±¬ÁÏÍø

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the health insurance premiums imposed by the UPU in 2023 differed according to factors such as age, retirement status and country of residence.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no support for the appellants' contention regarding the principle of solidarity used in the Swiss social security law, as for several years such principle had no longer been applied by the UPU.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT determined that the rate of the UPU¡¯s contribution did not differ between the various age groups and there was no evidence that the premium increases were inconsistent with the costs the insurance provider...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the contested decision was a separation decision hinged on expiration of an appointment, and not a termination decision based on abolition of post or reduction of staff. The former staff member did not fall within the category of staff with the right to be considered on a preferential basis for retention and the Administration did not have an obligation to find him an alternative and suitable position following the abolition or reclassification exercise.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT observed that although the former staff member was informed in his non-renewal letter that he would be placed on...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT did not consider the seasonal absences of legal staff to be an exceptional circumstance. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that, on the contrary, it was routinely expected that staff will take annual leave in the summer months. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further held that the fact that the Director General had failed to view any e-mail for a period of 19 days was an error for which the consequences had to be borne by the Director General. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT denied the Director General¡¯s motion for an extension of time to file a response to the staff members¡¯ motion.

The Tribunal concluded that the Applicant was entitled to full compensation as provided for under Appendix D, with no deductions. The Tribunal also observed that the Applicant was entitled to receive interests for the delayed payment.

In view of the foregoing, the Tribunal:

a. Granted the application and rescinded the contested decision;

b. Directed the Respondent to pay to the Applicant the compensation under Appendix D with no deduction for pension benefits paid to third parties; and

c. Directed the Respondent to pay to the Applicant for the delayed payment of said compensation the...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT referenced the Shanks jurisprudence (judgment No. 2010-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-026bis) where it held that the authority of a final judgment - res judicata - cannot be so readily set aside. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that there are only limited grounds as enumerated in Article 11 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute for review of a final judgment and an allegation of an error in law is not one of them. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the application to set aside and remand the previous judgment.

The application was not receivable because the Applicant was a former staff member of ±¬ÁÏÍøIDO. While the Applicant had no locus standi before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT, his case would have been properly filed either with ILOAT or ±¬ÁÏÍøAT.

In the matter of non-selection, it is evident that the Applicant was required to take a test but did not. The Applicant did not explain why she failed to take the test in any terms which show that the Administration must take responsibility for this failure. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT held that the Applicant must take responsibility for this failure and therefore can blame no-one other than herself for the non-selection. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT dismissed this aspect of the Application. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT held that the finding that there was insufficient evidence to pursue the matter of sexual harassment tantamounts to abuse abuse of authority on...

Public interest, transparency, scrutiny and accountability are not impaired by the removal of the Applicant¡¯s name from the public domain. Consequently, and taking into consideration the sensitive nature of the facts, which involve alleged ¡°sexual exploitation of a vulnerable person¡±, the Tribunal grants the Applicant¡¯s request for anonymity. The decision not to renew the Applicant¡¯s fixed-term appointment, communicated to him on 23 September 2019, is not grounded on disciplinary considerations, which were the subject of the instant case, and constitutes an autonomous administrative decision...

OIOS acted in accordance with the procedures set down in ST/SGB/2019/8 and ST/AI/2017/1, taking into account all relevant considerations in reaching its decision under section 5.1 of ST/AI/2017/1 to take no action on the complaint. Accordingly, there was no foundation for the substantive claim made by the Applicant, nor any foundation for any award of compensation. An investigation would not resolve the dispute between the Applicant and the SRSG, since there clearly was and remains inter-personal differences between them. Instead, it would likely deepen the divide between them. An...

The application was not receivable because the Applicant did not request management evaluation.