�山����

UNAT held that UNDT did not err by not considering the various provisions of Staff Rule 3. 18. UNAT held that a staff member’s failure to meet the requirements of either Annex IV or Staff Rule 3. 18 precluded the staff member from being eligible for a repatriation grant and, since the Appellant did not meet the requirement of Annex IV, that she relocate after separation from service, there was no need for UNDT to consider whether she met the conditions for eligibility under Staff Rule 3. 18(c). UNAT held that UNDT did not err in determining the Appellant was not eligible for a repatriation...

UNAT considered appeals by both Mr Aliko and the Secretary-General. UNAT held that UNDT correctly concluded that Mr Aliko’s application contesting the decision refusing his request to change nationality for �山����purposes was time-barred. UNAT held that UNDT did not err in rejecting as not receivable Mr Aliko’s claims against the decisions on his ineligibility for education grant and on education grant recovery. UNAT held that it was lawful for the Administration to use Mr Aliko’s pending entitlements to recover part of his indebtedness to the Organisation. UNAT held that UNDT erred in concluding...

UNAT noted that under the provisions of Staff Rule 1. 2(b), staff members must comply with local laws and honour their private legal obligations, including, but not limited to, the obligation to honour orders of competent courts. However, the ST/SGB/1999/4 legal framework has to be interpreted within the context of the authorizing Staff Rule 3. 18(c)(iii), which grants the Administration discretionary authority, as is reflected in the use of the word “may” in it, to make a proper and fair decision, in cases of indebtedness to third parties, under the proviso that a deduction for this purpose...

Contrary to the Applicant’s contentions, the contested administrative decisions were not disciplinary measures imposed pursuant to the applicable legal procedures in ST/AI/2017/1 (Unsatisfactory conduct, investigations and the disciplinary process). The Applicant became aware of this as evidenced by his subsequent request for management evaluation of 23 November 2018. The Tribunal found the application irreceivable. It was filed without having first been submitted to management evaluation. The Applicant had to await the result of his management evaluation dated 23 November 2018 (or expiry of...