±¬ÁÏÍø

The Tribunal examined the following issues:; Issue No. 1 Classification exercise and lateral move requirements; The Tribunal noted that prior to the post being advertised it had been classified as a; ¡°geographical¡± rather than a ¡°language¡± post. As a consequence, the lateral move requirements, which apply to geographical but not to language posts, would have been to the Applicant¡¯s disadvantage. Following its classification as a language post this requirement was removed and staff at P-4 level, including the Applicant, were eligible to apply notwithstanding any lack of lateral moves.; Clearly...

The distinction between reimbursement of 100 per cent of admissible educational expenses for a child with a disability who attends a regular education institution depends on whether the necessary special arrangements are provided by the educational institution or not. If the institution does not provide such arrangements, the special teaching expenses are reimbursed at 100% but the educational expenses are reimbursed at the regular rate of 75%. Sec. 14.1 has to be read in conjunction with sec. 12 of the ST/AI/2011/4, which defines admissible expenses for the special education grant as...

The question of existence of an administrative decision capable of being reviewed by the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT in relation to the decision of 11 May 2017 had already been determined between the same parties by the virtue of final Judgment No. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2018/015 Corr. 1. Therefore, based on res judicata, the application was rejected as irreceivable.

Assuming that the 11 May 2017 communication conferred a general intent to implement the ICSC decision with respect to each and every staff member based in Geneva, such individual decisions had not yet been taken. This rendered the application irreceivable. Moreover, even the decision of general order would have been rescinded by the next communication of 18 July 2017 in which the ICSC determined that its earlier measures would not be implemented as originally proposed. The application was dismissed as not receivable.

Assuming that the 11 May 2017 communication conferred a general intent to implement the ICSC decision with respect to each and every staff member based in Geneva, such individual decisions had not yet been taken. This rendered the applications irreceivable. Moreover, even the decision of general order would have been rescinded by the next communication of 18 July 2017 in which the ICSC determined that its earlier measures would not be implemented as originally proposed. The application was dismissed as not receivable.

The Tribunal noted that the Applicant did not identify any operative part of Judgment Massi ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2016/100 that would not have been executed. Furthermore, Judgment Massi ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2016/100 dealt with the calculation and timing of compensation for loss of earning capacity due to the Applicant from 14 May 2005 until 31 December 2015. No order was made in respect of any payment or entitlement to compensation after 31 December 2015. The Tribunal found that the present application raised a different matter than that addressed in Judgment Massi ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2016/100 and was not related to any of the remedies...

The Tribunal commended the parties and the Ombudsman for their efforts in finding an alternative resolution following proactive case management by the Tribunal, as encouraged by General Assembly Resolution 70/112, adopted on 31 December 2015.

The Tribunal also highlighted the positive contribution of the Chief, Languages Services, in the resolution of this matter, through her regular attendance at CMDs as well as the cooperative and positive approach adopted by the Applicant.

Receivability. The Applicant took no action to challenge the payment made to his wife, and the collection that would necessarily follow, within the 60 day period provided for in Staff Rule 11.2. At the time of submitting his request for management evaluation on 23 June 2017, the said deadline had experide several months ago. The Tribunal finds therefore concluded that the application is irreceivable rationae materiae (Egglesfield 2014-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-402) concerning the recovery by the Administration of the payment of EUR 7,000 made to the Applicant's wife. The application is also irreceivable rationae...

Due to successful inter partes settlement negotiations and the subsequent withdrawal of this case, the case is closed.

The issue at stake is whether the non-selection decisions were lawful and, if not, what remedies are to be awarded. The scope of the Tribunal¡¯s jurisdiction in selection and appointment matters is twofold: 1) to evaluate if the Administration has followed the pre-established procedures and staff members were given full and fair consideration and 2) to examine if the decision is not blatantly unreasonable, arbitrary or illegal. The Tribunal finds that the fact that the Administration decided to consider the result of the LABEL test when examining applications for the job opening does not amount...