̽����ѡ

The UNAT noted that when the staff member had moved to North Carolina, he had not enquired whether or not he was obligated to pay the income tax of that state. Nevertheless, the UNAT concluded that the Secretary-General had erred in applying a one-year time limit to his request for reimbursement of his North Carolina state income tax for 2015-2018.

The UNAT considered the language of the relevant Staff Regulations and Staff Rules, interpretative doctrines, the legal regime of staff assessment, the hierarchy of the relevant norms and the apparent intent of the General Assembly. The UNAT...

The Tribunal held that tax reimbursement is governed by a specific and unique legal regime carefully deliberated upon by the General Assembly. Staff regulation 3.3(f) cannot be read into “other payments” in staff rule 3.17(ii).

The Tribunal agreed with the Applicant’s understanding that payments under staff rule 3.17(ii) relate to all staff and all nationalities of the United Nations and are not restricted only to USA citizens as in the case for reimbursement of income tax under staff regulation 3.3(f). Hence, the two cannot be read together or have same application.

The Tribunal also agreed...

UNAT held that UNDT erred in law in stating that it had no jurisdiction as Mr Kebede’s claim concerned the internal affairs of the staff union, and therefore, an area protected from employer interference. UNAT held, however, that error was without consequence because Mr Kebede’s claim for compensation was otherwise time-barred per Staff Rule 3.17(ii). UNDT also erred in finding that Mr Kebede’s application for a transfer was not receivable for lack of jurisdiction.

Pursuant to staff rule 3.17(ii), the Applicant was required to make a written claim to receive retroactive SPA “within one year following the date on which [she] would have been entitled to the initial payment”. This request should have been made within one year of 1 December 2009, that is, by or before 1 December 2010. However, it was only on 5 September 2011 that the Applicant wrote an interoffice memorandum requesting an extension of her SPA at the P-2 level from 1 December 2009 to the then-present time to account for the additional functions that she had been performing. The Applicant...

Whether the application is receivable The Tribunal considers that the issues concerning the eligibility of SPA and the timeliness of its request are questions for the merits and have no bearing on receivability. Thus, the core receivability issue before the Tribunal is whether the contested decision falls within the scope of art. 2.1(a) of its Statute. The Tribunal is of the view that the contested decision fulfils the test of Andronov. It has been “shown to adversely affect the rights or expectations of the staff member” (see Michaud 2017-UNAT-761, para. 50), and thus has a direct legal...