Ãå±±½ûµØ

The application is not receivable. The management evaluation request was not receivable because the Applicant did not file a timely request for management evaluation of the contested decision.

Receivability: The Applications were found receivable for the following reasons: 1)Staff rule 11.2(a) had been observed because the Applicants had requested management evaluation and received a response on 3 October 2017. 2)Staff rule 11.2(b) was inapplicable because ICSC is not a technical body. 3)Individual administrative decisions, namely, to apply the new post adjustment in relation to each of the Applicants, had been issued and implemented, as demonstrated by their salary slip of August 2017. 4)The transitional allowance was not a prefatory act, but a corollary to the lowering of a pay...

Applying the plain meaning of staff rule 9, it is clear that the Administration bears no obligation to place staff members who hold a fixed-term appointment whose posts are abolished. There is no obligation to place such staff members onto other posts outside of the regular selection process.

Applying the plain meaning of staff rule 9, it is clear that the Administration bears no obligation to place staff members who hold a fixed-term appointment whose posts are abolished. There is no obligation to place such staff members onto other posts outside of the regular selection process.

Applying the plain meaning of staff rule 9, it is clear that the Administration bears no obligation to place staff members who hold a fixed-term appointment whose posts are abolished. There is no obligation to place such staff members onto other posts outside of the regular selection process.

Applying the plain meaning of staff rule 9, it is clear that the Administration bears no obligation to place staff members who hold a fixed-term appointment whose posts are abolished. There is no obligation to place such staff members onto other posts outside of the regular selection process.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant had not established that she fit in any of the three categories enunciated in the Statute. She could not sue as a staff member because she was not, and she could not sue as a former staff member because the claim had no relation to her contractual status. The Tribunal having found that the Applicant was not the decedent’s widow, she was not entitled to the benefits in any capacity. The Applicant had no standing ratione personae.

If the scope of understanding of what the mandatory enrollment-related fees are under sec. 3.1(a) were to be limited in accordance with the Respondent’s submissions, this should therefore have been reflected in the relevant legal framework. This is, however, not the case. Under the plain meaning rule, if the Respondent, namely the Secretary-General, wants the situation to be regulated as contended by his Counsel, this should therefore also clearly and unambiguously follow from the relevant legal framework, in particular ST/AI/2018/1/Rev.1, which the Secretary-General has promulgated himself...

The Tribunal held a case management discussion on 19 August 2021 during which the parties agreed that this application had been superseded by the decision of 12 November 2019 from the ABCC denying the Applicant’s claim for benefits under Appendix D. At the time of filing the application, on 23 October 2019, the Applicant had not yet received this decision. In view of this development, the Tribunal found that the application was not receivable ratione materiae as indeed the application did not disclose a reviewable administrative decision. The Applicant did not establish that she was contesting...

The Applicant missed the 60-day deadline to request management evaluation of the contested decision. The Application is therefore not receivable ratione materiae.