����AV

The Secretary-General appealed. UNAT held that UNDT erred on a question of law when it concluded that the procedure was flawed on the basis that it was not sufficient for the Assistant Secretary-General/Controller to countersign and approve the UNCB recommendation and that a separate and reasoned decision was necessary for the regularity of the administrative procedure. UNAT held that UNDT erred in law in finding that there was a procedural delay and, therefore, granting compensation. UNAT granted the appeal and vacated the UNDT judgment insofar as it awarded compensation for the procedural...

The Tribunal raises on its own motion the question of the receivability ratione materiae, namely whether the OIOS decision was an appealable administrative decision. On the merits, it finds that the OIOS decision is lawful. Tribunal’s obligation to raise on its own motion issues related to its competence: Before ruling on the legality of a decision, the Tribunal must examine on its own motion—that is, even if the issue was not raised by the parties—whether it is competent, pursuant to its Statute, to hear and pass judgment on an application, including whether the contested decision is an...

The application is now moot. The Applicant has essentially received the relief sought, as the decision has been rescinded and his claim is being reconsidered. On this matter, he could not have been granted greater relief by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the Tribunal exercises its power under art. 9 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure to summarily dismiss the application, but noting that no decision has been made on its merits.

As results from the evidence and from the Respondent’s submissions, the contested decision consisted in the UNCB’s recommendation against awarding the Applicant any compensation, which was included in the minutes of UNCB’s 343rd meeting of 20 February 2014 submitted for the ASG/Controller’s consideration on 4 April 2014.The Tribunal, after reviewing the content of the contested decision, finds that instead of making her own final and reasoned decision on the Applicant’s claim, the ASG/Controller appears to have only signed off on the recommendation made by the UNCB to deny the claim on 23...

Material facts: The Tribunal noted that the decision letter, the minutes of the UNCB meetings and the evidence of the Secretary of the UNCB showed that the UNCB acted on the understanding that in spite of its date, the Applicant’s 7 December 2010 inventory list had been prepared after the event and that there was no evidence of the Applicant’s personal possessions that predated it. The Tribunal found that such evidence existed and was available to the UNCB. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the UNCB did not take into account all material facts relating to the Applicant’s claim for...

If the Applicant had a duty of care in the given context, it would rather have been not to carry his personal iPad or wristwatch in his run bag, nor to attempt to retrieve them from his residence in the midst of a dangerous emergency evacuation. On the contrary, had the Applicant done so, this may well have amounted to negligence.; The Tribunal finds therefore that, in the exercise of its discretion, the Administration did not take into account, or give due regard to all the aforesaid circumstances surrounding the loss of the Applicant’s property. In particular, there was no requirement...

Receivability before the UNCB. As follows from art. 12 read together with art. 14(b)(ii) of ST/AI/149/Rev.4, for a compensation claim for damage to be receivable before the UNCB, the relevant staff member is required (“shall”) to take the following mandatory and cumulative actions, setting forth in detail all relevant circumstances to UNCB: (a) to notify the United Nations authorities and the local police about the incident as soon as possible; (b) to submit all pertinent evidence; (c) in case the staff member holds valid personal insurance at the date of the incident, to take all the...

Receivability: The Respondent submitted in his reply that the Applicant’s request for compensation was not made within the requisite time limit. However, in denying the Applicant’s claim for compensation, the Administration did not reject his claim on the ground that it was filed late but rejected his claim on the merits and thus the Administration implicitly waived the timeline required under ST/AI/149/Rev.4. Since the contested decision is the Claims Board’s decision to deny the Applicant’s claim for compensation and the Applicant complied with the mandatory requirement of submitting a...