�山����

Provision of adverse material to the Applicant: The Tribunal noted that the ABCC had information before it that was adverse to the Applicant’s claim when it reached its recommended decision but did not disclose to the Applicant. The Tribunal concluded that the Applicant should have been given the opportunity to see and comment on the adverse material. In failing to afford him this basic right the ABCC violated the principles of natural justice and audi alteram partem. Service incurred injury: The Tribunal concluded that it was not within the competence of the MSD medical advisor to provide...

The Tribunal found that the application, even if it was diligently filed by the Applicant, was premature as the Applicant’s reconsideration request was still pending before the Secretary-General.

After conducting case management and issuing a number of orders, the Tribunal considered that the Applicant had identified four decisions and/or issues for consideration: (a) a decision in 2010 in which she was denied the full period of annual leave that she had requested; (b) an implied decision or decisions not to provide her with a job description in a timely manner; (c) an implied decision or decisions not to reduce her workload despite awareness on the part of management that she was suffering from health issues; and (d) whether she should be awarded compensation for the effect of the...

Case No. UNDT/GVA/2015/129

Contingency of the Applicant’s FTA: return of Mr. C. to post No. 501057

Under sec. 6.7 of ST/AI/2010/3, in cases of secondment, a lien against a specific post shall only be granted for up to two years, after which it shall be surrendered. No discretion is granted to the Administration for extending the lien beyond the two years. Quite distinctly, para. 7 of ST/AI/404 allows the Administration to extend the mission assignment beyond the two years period, and continue blocking a specific post in the parent department, provided there is a specific written agreement to...

The decision to deny the Applicant’s claim for compensation can no longer be subject of a challenge before this Tribunal, because it ceased to have legal effect the moment it was rescinded by the decision-maker. Since the contested decision is no longer existing, the Tribunal cannot rule on the Applicant’s case. The outcome of MEU is not of itself an administrative decision. Consequently, this Tribunal cannot pass judgment on it. Therefore, the Applicant’s challenge against the outcome of the MEU review is not receivable. The lack of existence of a substantive matter makes any motion for...

The parties were at odds as to the procedure for establishing a medical board under art. 17 of Appendix D. The Applicant’s case was that the ABCC failed to adhere to art. 17(b) of former Appendix D because it failed to establish a medical board to consider and report on the medical aspects of his claim. The Respondent submitted that the onus was on the Applicant to request the establishment of a medical board and to nominate a medical practitioner to represent him on the medical board. The Tribunal rejected the Respondent’s submission that the Applicant was obliged to request a medical board...

The Tribunal held that the application was moot. At the time the Tribunal issued the judgment, ABCC had already issued its decision and granted the Applicant’s claims. Accordingly, the Application was found not receivable.

The claim the Applicant filed on 27 March 2013 was out of time and subject to the Secretary-General’s discretion excercisable “in exceptional circumstances” because she did not submit the claim within four months of knowledge of the injury as required by art. 12 of Appendix D. With respect to the existence of exceptional circumstances, the ABCC disregarded evidence and information provided by the Applicant regarding her medical condition which impeded her ability to direct her attention to the claim for service incurred injury. The ABCC did not consider these reasons, apportion appropriate...

The ABCC rectified the procedural irregularities as directed by Judgment No. UNDT/2019/019 in its reconsideration of the Applicant’s claim. The ABCC received and considered a medical opinion of the medical doctor of MSD, who reviewed medical reports submitted by the Applicant along with his prior medical history. While the Applicant made allegations of improper considerations, he did not provide any supporting evidence and these allegations are without merit.

The Applicant had not adduced any documentary evidence to show that the SecretaryGeneral considered and made an administrative decision in relation to his claim for gross negligence. The only evidence that he had produced was to the effect that he asked the ABCC to consider compensating him for gross negligence over and above the award for compensation for injuries sustained in the course of duty. The Applicant brought his claim for compensation for gross negligence under a procedure that had been adjudicated irregular for not being supported by any Staff Regulation, Staff Rule or...