51�Թ�

Receivability The Tribunal found that the second communication from the ABCC, not the first communication, constituted the notification of the contested decision since it clearly indicated that the ABCC reviewed the Applicant’s additional requests and rejected them. The Tribunal found that subsequent communications between the ABCC and the Applicant did not reset the statutory deadline as they were the reiteration of the contested decision. The application was timely filed and receivable. The claim of negligence was already adjudicated in the earlier judgment and therefore is not receivable as...

Article 13 of the applicable Appendix D requires the ABCC to make its determination “on the basis of reports obtained from a qualified medical practitioner or practitioners”. The scope of the ABCC’s discretion in exercising its powers is also not unlimited under the jurisprudence of the Appeals Tribunal (see Sanwidi as quoted above). As convincingly explained by the Applicant’s psychologist, PTSD differs from many other types of diseases and illnesses because the symptoms of PTSD do not manifest themselves at the same time as the event(s) that caused it—PTSD is per definition a post traumatic...

The Tribunal found that the ABCC considered all relevant matters in arriving at the decision, and that the impugned decision was legal, rational, and procedurally correct. The submission that the application was not receivable rationae materiae and rationae temporis was without merit and was rejected. Contrary to the Respondent’s assertion, the ABCC’s letter of 29 December 2017 was an administrative decision given that it was arrived at after the Applicant, in response to the ABCC’s email of 25 May 2017 inviting him to furnish new evidence. He furnished new evidence relating to each of the...

The Applicant was not entitled to an increase in step, therefore, the Administration had the right to the correction of an error, and it did not constitute a retroactive application of rules and regulations. The Administration lawfully recovered the overpayment of entitlements resulted from an administrative error.

The present case concerned the reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by a locally recruited staff member outside his duty station while travelling on private business. It was not disputed that since the Applicant was on private business at the time he fell ill, his case did not fall under any of the exceptions of sec. 6.3 of the Medical Insurance Plan (“MIP”). The Tribunal found that the MIP Rules clearly provide that only reasonable and customary expenses at the duty station are covered by the MIP and are, thus, considered as “recognized expenses” unless one of the exceptions set out in...

Receivability In Lloret Alcañiz et al. 2018-UNAT-840, the Appeals Tribunal specifically addressed the issue of receivability of applications contesting, directly or indirectly, regulatory decisions of the General Assembly. Like in the present case, the applicants in Lloret Aclaniz et al. argued that they were not challenging the decision of the General Assembly to introduce a new Unified Salary Scale but rather the implementation of this new scale by the Secretary-General in their individual cases, who failed to take into account their acquired rights. The applications were found to be...

Non-renewal of the Applicant’s FTA Given the financial situation, the Tribunal finds that the challenged decision is not ultra vires, being for the administration to evaluate the opportunity to renew temporary contracts according to the financial situation of that time. The lawfulness of the non-renewal decision must be evaluated with reference to the situation of the moment in which the decision was taken. However, in presence of a contract whose effects remain for a longer period, and which do not require non-renewal notices, the reason constituting the ground of the administrative decision...

Once he was notified that he would not be separated from the Organization, the Aplicant was not entitled to a repatriation grant for his dependents. By allowing his family to travel back to his country of origin regardless, he incurred the liability of an overpayment of the repatriation grant to which he was not entitled. The Organization was entitled to recover the overpayment from the Applicant.

The fact that the Applicant stated the same erroneous date in the two separate communications clearly and convincingly showed that the Applicant did so deliberately—it was not just a simple typographical mistake. Having found that the Applicant had intentionally misrepresented a divorce date in two separate communications, including an official form, resulting in his unjust enrichment, it clearly fell within the Administration’s latitude of discretion to conclude that the Applicant had committed misconduct. Considering the gravity of the Applicant’s misrepresentations, including the...

The Applicant missed the 90-day deadline to file the application which is, therefore, time-barred.