Â鶹´«Ã½

All the unresolved questions, the established facts and the Applicant’s failure to bring evidence in order to convince the Tribunal of the alleged extortion scheme against him support an inference that the Applicant had likely engaged in a sexual relationship with V01, a minor. Given all the surrounding circumstances of the charge, investigations and his own actions and explanations, the Applicant has not sufficiently discharged the burden upon him. The wording in paragraphs 3.2 (a) and (b) of ST/SGB/2003/13 is clear. Sexual exploitation and sexual abuse constitute acts of serious misconduct...

Premature filing of an Application: The Tribunal held that there is no rule that requires the Tribunal to wait for the action or inaction of the MEU before assuming jurisdiction in a case. The Tribunal held that it would not be in the interest of justice to reject applications indiscriminately solely on the basis that they were filed prematurely without taking into consideration the particular and/or exceptional circumstances that may exist in each of case.

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 Application was found to be not receivable on grounds that the Applicant was not specific as to the administrative decision he was challenging and did not seek management evaluation of any decision. The Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine whether an administrative action was properly taken. This presupposes that a staff member who is challenging an administrative decision clearly identifies the decision he is seeking to challenge. The applicant must also comply with the sine qua non requirement of requesting management evaluation of the impugned decision within the stipulated timelines...

What the Applicant is seeking to challenge is the Secretary-General’s implementation of General Assembly resolution 65/248, which led to the discontinuation of payment of the MSA. The new conditions of service that discontinues the application of the temporary assignment to a non-family duty station as of 1 October 2011, is not an emanation of the Secretary General’s discretion. This General Assembly decision was binding on the Secretary-General, and its implementation affected staff across the Organization. This matter is materially outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

What the Applicant is seeking to challenge is the Secretary-General’s implementation of General Assembly resolution 65/248, which led to the discontinuation of payment of the MSA. The new conditions of service that discontinues the application of the temporary assignment to a non-family duty station as of 1 October 2011, is not an emanation of the Secretary General’s discretion. This General Assembly decision was binding on the Secretary-General, and its implementation affected staff across the Organization. This matter is materially outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

The Tribunal held that there are two stages in the procedure for the interpretation of a judgment. First, receivability must be determined and secondly if it is receivable whether it should be interpreted. Receivability: The Tribunal considered whether the filing of an appeal should be taken to mean that it is under consideration and therefore debar an applicant from an interpretation. The Tribunal held that the mere filing of an appeal against a judgment by one party to a case constitutes no legal impediment to the other party filing for an interpretation because the filing of an appeal is...

Application of ST/AI/2002/4 to field mission personnel: The Tribunal held that since ST/AI/2002/4 excludes field mission staff members, like the Applicant, from its ambit it could not be made applicable in the current matter in the absence of a formal decision by the Secretary-General to make the administrative instruction applicable to a staff member who is clearly excluded from its purview. The Tribunal also held that ST/AI/2002/4 could not be made applicable to the Applicant by invoking the best practices rule or argument. Implementation of selection decisions: The Tribunal concluded that...

Promulgation of MONUSCO Administrative Instruction No. 2013/15: The Tribunal observed that MONUSCO Administrative Instruction No. 2013/15 is of general application to the extent that it applies to all MONUSCO personnel but it was not expressly issued for the implementation of any specific rules or ST/SGBs. However, it does not meet the requirements of ST/SGB/2009/4. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the lack of promulgation of the AI does not of itself render the impugned decision null and void. Withdrawal of the Applicant’s driving privileges: The Tribunal found that MONUSCO Administrative...