91�鶹����

Based on the applicable legal framework, the Administration can determine the status of eligibility of staff members in connection with dependency entitlements, which include dependent child allowance, and proceed to recover any amounts when a staff members fail to comply with their relevant obligations.

Pursuant to Annex III of ST/IC/2020/12, for a child of a staff member who is not the custodial parent or who has joint custody of the child, which is the case of the Applicant, the amount of payment to be eligible for a child dependency allowance should be at least the amount of the court...

Mr. Kuate appealed.  UNAT dismissed Mr. Kuate's contention that there was no basis until 1 April 2019, date of the final divorce decision, for the recovery of the allowances on grounds that the Cameroonian judgments were not final until that date. UNAT found that Order No. 791 contained an enforceability clause and therefore the measures provided in that order went into force with immediate effect. Consequently, Mr. Kuate and his wife legally separated on 26 November 2015 when the order was issued. Also, on the basis of this order, from this day on Mr. Kuate had legal custody for (only) two of...

There was no express indication that the Judgment of the 11th Judicial Circuit Court was executable upon issuance, neither was the issue investigated by the administration in the proceedings leading to the impugned decision. Rather, pertinent documents focus on the finality, apparently presumed from the title ‘Final judgment of dissolution of marriage’. The title should not have been relied upon. The contested decision was not based on a court order whose enforceability was unequivocal. The Tribunal did not find any indication of the judgment by the Third District Court of Appeal of the State...

UNAT noted that under the provisions of Staff Rule 1. 2(b), staff members must comply with local laws and honour their private legal obligations, including, but not limited to, the obligation to honour orders of competent courts. However, the ST/SGB/1999/4 legal framework has to be interpreted within the context of the authorizing Staff Rule 3. 18(c)(iii), which grants the Administration discretionary authority, as is reflected in the use of the word “may” in it, to make a proper and fair decision, in cases of indebtedness to third parties, under the proviso that a deduction for this purpose...

On the matter of the deduction of 7,000 Euros paid to the Appellant’s ex-wife from his final emoluments, UNAT agreed with the UNDT’s finding that the Appellant’s application was not receivable ratione materiae, although for different reasons than those given by UNDT. UNAT held that the Appellant filed his request for management evaluation outside of the time limit and that therefore his application was not receivable ratione materiae. UNAT held that it was clear from the facts that the Appellant knew and had expressly accepted that this payment to his ex-wife would be deducted from his final...

UNAT dismissed the appeal, finding it not receivable. The Tribunal explained UNDT decisions on applications for suspension of action are not subject to appeal, pursuant to Article 2(2) of the UNDT Statute. The Tribunal also noted that this case did not fall under the narrow exceptions when appeals against interlocutory orders are allowed, i.e. when it is alleged that the UNDT has exceeded its competence or jurisdiction. UNAT did not find any excess of jurisdiction in the instant case and therefore deemed the appeal irreceivable.

Receivability Immunities have been incorporated into the terms of appointment of United Nations staff members—including at the highest level of the Organization’s legal order and ever since its inception—thereby becoming part and parcel of their status and conditions of service. Furthermore, a decision to waive the immunity of a given staff member has evident—potentially dramatic—effects on his or her legal situation. Thus, the contested decision meets all the features of the definition of an administrative decision adopted by the Appeals Tribunal. Accordingly, the Tribunal found the...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant had filed the application without awaiting a response to his request for management evaluation. In view of this, the Tribunal found the application not receivable and dismissed it.

The Tribunal found that whereas UNSOS had called upon the Applicant to comply with the court order under the sanction of deductions, in fact, there were no deductions decided or effected. UNSOS’s actions were only prefatory. The Tribunal, therefore, held that the application was not receivable for want of a reviewable administrative decision. The application was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that with respect to the decisions of June 2018 on deductions on account of child support and 24 September 2018 on recording the Applicant’s status as “divorced”, the application is not receivable. The Tribunal rescinded the decision of 18 September 2018, because as admitted by the Respondent in his response to Order No. 190 (NBI/2020), this administrative decision had been issued in error. All other pleas were rejected.