�鶹��ý

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...

The Tribunal refused to entertain the application. It found that the Applicant had submitted a most confused and inarticulate application. The application had many flaws. The Tribunal, therefore, determined that a summary judgment was appropriate and the application was accordingly refused.

As the parties concur that the correct procedure for the ABCC was not applied and the cases should be remanded to the ABCC for institution or correction of the required procedure, the Tribunal will, by consent, so order. However, since art. 10.4 of the Statute explicitly states that such remand shall be done “prior to a determination of the merits of the case”, the Tribunal is not in a position to pronounce on the substance of the cases (at least Case No. UNDT/NY/2018/011, concerning the ABCC’s initial rejection of the compensation claim and not the subsequent rejection by its Secretary), and...

The Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure provide in art. 9 that when there is no dispute as to the material facts and a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, “[t]he Tribunal may determine, on its own initiative, that summary judgment is appropriate”. The Tribunal found that the application raised a preliminary issue of receivability and determined it by way of summary judgment. First, the Tribunal noted that the Applicant had failed to identify any specific decision taken by the Administration in respect of his alleged overtime work. He did not refer either to any request that he would...

The Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure provide in art. 9 that when there is no dispute as to the material facts and a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, “[t]he Tribunal may determine, on its own initiative, that summary judgment is appropriate”. The Tribunal found that the application raised a preliminary issue of receivability and determined it by way of summary judgment. The Applicant failed to identify any specific decision taken by the Administration in respect of his alleged overtime work. He did not refer either to any request that he would have made to be compensated for this...

The Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure provide in art. 9 that when there is no dispute as to the material facts and a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, “[t]he Tribunal may determine, on its own initiative, that summary judgment is appropriate”. The Tribunal found that the application raised a preliminary issue of receivability and determined it by way of summary judgment. The Applicant has failed to identify any specific decision taken by the Administration in respect of his alleged overtime work. He did not refer either to any request that he would have made to be compensated for...

Receivability In the present case, the Applicants contest the Administration’s decision dated 14 August 2021 to consider Mr. Oming, whom the Administration identified as the spouse of the deceased staff member, as the recipient of a death benefit pursuant to staff rule 9.11(a)(vii). In this respect, the Tribunal recalls that the extension of its jurisdiction to deceased staff members is intended to permit resolution of disputes concerning contractual rights acquired during previous employment by staff members whose contracts have expired (see Arango 2021-UNAT-1120, para. 28). The...

The application was not receivable ratione temporis because it should have been filed on or before 11 November 2021 but was filed on 1 December 2021.

The Applicant became aware of her de-rostering in 2017 and it became apparent in 2020, after three years of enquiries that she was in fact de-rostered. She only requested management evaluation on 6 June 2021, several months beyond the 60-day deadline. The Tribunal also found that the impugned decision did not constitute an "administrative decision" as defined in United Nations Administrative Tribunal Judgment No. 1157, Andronov (2003). The change of rostering status complained of did not involve a final decision taken with direct legal consequences for the Applicant’s rights and obligations...

Given that the Tribunal already adjudicated the Applicant’s claim, finding it not receivable ratione personae for lack of standing, the present application is not receivable. The Secretary-General’s response to a request for management evaluation is not an appealable administrative decision.