±¬ÁÏÍø

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...

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 held that the application for revision was manifestly inadimissable because the Applicant did not bring to the attention of the Tribunal the existence of any new decisive fact which was unknown to the Tribunal or to himself at the time Judgment No. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2016/059 was rendered. The issue of lack of investigation alleged by the Applicant was properly considered in Judgment No. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2016/059.

Receivability Immunities have been incorporated into the terms of appointment of United Nations staff members¡ªincluding at the highest level of the Organization¡¯s legal order and ever since its inception¡ªthereby becoming part and parcel of their status and conditions of service. Furthermore, a decision to waive the immunity of a given staff member has evident¡ªpotentially dramatic¡ªeffects on his or her legal situation. Thus, the contested decision meets all the features of the definition of an administrative decision adopted by the Appeals Tribunal. Accordingly, the Tribunal found the...

The Tribunal held that the application was moot and not receivable. Accordingly, the application was rejected. On issue one, for an order for execution of default judgment, the Tribunal found that the Applicant had not obtained a default judgment as he alleged. The 14 December 2009 Order that the Applicant considered a default judgment merely directed the Respondent on the procedural requirements for applying to re-enter the proceedings, and which indeed happened with the Respondent filing a reply on 25 January 2010. On 7 June 2010, the Tribunal proceeded to Judgment No. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2010/105 in which...

The Tribunal held that the Applicant¡¯s claim that he was underpaid between July 2004 and 31 May 2005, was not receivable. The Tribunal was satisfied that in the period in relation to which the Applicant alleged underpayments by the ±¬ÁÏÍøFPA Administration, the Applicant was not a staff member appointed by the Secretary-General. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal is limited to persons who are staff members or former staff members of the Organization. Therefore, the Applicant had no locus standi regarding the claims derived from another status, but not a staff member. With regard to the non-renewal...

The Tribunal found that several of the Applicant¡¯s claims were not receivable, granted his claim for assignment grant in part, and rejected his claims for security evacuation allowance; post adjustment; and compensation for financial hardship.

The contested administrative decision was communicated to the Applicant on 9 August 2016. The Applicant had 60 days thereafter to request management evaluation. In other words, the Applicant had until 8 October 2016 to submit a management evaluation request. From the record, the Applicant requested management evaluation on 8 February 2017 and therefore did so out of time. It follows that the Applicant¡¯s claim was not receivable, and that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to consider the respective contentions of the parties on the merits of the case.

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.