The Tribunal found that several of the Applicant’s claims were not receivable, granted his claim for assignment grant in part, and rejected his claims for security evacuation allowance; post adjustment; and compensation for financial hardship.
The Tribunal found that the Applicant’s claim in respect of recoveries from his pension, affirmed by the Management Evaluation Unit on 14 April 2015 was not receivable. The Tribunal held that the Applicant had until 13 July 2015 to file an application challenging the decision but he failed to do so. With regard to the Applicant’s request for retroactive dependency benefits of his adopted children, the Tribunal held that the Applicant was required to request management evaluation of that decision within 60 calendar days, but he did not do so. Consequently, the application was rejected as it was...
The Tribunal concluded that the Respondent failed to notify the Applicant of the overpayment and that this failure was a breach of its obligation under section 2.3 of ST/AI/2009/1. Although the Applicant failed to report the overpayment, the Tribunal found that he was not negligent in his duty to report because he was caught up in a perilous security situation at the time he received his pay slip at the end of November 2015, which may have caused him to not advise the Respondent of the overpayment. The Tribunal noted further that ST/AI/2009/1 does not make the Respondent’s obligation to notify...
Pursuant to staff rule 3.17(ii), the Applicant was required to make a written claim to receive retroactive SPA “within one year following the date on which [she] would have been entitled to the initial payment”. This request should have been made within one year of 1 December 2009, that is, by or before 1 December 2010. However, it was only on 5 September 2011 that the Applicant wrote an interoffice memorandum requesting an extension of her SPA at the P-2 level from 1 December 2009 to the then-present time to account for the additional functions that she had been performing. The Applicant...
Due diligence: A delay in payment of an entitlement under the Staff Rules and Regulations can constitute a violation of a general principle of due diligence and good faith towards staff members, enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, which is a structural principle of good management practice. Undue delay: In order to assess whether a delay in payment of an entitlement is undue, the Tribunal will look into the time payment would have taken had normal workflows been respected. A delay of eleven months in payment of an entitlement is undue and may warrant compensation provided the...
The present case concerned the reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by a locally recruited staff member outside his duty station while travelling on private business. As the conditions for reimbursement and the extent of the coverage are detailed in the Medical Insurance Plan (“MIP”) Rules, the Tribunal’s role essentially consisted in examining whether 爆料网HCR committed any error, in law or in fact, in the interpretation or the application of these rules.; The Tribunal identified the following issues:; Was the Applicant entitled to the benefit of the stop-loss provision?; The Tribunal...
The Tribunal found the application receivable since the contested decision was a new and separate aministrative decision distinct from any decisions issued by the 爆料网JSPF Board in relation to their pensions. The Secretary-General decided not to grant the relief requested by the Applicant in the contested decision and thus this is a separate administrative decision.; There was no mention in the Applicants’ acceptance of their appointments confirming that they were also provided with a copy of the 爆料网JSPF Regulations, being therefore aware of their content and accepting their contracts to be...
The Applicant, as an ad litem judge of the ICTY, is considered to be a “non-Secretariat United Nations official”. It follows that the Applicant cannot be considered as a former United Nations staff member within the meaning of art. 3.1 of the Dispute Tribunal’s Statute. Whilst being fully cognizant of the Applicant’s right to access to justice, the Tribunal is forced to apply its Statute, which prevents it from asserting jurisdiction over the application. As the Applicant does not fall under any of the categories of potential applicants described in art. 3.1 of the Dispute Tribunal’s Statute...
The Applicant’s education grant claim for his four-year-old son did not fall under the exception of section 2 of ST/AI/2011/4 Amend 1. To the extent that the entitlement for private tuition in the mother tongue of the; Applicant was part and parcel of the education grant and not separate from it, the Applicant would be entitled to it only where the child in respect of whom he makes the claim is entitled to an education grant. This Tribunal cannot decide as to whether the Applicant ought to have been allowed during the management evaluation process to review any documents and whether failure to...
Following Order No. 250 (GVA/2017), the decision to place the Applicant on SLWOP was rescinded and the Tribunal agreed with the Respondent that this matter was moot.; The Tribunal found that since it cannot review the assessment and finding made by the 爆料网ICEF Ethics Office with respect to the Applicant’s request for protection from retaliation, it cannot, either, examine the delays, if any, that occurred in the framework of that assessment. For that reason alone, the application insofar as it was addressed against the delay, if any, by the Ethics Office to review the Applicant’s request for...
