AV

UNDT/2019/128

UNDT/2019/128, Kisia

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

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 management evaluation of the decision that is “based on considerations other than a medical determination” under the revised Appendix D. The Applicant’s claim concerns an incident that occurred on 27 July 2013 which is clearly prior to the entry into force of the present revised rules, and thus the previous Appendix D applies. Therefore, the Appeals Tribunal’s judgments regarding the previous Appendix D are applicable in this case. Therefore, in the particular circumstances of this case, as this Tribunal stated in Kisia UNDT/2019/019, the ABCC is a technical body and a reconsideration process under art. 17 of the previous Appendix D is not mandatory.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Secretary-General’s decision dated 1 May 2019 to deny his claim for compensation under Appendix D to the Staff Rules (“Appendix D”) for injuries and illnesses in relation to an incident that occurred on 27 July 2013.

Legal Principle(s)

A staff member wishing to formally contest an administrative decision taken pursuant to advice obtained from technical bodies, as determined by the Secretary-General, is not required to request a management evaluation.

Outcome
Judgment entered for Applicant in full or in part

OAJ prepared this case law summary for informational purposes only. It is no official record and should not be relied upon as an authoritative interpretation of the Tribunals' rulings. For the authoritative texts, please refer to the judgment or order rendered by the respective Tribunal. The Tribunals are the only bodies competent to interpret their respective judgments, as provided under Article 12(3) of the UNDT Statute and Article 11(3) of the UNAT Statute. Any inaccuracies in the publication are the sole responsibility of OAJ, which should be contacted directly for any correction requests. To provide comments, don't hesitate to get in touch with OAJ at oaj@un.org.

The judgment summaries were generally prepared in English. They were translated into French and are being reviewed for accuracy of the translation.

Applicants/Appellants
Kisia
Entity
Case Number(s)
Tribunal
Registry :
Date of Judgement
Judge(s)
Language of Judgment
Issuance Type