant was neither entitled to an increase in his pension benefit nor to a retroactive payment for the period of his reemployment as there is no legal basis for retroactive payment of these...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant was fully apprised of the options available to him in relation to his pension benefits when his first contract with the Organisation ended in 1985. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant¡¯s election to transfer his actuarial value to the Social Security Fund of the USSR terminated his contractual relationship with the ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the right to restore past contributory service was only available to participants in terms of Article 24 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF Regulations, who had less than five years¡¯ previous contributory service and whose only available benefit was a...

On receivability, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal was receivable insofar as it related to the ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF decision to deduct child support from the Appellant¡¯s pension in accordance with Article 45 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF Regulations. As to the appeal related to repayment of a sum paid directly to the Appellant¡¯s estranged spouse as child¡¯s benefit under Article 36 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF Regulations, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that this aspect was not receivable for failure to challenge in a timely manner the decision and that his claim regarding due process with respect to direct payments under Article 36 had no merit. On the merits of...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not have the power to remand the case back to the ABCC, since an order under that provision requires the concurrence of the Secretary-General to that effect. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the only proper course for ±¬ÁÏÍøDT to take was either to remand the case to the ABCC with the Secretary-General¡¯s concurrence or to consider whether the procedural flaws warranted the rescission of the impugned administrative decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT, by making an order to remand the case to the Administration without the concurrence of the Secretary-General, exceeded its competence and committed...