Â鶹APP

En l'absence de tout point de droit discutable et ¨¦tant donn¨¦ les d¨¦cisions contraignantes du tribunal d'appel dans les jugements susmentionn¨¦s sur les affaires de l'¨¦chelle salariale, les r¨¦clamations sont rejet¨¦es.

En l'absence de tout point de droit discutable et compte tenu des d¨¦cisions contraignantes du tribunal d'appel dans Lloret-Alcaniz et al. 2018-UNAT-840, Quijano-Evans et al. 2018-UNAT-841 et Mirella et al. 2018-UNAT-842, la r¨¦clamation est rejet¨¦e.

Comme le demandeur a retir¨¦ la r¨¦clamation, il n'y a plus de question de consid¨¦ration et de d¨¦termination judiciaires et, par cons¨¦quent, l'affaire est close.

?tant donn¨¦ que la requ¨¦rante a retir¨¦ sa r¨¦clamation, il n'y a plus de question de consid¨¦ration et de d¨¦termination judiciaires et, par cons¨¦quent, l'affaire est close.

?tant donn¨¦ que la requ¨¦rante a retir¨¦ sa r¨¦clamation, il n'y a plus de question de consid¨¦ration et de d¨¦termination judiciaires et, par cons¨¦quent, l'affaire est close.

?tant donn¨¦ que la requ¨¦rante a retir¨¦ sa r¨¦clamation, il n'y a plus de question de consid¨¦ration et de d¨¦termination judiciaires et, par cons¨¦quent, l'affaire est close.

Comme le demandeur a retir¨¦ la r¨¦clamation, il n'y avait plus de question de consid¨¦ration et de d¨¦termination judiciaires et, par cons¨¦quent, l'affaire est close.

Comme le demandeur a retir¨¦ la r¨¦clamation, il n'y a plus de question de consid¨¦ration et de d¨¦termination judiciaires et, par cons¨¦quent, l'affaire est close.

Comme le demandeur a retir¨¦ la r¨¦clamation, il n'y a plus de question de consid¨¦ration et de d¨¦termination judiciaires et, par cons¨¦quent, l'affaire est close.

?tant donn¨¦ que la requ¨¦rante a retir¨¦ sa r¨¦clamation, il n'y a plus de question de consid¨¦ration et de d¨¦termination judiciaires et, par cons¨¦quent, l'affaire est close.

?tant donn¨¦ que la requ¨¦rante a retir¨¦ sa r¨¦clamation, il n'y a plus de question de consid¨¦ration et de d¨¦termination judiciaires et, par cons¨¦quent, l'affaire est close.

?tant donn¨¦ que la requ¨¦rante a retir¨¦ sa r¨¦clamation, il n'y a plus de question de consid¨¦ration et de d¨¦termination judiciaires et, par cons¨¦quent, l'affaire est close.

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 UNDT 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...

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...

Receivability: The Respondent submitted in his reply that the Applicant¡¯s request for compensation was not made within the requisite time limit. However, in denying the Applicant¡¯s claim for compensation, the Administration did not reject his claim on the ground that it was filed late but rejected his claim on the merits and thus the Administration implicitly waived the timeline required under ST/AI/149/Rev.4. Since the contested decision is the Claims Board¡¯s decision to deny the Applicant¡¯s claim for compensation and the Applicant complied with the mandatory requirement of submitting a...

As the Applicant withdrew his claims, there is no longer a matter for judicial consideration and determination and therefore the case is closed.

Since the Applicant withrew his claims, there is no longer a matter for judicial consideration and determination and therefore the cases are closed.

The separation decision for abandonment of post took effect in December 2012, and the Applicant claimed that she received separation related paperwork only in November 2018. The Tribunal decided that the Administration properly followed the procedures, including seeking and obtaining the approval of separation for abandonment of post from the Office of Human Resources Management, and notifying the Applicant at every important step by email and other authorized means in accordance with ST/AI/400 and therefore the separation decision was properly made. The Tribunal found that even if the...

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.

Although each claim was being dealt with separately, given the resolution agreed between the parties, the Tribunal ordered that these claims be subject to an order for combined proceedings. There being no matter for judicial consideration and determination in these cases, the cases were closed.