±¬ÁÏÍø

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...

The application was receivable as it was filed in accordance with the requirements set forth in article 12.3 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute and article 30 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT RoP.; The payment of salaries to the Applicant should have been calculated as of the time of separation (30 November 2009) with accrued interest.; ±¬ÁÏÍøDT ordered that the Secretary-General add a pre-judgment interest on the compensation already paid, calculated at the US Prime Rate applicable on 30 November 2009 (date of separation) to 9 December 2016 (date of payment). All other pleas were refused.

How to measure a loss of change. The Tribunal finds that, as stated in Niedermayr, the assessment of loss of chance is an inexact science, and the Tribunal must assess the matter in the round and arrive at a figure deemed to be fair and equitable having regard to the number of imponderables present in the case, including the chances of being selected. The Tribunal should take into account two matters: (a) the nature of the irregularity and (b), thereafter in the assessment, all the imponderables, noting all the while that this is an inexact science (Niedermayr). The Tribunal notes the...

The Tribunal found that the Organization¡¯s inaction to resolve the failure to timely pay to the Applicant the amount due constituted an implied decision, which, in turn, was an appealable administrative decision subject to scrutiny, regarding the period of delay, even if the amount due had eventually been paid. The Tribunal ruled that the Applicant had a contractual right to receive her salary and to receive it in a timely manner. Technical problems following the deployment of a new ERP system are not a justification for a denial of such an entitlement. Therefore, the Tribunal awarded...

The Tribunal was not persuaded by the Applicant¡¯s argument that staff rule 9.2(b) should apply to her case because her resignation was not genuine and the Administration had set her up for resignation. Rather, it was apparent to the Tribunal that the Applicant¡¯s resignation was situational and a consequence of a combination of earlier decisions taken by the Applicant and the external factors. The Applicant overestimated the power of her newly acquired diploma on the job market which proved more difficult than she had expected. The Applicant made no inquiries concerning termination indemnity...

The decision to deny the Applicant¡¯s claim for compensation can no longer be subject of a challenge before this Tribunal, because it ceased to have legal effect the moment it was rescinded by the decision-maker. Since the contested decision is no longer existing, the Tribunal cannot rule on the Applicant¡¯s case. The outcome of MEU is not of itself an administrative decision. Consequently, this Tribunal cannot pass judgment on it. Therefore, the Applicant¡¯s challenge against the outcome of the MEU review is not receivable. The lack of existence of a substantive matter makes any motion for...

The Tribunal decided that the application was filed out of time and was not receivable. The Tribunal found that the application which was filed on behalf of the incapacitated Applicant by her spouse, ought to have been filed within one year of 8 October 2014, that is, by 8 October 2015. It was instead filed on 23 March 2016, way out of time.

Since there was no written agreement or any other signed document that clearly showed the Respondent¡¯s undertaking to pay the Applicant USD10, 790, the Tribunal determined whether there was an implied in-fact contract by examining the parties¡¯ intentions based on their conduct and other circumstances to establish if there was mutual assent and consideration. The Tribunal concluded that all the elements of a binding, valid and enforceable contract existed between the parties because: (i) there was mutual assent leading both parties to jointly inform the Tribunal that they had established the...

Receivability before the ±¬ÁÏÍøCB. As follows from art. 12 read together with art. 14(b)(ii) of ST/AI/149/Rev.4, for a compensation claim for damage to be receivable before the ±¬ÁÏÍøCB, the relevant staff member is required (¡°shall¡±) to take the following mandatory and cumulative actions, setting forth in detail all relevant circumstances to ±¬ÁÏÍøCB: (a) to notify the United Nations authorities and the local police about the incident as soon as possible; (b) to submit all pertinent evidence; (c) in case the staff member holds valid personal insurance at the date of the incident, to take all the...

Receivability ratione materiae: The application is receivable ratione materiae if the applicant is contesting ¡°an administrative decision that is alleged to be in non-compliance with the terms of appointment or the contract of employment¡± (art. 2.1 of the Statute) and if the applicant previously submitted the contested administrative decision for management evaluation, where required (art. 8.1(c) of the Statute).