±¬ÁÏÍø

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in concluding that the former staff member¡¯s application was not receivable because most of the contested decisions were either time-barred, res judicata, or did not constitute appealable administrative decisions. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the Advisory Board on Compensation Claims (ABCC) correctly determined that the claim for compensation under Appendix D remained time-barred under Article 2.1(b) and that the requirements for waiver under Article 2.1(e) were not met, as there was no evidence of incapacity preventing timely filing. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further held that...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted the staff member had not requested a review of the decision by the United Nations Staff Pension Committee or filed an appeal to the Standing Committee, but rather had filed a request for management evaluation and then had applied to the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that, as such, he had not followed proper procedure. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no authority for receiving an application by the Dispute Tribunal with regards to a pension decision. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT concluded that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had not erred when it held that it did not have jurisdiction to undertake a judicial review of the contested...

The Tribunal established that there was no evidence to support the Administration¡¯s position. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the contested decision was arbitrary, capricious, and unlawful.

Regarding the Applicant¡¯s claim for damages, the Tribunal concluded that no evidence was presented by the Applicant and thus he failed to sustain his burden of both production and proof. As a result, the request for moral damages was denied.

In light of the Tribunal¡¯s findings, the Respondent was ordered to pay to the Applicant four months of interest on the money that was due to him, calculated at the...

In the present case, the Applicant has not identified a reviewable administrative decision and there is no indication that he filed a request for management evaluation before submitting the application.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly found not receivable Ms. Raschdorf's application with respect to the non-renewal decision and the ABCC¡¯s decision given Ms. Raschdorf's failure to request management evaluation. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that contrary to Ms. Raschdorf's contention, the non-renewal decision was not taken subsequent to advice from a technical body. As to the ABCC's decision on whether the claim was time-barred, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that that decision was not based on a consideration of a medical evaluation but was concerned with the timeliness of the...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the Appellant was asked to present updated medical information to support her request for a review of her case and failed to do so. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that no prejudice existed against the Appellant, since she had an opportunity to present updated medical evidence within the scope of the review of her case. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Standing Committee decision.

In considering the Appellant¡¯s appeal, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the Standing Committee could not reject the request unless it disregarded the provisions of Article 33(a) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF Regulations. However, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that it was not in a position to rule on the actual possibility for the Appellant to perform the duties of her respective position and held that the Standing Committee should reconsider the Appellant¡¯s request. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rescinded the Standing Committee¡¯s decision and remanded the Appellant¡¯s request to the Standing Committee for review.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT took into account that the Appellant only made his request some 29 months after the expiration of the deadline and that he did not submit any medical report. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal was not receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and upheld the ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPB decision.

As a preliminary matter, in response to the Appellant¡¯s request for interim measures, in which she requested that the Secretary-General complied with the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment insofar as it had not been appealed against, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT denied the motion on the basis that execution should have been requested before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. On the Appellant¡¯s motion to strike assertions and evidence, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the Appellant was supplementing her appeal, and denied the motion. On the merits, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal was limited to the request for further compensation, as per the Appellant¡¯s Power of Attorney document, and...

As a preliminary matter, in response to the Appellant¡¯s request for interim measures, in which she requested that the Secretary-General complied with the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment insofar as it had not been appealed against, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT denied the motion on the basis that execution should have been requested before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. On the Appellant¡¯s motion to strike assertions and evidence, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the Appellant was supplementing her appeal, and denied the motion. On the merits, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal was limited to the request for further compensation, as per the Appellant¡¯s Power of Attorney document, and...