2023-UNAT-1320 | SYSTEM OF ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

2023-UNAT-1320, Andrey Chernov

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

UNAT held that since the Appellant’s son has a disability, he was entitled to receive benefits only under the special education grant scheme ST/AI/2018/2 (Special education grant and related benefit for children with a disability) and not under the regular education grant scheme ST/AI/2018/1/Rev.1 (Education grant and related benefits). UNAT concluded that since the Appellant’s son was not boarding during the academic year of 2019-2020 and continued to reside at the parental home, the Appellant was not eligible for any boarding allowance under ST/AI/2018/2.

Even if ST/AI/2018/1/Rev.1 was applicable to the Appellant’s situation, UNAT held that his appeal would fail. Indeed, UNAT found that even if the wording of ST/AI/2018/1/Rev.1 is not entirely plain or clear, an interpretation allowing the USD 5,000 lump sum to be paid without the staff member’s dependent child boarding would be against General Assembly resolution 70/244 as well as Staff Regulation 3.2 and Appendix B of the Staff Regulations and Rules which require that children be boarding to attend school outside the staff member’s duty station.

Regarding Judgment No. UNDT/2022/033, UNAT held that the issues were identical to those dealt with in Judgment No. UNDT/2022/028 and that, therefore, the Appellant’s second application was not receivable under the doctrine of res judicata.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Appellant, a staff member of the 51�Թ� Secretariat, contested the decisions of the Administration to recover the lump sum of USD 5,000 paid to him for boarding assistance for his dependent child. In its Judgment No. UNDT/2022/028, the UNDT concluded that the Appellant was not eligible for a boarding allowance since his dependent child was not boarding to attend school. In its Judgment No. UNDT/2022/033, the UNDT concluded that the Appellant’s application was challenging the same decision as in Judgment No. UNDT/2022/028 and, therefore, rejected his application as not receivable under the doctrine of res judicata.

Legal Principle(s)

Both ST/AI/2018/1/Rev.1 and ST/AI/2018/2 expressly require boarding to qualify to a lump sum for boarding assistance.

Even if the wording of ST/AI/2018/1/Rev.1 does not expressly require boarding, higher norms (General Assembly resolution 70/244, Staff Regulation 3.2 and Appendix B of the Staff Regulations and Rules) require that ST/AI/2018/1/Rev.1 be interpreted to require boarding.

Boarding is the arrangement by which students live at their school, going home during the holidays. It refers to a school that provides meals and lodging for students.

A staff member cannot bring the same case twice before the UNDT.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed on merits

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.

Full Judgment

Applicants/Appellants

Andrey Chernov

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry :