����AV

The Tribunal observed that the letter communicating the contested decision did not indicate whether the Advisory Body on Compensation Claims ("ABCC") considered the exceptional circumstances set out by the Applicant in her request to reopen her claim, which explained the reasons for her not meeting the submission deadline.

The Tribunal, thus, held that the Applicant had succeeded in establishing that the decision not to reopen her claim was irrational. The Tribunal deemed the contested decision as irrational because ABCC ignored factors relevant to whether despite not meeting the four-month...

The Tribunal concluded that the Applicant was entitled to full compensation as provided for under Appendix D, with no deductions. The Tribunal also observed that the Applicant was entitled to receive interests for the delayed payment.

In view of the foregoing, the Tribunal:

a.     Granted the application and rescinded the contested decision;

b.     Directed the Respondent to pay to the Applicant the compensation under Appendix D with no deduction for pension benefits paid to third parties; and

c.     Directed the Respondent to pay to the Applicant for the delayed payment of said...

As a preliminary matter, the UNAT granted AAM’s request for anonymity.  Considering that the Judgment set out medical details regarding AAM, the UNAT found it necessary to protect his confidential information.

The UNAT found that there were four issues for adjudication on appeal: 1) whether AAM’s appeal was moot/premature in light of a pending medical determination; 2) whether the UNDT erred in finding that the Controller had the delegated authority to deny AAM’s claim for compensation under Appendix D; 3) whether the UNDT erred in finding that the decision of the Controller was reasonable...

Ms. Larriera filed an appeal.  

UNAT first examined whether Ms. Larriera was entitled to file a claim under Appendix D.  UNAT found that – unlike the Pension case - for the purpose of the Staff Regulations and Rules, the law of Brazil, Mr. M’s national state, was to be the law determining his marital or domestic partnership status as at the date of his death for Appendix D purposes. That status, as determined subsequently by a Brazilian court of competent jurisdiction, was that Mr. M and Ms. Larriera were, as at the date of his death (and despite his still extant French marriage to Ms. M) in...

The alleged lack of decision

The Tribunal noted that if a claim is submitted timely, the Administration opens the case under the framework of Appendix D, which remains open as compensation may be awarded any time after the original incident.

The Tribunal referred to art. 2 entitled “Principles of award” of the pre-2017 Appendix D, applicable at the time the claim was submitted, and found that for a compensation to be paid or a benefit to be granted under Appendix D, a staff member must make a specific request such as the reimbursement of medical expenses or the payment of compensation for...

The logical consequence of rescinding the contested administrative decision would be to remand the case to DHMOSH for a new consideration in light of the Tribunal’s findings in the present case. As the basic legal premise for the contested administrative decision was flawed, the Tribunal find that this would be the most appropriate remedy in the present case (in line herewith, see the Appeals Tribunal in Gueben et al. 2016-UNAT-692, para. 48). In this regard, the Tribunal notes that it has no jurisdiction as to directing the work of a potential medical board or the ABCC. The Tribunal finds...

Regarding the applicable Appendix D to the present case, the Tribunal notes that in the current Appendix D (ST/SGB/2018/1/Rev.1), it is stated that “[f]or claims filed for incidents that occurred prior to the entry into force of the present revised rules, the previously applicable rules will be applied” (see art. 6.1(b)). According to the Applicant’s own factual submissions, whereas his compensation claim was submitted on 29 June 2018, it concerned incidents that occurred somewhere between 2015 and until his medical leave started in August 2017. The applicable Appendix D is therefore one...

UNAT considered an application for revision of Judgment No. 2021-UNAT-1106. With reference to Article 11 of the UNAT Statute, UNAT held that it was neither satisfied that the blank tax returns as provided by Mr. Giles’ were unknown to the UNAT and to the party applying for the revision at the time the relevant Judgment was rendered nor that the blank tax returns were a decisive fact. UNAT held that the Applicant reiterated arguments he had made previously, which was not the purpose nor intention of an application for revision of judgment. UNAT dismissed the application for revision.

As a preliminary matter, UNAT denied the Appellant’s request for an oral hearing as the submissions by the parties did not require clarification. UNAT questioned whether her case presented exceptional circumstances that would warrant the reopening of her case by the Secretary-General, as her application was not filed in a timely manner. UNAT found that the appeal was not receivable as, notwithstanding her illness, she did not demonstrate such circumstances. UNAT dismissed the appeal and upheld the UNDT judgment.

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that as the Secretary-General had clearly established the UNDT’s lack of jurisdiction, UNAT, therefore, made an exception to the general rule that only appeals against final decisions are receivable. UNAT held that, as the issue of jurisdiction did not go directly to the merits of the case, there was a need to receive the appeal at that time rather than to wait for the issue to be raised in an appeal against the final judgment. UNAT held that the appeal was receivable. On the merits, UNAT held that UNDT’s finding that there was one...