Ãå±±½ûµØ

UNAT was satisfied that the UNDT’s pronouncement that the clear purpose and intent of Staff Regulation 5.3 was to restrict the entitlement to home leave to those who are serving the Ãå±±½ûµØoutside of their home country and by implication their country of nationality, was the correct interpretation. UNAT held that there was no error in law with regard to the UNDT’s approach on the issue of home leave. UNAT held, as a matter of law and fact, that UNDT properly concluded that the Appellant’s move to his country of nationality was a good reason for the Secretary-General to reassess his eligibility for...

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 Ãå±±½ûµØpurposes 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 considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that the Secretary-General discharged his burden to establish the facts of misconduct by clear and convincing evidence in relation to all the allegations of wrongdoing regarding the special education grants. UNAT held that the evidence proved not only fraud in the form of false accounting, but also the uttering of forged and falsified documents to the Organisation. UNAT held that the staff member’s behaviour constituted serious misconduct by which she enriched herself by approximately USD 50,000 at the expense of the Organisation...

UNAT held that UNDT did not err in dismissing the application as not receivable ratione temporis. UNAT held that there had been no new administrative decision (capable of resetting the deadlines), but merely a reiteration of the previously communicated original decision. UNAT held that, with respect to the original decision, the Applicant did not file a request to UNDT to suspend or extend the deadlines for filing her application to UNDT, nor did she claim exceptional circumstances justifying a waiver of the time limits. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT held that the appeal was receivable on the basis that the Appellant was not challenging the new scheme for education grant introduced by the General Assembly, but rather the manner in which it was implemented in her specific case and the way in which the Secretary-General interpreted General Assembly Resolution 70/244. UNAT held that UNDT did not err in deciding that the Appellant did not have an acquired right to all of the previous education benefits she had enjoyed. On the question of the Appellant’s access to a discretionary consideration of her claims on exceptional grounds, UNAT...

While the change of the country of home leave referred to in ST/AI/367 is stated to be permanent, it is not unconditional, but subject to the Secretary-General being satisfied of the three specified conditions, which include its consistency with the purposes and intent of staff regulation 5.3.Former staff rule 105.3 gave internationally recruited staff the opportunity to take home leave to visit their home country at Ãå±±½ûµØexpense. Providing staff rule 105.3 (d) that the country of home leave shall be the country of the staff member’s nationality, the logical corollary is that if a staff member...

Ultra vires - Whereas procedures and guidelines may be developed by the Organisation to implement promulgated issuances, it is unreasonable for said guidelines to be so far reaching as to effectively add new provisions to the overarching issuance. This would amount to a usurpation of the legislative powers of the General Assembly.

The Applicant submitted three sets of education grant claims, on 19 November 2012, 12 July 2013, and 8 September 2014 in respect to the relevant school years. The Tribunal found that on 14 February 2013, 11 September 2013, and 2 October 2014, respectively, OHRM made decisions not to process the three claims, pending settlement of the Applicant’s claim in respect to the 2011–2012 school year. It was alleged that the Applicant had submitted misleading or false documents in respect to this claim. The Applicant submitted a request for management evaluation in respect of all three of his education...

The Tribunal concluded that the Respondent failed to notify the Applicant of the overpayment and that this failure was a breach of its obligation under section 2.3 of ST/AI/2009/1. Although the Applicant failed to report the overpayment, the Tribunal found that he was not negligent in his duty to report because he was caught up in a perilous security situation at the time he received his pay slip at the end of November 2015, which may have caused him to not advise the Respondent of the overpayment. The Tribunal noted further that ST/AI/2009/1 does not make the Respondent’s obligation to notify...

The Applicant’s education grant claim for his four-year-old son did not fall under the exception of section 2 of ST/AI/2011/4 Amend 1. To the extent that the entitlement for private tuition in the mother tongue of the; Applicant was part and parcel of the education grant and not separate from it, the Applicant would be entitled to it only where the child in respect of whom he makes the claim is entitled to an education grant. This Tribunal cannot decide as to whether the Applicant ought to have been allowed during the management evaluation process to review any documents and whether failure to...