±¬ÁÏÍø

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the staff member¡¯s involvement in rental subsidy fraud by two claimants had been established by clear and convincing evidence: the Administration had demonstrated that the actual amount paid to the staff member in monthly rent was not the amount shown on the lease. In addition, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had correctly determined that he had instigated one of the claimants to submit a fraudulent claim for the subsidy for real estate agent¡¯s fees.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that even if the staff member had not benefitted personally or directly from the fraudulent subsidies, the...

The Tribunal finds that by the Applicant¡¯s explicit and direct reference to her previous case from 2021, which the Administration decided with reference to staff rule 12.3(b), she also, at least implicitly, requested an exception to the staff rules under staff rule 12.3(b) in her 18 July 2022 request.

Had the Administration had any doubts regarding the extent of the Applicant¡¯s request, which was indeed phrased in a not very clear manner, it could simply have reached out to the Applicant, who, in her 18 July 2022 request, stated that she was available for providing further information if...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Administration did not act unreasonably or unlawfully in requiring the staff member to work from the office two days per week. It further held that relevant considerations, including the staff member¡¯s personal and medical circumstances, were taken into consideration, and irrelevant considerations were excluded. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also found that there was no obligation on the Administration to establish that the requested accommodations represented a disproportionate or undue burden on the workplace.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also found no merit in the staff member¡¯s argument that the lack of...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not commit any error in procedure that affected the outcome of the case by partially denying the former staff member¡¯s motions for production of additional evidence or by not granting him sufficient additional time to respond to the Secretary-General¡¯s submissions.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also concluded that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT appropriately identified the contested decision as the 1 April 2022 decision finding him ineligible to participate in ASHI. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT observed that the former staff member himself identified this decision in both his ±¬ÁÏÍøDT application and his management evaluation...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the essence of the administrative decision had been that the staff member was not entitled to cashed-up unused annual leave from a second appointment taken up within 12 months of relinquishing a first appointment after which such leave had been commutated.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT observed that the staff member¡¯s request for management evaluation referred to the Administration¡¯s alleged ¡°continued failure¡± to compensate him the commutation of annual leave. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the reference reinforced a conclusion that it had been the consistent decision conveyed to him over several months...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the staff member had telecommuted from his home country for the entire academic year. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that payment of the educational grant required the physical presence of the staff member at their official duty station, with such payment to be suspended or adjusted for the period that they were telecommuting from outside the official duty station.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was not open to the staff member to rely on a defence that the Administration be estopped from relying on the applicable provisions in its interpretation of the circumstances under which the education...

The Tribunal concluded that the promulgation of ST/AI/2018/Rev.1/Amend.1, which restrictively redefined enrolment-related fees, did not conform to General Assembly resolution 70/244. As such, its promulgation was an abuse of the Administration¡¯s discretion and its application in reviewing the Applicant¡¯s education grant for her son was unlawful.

Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the Applicant was correct in that the fees that she claimed were admissible as tuition, in addition to being enrolment-related. Thus, the decision to deny reimbursement for those fees was unlawful.

The Tribunal...

Since the ABCC was advised by a technical body its decision does not require management evaluation.

The Tribunal determined that the application was properly made but it was denied because the Tribunal could find no fault with the decision of the ABBC to deny the Applicant's claim for an entitlement to compensation for injury and illness incurred during and resulting from employment on the behalf of the United Nations.

The lack of justifiable explanation on the part of the Respondent for the delay from December 2018 to June 2021 could only be attributed to lack of due care and diligence, transparency, accountability and good faith. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the delay was compensable.

The Applicant proved beyond a balance of probabilities that the mental and emotional harm suffered by the dependents was directly attributable to the Administration¡¯s negligent handling of the matter.

The claim of moral harm was sufficiently proved to the requisite standard.

Mr. Ronved appealed.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Judgment.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in finding the application not receivable with respect to the refusal of a temporary promotion to the P-4 level.? The contested decision before the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was the decision to extend the SPA, which the Appellant timely challenged before the MEU and the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT.? The extension of the SPA and the denial to grant a promotion were two sides of the same decision, with the same time limits for management evaluation.? Therefore, the request for management evaluation of both decisions was...