�鶹��ý

The Tribunal established that there was no evidence to support the Administration’s position. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the contested decision was arbitrary, capricious, and unlawful.

Regarding the Applicant’s claim for damages, the Tribunal concluded that no evidence was presented by the Applicant and thus he failed to sustain his burden of both production and proof. As a result, the request for moral damages was denied.

In light of the Tribunal’s findings, the Respondent was ordered to pay to the Applicant four months of interest on the money that was due to him, calculated at the...

The Tribunal established that there was no evidence to support the Administration’s position. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the contested decision was arbitrary, capricious, and unlawful.

Regarding the Applicant’s claim for damages, the Tribunal concluded that no evidence was presented by the Applicant and thus he failed to sustain his burden of both production and proof. As a result, the request for moral damages was denied.

In light of the Tribunal’s findings, the Respondent was ordered to pay to the Applicant four months of interest on the money that was due to him, calculated at the...

With reference to the relevant legal framework, no matter what status is given to the Applicant’s previous and/or current employment with the IOM in the context of the ASHI scheme, at the relevant time of applying for ASHI, the Applicant was not within a time period of 31 days before or after separation when an application for ASHI must be submitted.

Accordingly, even if the terms of the contested decision were misleading, the Applicant had no right to be enrolled in the ASHI scheme when he applied for it.

There is indeed uncertainty and possibly also disagreement regarding various material facts of the case. Accordingly, the case may not be adjudicated on the basis of a summary judgment.

The part of the present case concerning IOM is not receivable under the legal doctrine of lis pendens.

With regard to the HLIS decision, the Applicant refers to his request for management evaluation of 4 November 2022. As the application in the present case is filed after this date, this part of the application is therefore, from this perspective, now receivable under staff rule 11.2

In the present case, the Applicant has not identified a reviewable administrative decision and there is no indication that he filed a request for management evaluation before submitting the application.

UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNJSPB decision.

UNAT recalled that at the time of Mr. Arigon’s entry into participation in 2002, Article 24 did not allow him the option to restore his prior contributory service because that option was limited to participants whose previous period of contributory service was less than five years and who had received a withdrawal settlement; neither of which applied to him. When the 2007 amendment to Article 24 was introduced, he had a one-year window, from 1 April 2007 to 1 April 2008, during which he could elect to restore his prior period of...

Ms. Larriera sought revision of the UNAT judgment on the grounds that new decisive facts had emerged from the French government regarding her relationship with the deceased participant of the UNJSPF, Mr. M. Specifically, she maintains that the French government has endorsed the findings of a Brazilian court that she was in a “stable union” with Mr. M., and that this has also been annotated on the death certificate of Mr. M.

UNAT observed that Ms. Larriera’s application for revision was untimely. In addition, UNAT concluded that these allegedly decisive facts occurred in 2021, well after the...

The UNAT considered an appeal by Ms. Mukomah.

The UNAT held that Ms. Mukomah’s submission that she was the spouse of the late participant at the time of his death and is therefore entitled on that basis to a widow’s benefit under Article 34 of the Fund’s Regulations, was not sustainable based on the evidence before the UNAT.

The UNAT found that there was insufficient evidence proving that the late participant and Ms. Mukomah lawfully entered a (second) union legally recognized by the competent authority of Kenya conferring similar legal effects as a marriage in relation to pension rights...

The UNAT denied Ms. Banyanga’s appeal and affirmed the decision of the Standing Committee. The UNAT found that Ms. Banyanga had not adequately explained the inconsistencies between her own personal information and the information submitted by Mr. Mbirange regarding his reported spouse (including that the name “Banyanga” did not appear in the documentation that Mr. Mbirange provided about his spouse).

The UNAT also rejected Ms. Banyanga’s reliance on the marriage certificate that she submitted, which showed a purported date of marriage in 1997. The UNAT observed that Mr. Mbirange entered...

The UNAT dismissed the appeal.

The UNAT first held that the UNDT erred in law in retroactively applying WMO Staff Rule 193.3(c) when it examined her right to a termination indemnity. At the time the impugned decision was taken, only the 2019 WMO Staff Regulations and Rules were in force and should have been applied. The UNDT made an error in applying the 2020 law based on the Secretary-General’s submission of the wrong version of the WMO Regulations and Rules to the UNDT.

The UNAT affirmed the UNDT's finding that the Administration’s response to a request for management evaluation is not a...