±¬ÁÏÍø

The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the Applicant did not meet the requirements of staff rule 3.6 and ST/AI/2011/5 and could not claim dependent child status for her niece. The application was dismissed.

Receivability Contested decisions Considering the Applicants¡¯ submissions as a whole, the contested decisions are to be identified as Secretary-General¡¯s decisions, in implementing the Unified Salary Scale, to convert a portion of the Applicants¡¯ salaries into a separate allowance. The Applicants do not challenge the General Assembly¡¯s resolution adopting the Unified Salary Scale as a measure of general application. Whether the contested decisions constitute administrative decisions In interpreting its jurisdiction, the Tribunal must take into account the Organization¡¯s duty to provide access...

Receivability Contested decisions Considering the Applicants¡¯ submissions as a whole, the contested decisions are to be identified as Secretary-General¡¯s decisions, in implementing the Unified Salary Scale, to convert a portion of the Applicants¡¯ salaries into a separate allowance. The Applicants do not challenge the General Assembly¡¯s resolution adopting the Unified Salary Scale as a measure of general application. Whether the contested decisions constitute administrative decisions In interpreting its jurisdiction, the Tribunal must take into account the Organization¡¯s duty to provide access...

Receivability Contested decisions Considering the Applicants¡¯ submissions as a whole, the contested decisions are to be identified as Secretary-General¡¯s decisions, in implementing the Unified Salary Scale, to convert a portion of the Applicants¡¯ salaries into a separate allowance. The Applicants do not challenge the General Assembly¡¯s resolution adopting the Unified Salary Scale as a measure of general application. Whether the contested decisions constitute administrative decisions In interpreting its jurisdiction, the Tribunal must take into account the Organization¡¯s duty to provide access...

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 fact that the Applicant stated the same erroneous date in the two separate communications clearly and convincingly showed that the Applicant did so deliberately¡ªit was not just a simple typographical mistake. Having found that the Applicant had intentionally misrepresented a divorce date in two separate communications, including an official form, resulting in his unjust enrichment, it clearly fell within the Administration¡¯s latitude of discretion to conclude that the Applicant had committed misconduct. Considering the gravity of the Applicant¡¯s misrepresentations, including the...