Ãå±±½ûµØ

The Tribunal dismissed the Application because the Applicant has not exhausted the reconsideration procedure set out in article 17(a) of Appendix D to the Staff Rules. Further, he did not request management evaluation of the negligence claim. Response to the Respondent’s Reply: In granting a request to submit a response to a Reply, the Tribunal weighs factors such as: (i) whether the Respondent raised issues or facts that were not addressed in the Applicant’s pleadings; (ii) whether the Applicant failed to adequately canvass all the issues raised in his/her pleadings; or (iii) whether allowing...

Jurisdiction of the Tribunal: The Tribunal held that in matters relating to Appendix D of the Staff Rules it has jurisdiction to determine: (i) whether the ABCC correctly followed the procedure applicable to medical claims; (ii) whether it properly directed its mind to the relevant issues; and (iii) whether the evidence on which it based its determination was adequate or flawed. The Tribunal held that it has no jurisdiction to make any such assessment and to substitute its own evaluation for the one reached by an expert body like the ABCC. Request for reconsideration: The Tribunal found that...

The Tribunal found that art. 17 does not refer to an evaluation by a medical practitioner selected by the Administration in cases of requests for reconsideration and that the Administration failed to follow the correct procedure when it did not convene a medical board. It further noted that the Administration could not, under art. 17, use an independent medical evaluation by a practitioner established in the framework of the initial assessment of a disability benefit under the Pension Fund Regulations. The Tribunal further stressed that the independent medical evaluation failed to address the...

The Tribunal concluded that the impugned decision was made following the correct procedure and was based on well-founded evidence. Accordingly, the Application was dismissed. Denial of claim based on evidentiary grounds: The Tribunal observed that in assessing the Applicant’s claim for compensation, the principle issue for the ABCC was whether the injury resulted as a natural incident of performing duties on behalf of the United Nations. This was a question of fact to be established by evidence. The Tribunal held that the functions of ABCC include making recommendations on claims for...

Receivability - The Application was found not to be receivable since, in accordance with art. 8.4 of the Statute of the Dispute Tribunal, the UNDT cannot waive the time limit to file an appeal, more than three years after the applicant’s receipt of the contested administrative decision.

Receivability - The Application was found not to be receivable as the Applicant had failed to comply with the requirements of arts. 8.1(b)(ii) and 8.3 of the Statute of the Dispute Tribunal..

Interpretation of art. 11.3(c) of Appendix DArticle 11.3(c) is ambiguous. Pensionable remuneration scales are adjusted regularly and there is no explicit statement or guidance in Appendix D to indicate the relevant or operative date for assessing the pensionable remuneration at grade P-4, step V in any given case.Past practice…it is clear from the afore-stated email that the ABCC Secretary’s personal experience of the consistent practice as at 21 June 2013 spanned a mere period of two years, and that in his experience, this practice has been used without exception. The statement does not...

The UNDT found that it does not have jurisdiction to review the medical opinion expressed by the Medical Services Division, as requested by the Applicant, and dismissed the application in its entirety. Procedure for challenging a decision taken pursuant to Appendix D: A claimant may either challenge a decision taken by the Secretary-General upon recommendation from the ABCC by seeking reconsideration under art. 17 of Appendix D or by appealing it before the Dispute Tribunal. However, the two avenues offer different prospects. Reconsideration under art. 17 of Appendix D: The reconsideration...

Interpretation of art. 10.4 of the Statute of the Dispute Tribunal - The question arises whether the Tribunal should seek and obtain the concurrence of the Secretary-General before correcting a procedural error in the decision making process of the ABCC or the Secretary-General himself. The Tribunal in the circumstances of the present case is not prepared to allow its power of judicial review to be circumscribed by art. 10.4. It is not deemed that the concurrence of the Secretary-General is necessary to take the appropriate remedial measure if this is found to be necessary. The Secretary...

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...