Â鶹APP

The Tribunal noted that the Applicant did not identify any operative part of Judgment Massi UNDT/2016/100 that would not have been executed. Furthermore, Judgment Massi UNDT/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 UNDT/2016/100 and was not related to any of the remedies...

The application was filed too late and is not receivable ratione temporis in accordance with art. 8.1(d)(i)(a) of the Dispute Tribunal¡¯s Statute.

No submission or further correspondence was received by the Registry from the Applicant. The Tribunal, therefore, can only conclude that the Applicant was no longer interested in the pursuit and outcome of these legal proceedings, which was therefore deemed to have been abandoned, and this matter therefore stood to be dismissed for want of prosecution.

The Tribunal recalled that a request for management evaluation is a sine qua non for bringing an application except in cases where the advice was obtained from technical bodies, as determined by the Secretary-General, or of a decision taken at Headquarters in New York to impose a disciplinary or non-disciplinary measure. In the present case, the Applicant did not request management evaluation of the contested administrative decision. Accordingly, the application was dismissed as not receivable.

The Tribunal reviewed the evidence on record and found that the Organization followed the instructions provided by the Appeals Tribunal in Gueben et. al. 2016-UNAT-692, and properly considered the Applicant¡¯s suitability for a permanent appointment in the reconsideration exercise that led to the contested decision of 17 March 2017. According to the evidence on file, the Administration assessed the Applicant¡¯s qualifications, competencies and transferable skills while taking into account the overall interests of the Organization. Considering that UNKART is a downsizing entity, the Tribunal...

Decision 1 ¨C the Tribunal held that the Applicant failed to substantiate his claims of a flawed process and improper motives that led to his separation from service. The Tribunal concluded that the Applicant knowingly assumed the risk of not being able to secure another assignment or position before the expiration of his FTA on 31 March 2016 when he declined the offer to be recommended for the regular budget position in Rabat as well as declined the extension of his temporary assignment. Decision 2 ¨C the Tribunal concluded that the Respondent failed to follow proper procedure for the placement...

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...