±¬ÁÏÍø

The Tribunal held that the Applicant had not adduced any arguments to substantiate the claim that the compensation recommended by JAB was inappropriate, insufficient or improper.

The Tribunal found that it is not competent to examine decisions taken by the ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF. The application was dismissed.

When joining ±¬ÁÏÍøOPS in 2009, the Applicant¡¯s nationality for ±¬ÁÏÍø purposes had been recorded as French. Since then, he had submitted various requests to have this changed, however, despite several negative decisions rejecting his request he submitted a request for management evaluation only in 2013. He had also, while being aware that his request for change of nationality was rejected, submitted education grant claims. These claims were approved and processed by ±¬ÁÏÍøOPS, by mistake, and between 2011 and 2012 he was paid over USD60000 for school years 2009 through 2012. The Tribunal found that the...

The Tribunal found that the first part of the application was not receivable, since the Applicant lacked legal standing, and that the second part of the application, while receivable, was unfounded, since the Secretary-General, who has the duty to facilitate the holding of the elections to the ±¬ÁÏÍøSCP, had no power, whatsoever, to interfere in the actual conduct and results of the elections.

The Applicant failed to identify the administrative decision she is contesting and from the Tribunal¡¯s examination of the documents received, it is not possible to clearly define the administrative decision that she wishes to contest. Furthermore, the Applicant did not request management evaluation of an administrative decision, if any. It follows that the present application is not receivable, ratione materiae, and the Tribunal is not competent to adjudicate the matter. The above is a matter of law, which may be adjudicated even without serving the application to the Respondent for reply, and...

The Applicant did not comply with the requirement of staff rule 11.2 (c) to request management evaluation within the period of 60 days from the date of notification of the decision. The deadline expired on 12 January 2014, but she requested management evaluation on 12 February 2014.

The Applicant does not contest a decision of the Secretary-General but a decision of ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF, which he claims was communicated to him by the Chief of the Office of the ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF at Geneva. The Tribunal has already stated in the past that it is not competent to review ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF decisions. ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF is an entity established to provide retirement, death, disability and related benefits for the staff of its various member organizations. The Secretary-General has no role in the administration of ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF benefits. The ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF is also not one of the agencies, organizations or entities ¡°where a special agreement...

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 found that the ABCC considered all relevant matters in arriving at the decision, and that the impugned decision was legal, rational, and procedurally correct. The submission that the application was not receivable rationae materiae and rationae temporis was without merit and was rejected. Contrary to the Respondent¡¯s assertion, the ABCC¡¯s letter of 29 December 2017 was an administrative decision given that it was arrived at after the Applicant, in response to the ABCC¡¯s email of 25 May 2017 inviting him to furnish new evidence. He furnished new evidence relating to each of the...

The Tribunal noted that the complaint about the long period it took for the Applicant to be paid and the dispute over the amount of the pension paid to him were beyond the scope of the application since they were not subjected to management evaluation as required by art. 8.1(c) of the Dispute Tribunal¡¯s Statute and staff rule 11.2(a). The Tribunal found that the Administration had proper legal grounds for refusing to issue the separation notification to the ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF in accordance with staff rule 3.18(c)(ii), ST/AI/2009/1 (Recovery of overpayments made to staff members) and ST/AI/155/Rev.2 as...