±¬ÁÏÍø

The Applicant was initially informed of the contested decision by memorandum dated 3 June 2013 and admitted in her application that she did not request management evaluation of such decision. The 21 November 2016 response from the Chief, RSCE to the Applicant¡¯s request to be paid a relocation grant in relation to her transfer in 2013 is not a new administrative decision that ¡°resets the clock¡± for the purpose of requesting management evaluation. After having carefully reviewed the 21 November 2016 memorandum, the Tribunal concluded that it did not constitute a new decision since it did not add...

Under the revised Appendix D, a claimant wishing to contest a decision based upon a medical determination shall submit a request for reconsideration of the medical determination by a technical body. On the other hand, a claimant wishing to contest a decision based on considerations other than a medical determination shall submit a written request for management evaluation. The revised Appendix D makes either a reconsideration process under art. 5.1 or a management evaluation process mandatory. In other words, a claimant needs to request either a reconsideration of medical determinations or a...

Was the investigation properly conducted? The alleged lack of transparency There were indeed ¡°exceptional circumstances¡± that justified the disclosure of the investigation report to the Applicant. Since the Applicant was granted access to the investigation report and all relevant documents at the judicial stage, prior to the hearing and in order to prepare for it, the Tribunal considers that the Applicant had the opportunity to have all the elements required to properly present his case before the Tribunal. While it would have been more appropriate for the Organization to provide the Applicant...

The impugned decision is not a mere reiteration of a prior decision as in response to the Applicant¡¯s request for reconsideration, the Applicant¡¯s case was resubmitted to the Committee. Thus, the Committee¡¯s decision notified to the Applicant subsequently is subject to this Tribunal¡¯s review. The Health and Life Insurance Section¡¯s advice or failure to give proper advice is not an administrative decision subject to judicial review. Under the applicable procedures related to exceptional reimbursements, it provides that claims for services and treatments not covered under the insurance programme...

In all the circumstances, the Tribunal finds it has no competency to disturb the award in the judgment, as the Tribunal has already rejected the revision application in Judgment No. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2019/016. The Tribunal finds that justice would be better served for these matters to be considered by the Appeals Tribunal as there is a further issue that complicates the assessment of compensation herein in light of changed circumstances or new facts.

The Applicant was charged with having engaged in misconduct, namely: cheating and helping others cheat in the psychometric and English language tests of the Entry-Level Humanitarian Professional Programme (EHP). The Tribunal pronouncements are reflected following the different steps in the analysis of the contested decision. Have the facts on which the disciplinary measure was based been established? The Tribunal found that the investigation report clearly stated the facts and the alleged misconduct. It also provided substantial and critical assessment of the evidence presented to the...

The Applicant was charged with having engaged in two acts of misconduct, namely: cheating and helping others cheat in the psychometric and English language tests of the Entry-Level Humanitarian Professional Programme (EHP). The Tribunal pronouncements are reflected following the different steps in the analysis of the contested decision. Have the facts on which the disciplinary measure was based been established? The Tribunal found that the investigation report clearly stated the facts and the alleged misconduct. It also provided substantial and critical assessment of the evidence presented to...

The Tribunal, after hearing evidence and submissions but before reaching a determination on the merits of the case save for a finding of procedural error, decided that this was an appropriate case in which to invoke art. 10.4 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute to seek the concurrence of the Secretary-General to remand the case for institution or correction of the required procedure. The Tribunal considered it appropriate to approach the Secretary-General directly and not through Counsel who represents the SecretaryGeneral as the Respondent in this case. The Tribunal considered that such an approach would: (i...

Concerning receivability ratione temporis, the Tribunal found the applications receivable ratione temporis in view that 1) it did not process the Applicants¡¯ 2014/2015 motions for extension of time, thus did not include in its March and June 2015 adjudication of similar cases and 2) in light of ±¬ÁÏÍøAT¡¯s reversal of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s March and June 2015 judgments. Concerning receivability ratione materiae, the Tribunal considered the fact that the Applicants did not request management evaluation on the grounds that the decision had been taken by a technical body. In this connection, the Tribunal noted...

The Tribunal refused to entertain the application. It found that the Applicant had submitted a most confused and inarticulate application. The application had many flaws. The Tribunal, therefore, determined that a summary judgment was appropriate and the application was accordingly refused.