�山����

Receivability before the UNCB. As follows from art. 12 read together with art. 14(b)(ii) of ST/AI/149/Rev.4, for a compensation claim for damage to be receivable before the UNCB, the relevant staff member is required (“shall”) to take the following mandatory and cumulative actions, setting forth in detail all relevant circumstances to UNCB: (a) to notify the United Nations authorities and the local police about the incident as soon as possible; (b) to submit all pertinent evidence; (c) in case the staff member holds valid personal insurance at the date of the incident, to take all the...

There is no evidence on the record that the mandatory procedure established in secs. 9, 10, 15 and 16 of ST/AI/400 for separation by abandonment of post was followed in the Applicant’s case. The Administration did not act fairly and transparently with the Applicant. DSS lead the Applicant to believe that it was still considering granting him a SLWOP, while, at the same time, it recommended the non-extension of his fixed-term appointment due to his unauthorized absence on the other. That the non-renewal decision following the expiration of the Applicant’s contract, constitutes a separation...

The Tribunal finds that since the Applicant’s EOD into the United Nations common system is 10 October 2005, the Administration used the incorrect EOD date for the calculation of the termination indemnity due to the Applicant. Therefore, the contested decision is unlawful and stands to be rescinded. The Tribunal finds that the Applicant has placed no evidence whatsoever, illustrating any discriminatory treatment against him. On the contrary, the record indicates that the Respondent took measures to ensure that the Applicant did not suffer hardship following his separation from service by...

Since the Applicant withdrew his application, there is no longer a matter for adjudication and therefore the case is closed.

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.

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...

In all the circumstances, the Tribunal finds it has no competency to disturb the award in the judgment, as the Tribunal has already rejected the revision application in Judgment No. UNDT/2019/016. The Tribunal finds that justice would be better served for these matters to be considered by the Appeals Tribunal as there is a further issue that complicates the assessment of compensation herein in light of changed circumstances or new facts.

There are two elements that must be established for a claim under Appendix D, one is the medical assessment of whether the claimant suffered from the injury or illness as alleged. The other is the non-medical factual determination whether the illness or injury was attributable to the performance of official duties on behalf of the Organization. The obtaining, handling, review, analysis and dissemination of any form of material to be used in a matter as evidence must be done in compliance with some basic rules to ensure that basic principles of fairness and due process are upheld, particularly...

The Tribunal noted that at the time of the hearing, Respondent counsel had not been instructed or informed the recruitment exercise in question and consequently did not apprise the Tribunal about this fact, just as the Applicant’s Counsel did not know about the Applicant’s application for the position. The Tribunal held that the applying party, the Respondent, meaning the Administration at large, must have known about the ongoing recruitment exercise and the Applicant’s job application for the Job Opening. At the very least, such knowledge must be imputed or assumed to have been known to the...

The alleged failure to protect the Applicant from further retaliation is not a contestable administrative decision as it does not have legal consequences on his terms of employment. Therefore, this part of the Applicant’s case is not receivable. The Ethics Office’s recommendation only required that “efforts be made”, in consultation with the Applicant, to transfer him to either a position in the specialized units in his section or to another position in his department. According to the recommendation, the Applicant had no right to be transferred to a position outside his section.; The Ethics...