±¬ÁÏÍø

The Respondent asserted that the Application is not receivable because the Applicant was required to request management evaluation since the contested decision was not taken pursuant to the advice of a technical body under staff rule 11.2(b). The Tribunal found the Application to be receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøCB as a technical body: The Tribunal concluded that an earlier determination from MEU to another staff member regarding the status of ±¬ÁÏÍøCB (Determination A) represents the decision of the Secretary-General that ±¬ÁÏÍøCB is a technical body for the purpose of staff rule 11.2(b) until or unless it is...

Material facts: The Tribunal noted that the decision letter, the minutes of the ±¬ÁÏÍøCB meetings and the evidence of the Secretary of the ±¬ÁÏÍøCB showed that the ±¬ÁÏÍøCB acted on the understanding that in spite of its date, the Applicant¡¯s 7 December 2010 inventory list had been prepared after the event and that there was no evidence of the Applicant¡¯s personal possessions that predated it. The Tribunal found that such evidence existed and was available to the ±¬ÁÏÍøCB. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the ±¬ÁÏÍøCB did not take into account all material facts relating to the Applicant¡¯s claim for...