Â鶹APP

L'UNAT a examin¨¦ un appel de M. Loubani. L'UNAT a estim¨¦ que m¨ºme si une ¨¦valuation pr¨¦liminaire [concernant les preuves potentielles des t¨¦moins d¨¦sign¨¦s par M. Loubani pour ¨ºtre interrog¨¦s] aurait d? ¨ºtre faite par les enqu¨ºteurs, cela a ¨¦t¨¦ fait par le DT de l'UNRWA, et les preuves ont ¨¦t¨¦ jug¨¦es si inad¨¦quates qu'elles ont pu ¨ºtre ignor¨¦es en toute s¨¦curit¨¦. . M. Loubani a eu l'occasion de pr¨¦senter ces preuves devant l'UNRWA DT, de sorte que sa bonne ¨¦valuation signifie que son droit ¨¤ une proc¨¦dure r¨¦guli¨¨re a ¨¦t¨¦ reconnu, quoique tardivement. Si les enqu¨ºteurs l¡¯avaient fait, cela n...

L'UNAT a estim¨¦ que les plaintes de M. Saleh pour iniquit¨¦ proc¨¦durale n'¨¦taient pas fond¨¦es pour les raisons avanc¨¦es par le Tribunal du contentieux du Tribunal et il ne s'¨¦tait pas acquitt¨¦ de la charge qui lui incombait de convaincre le Tribunal d'appel que le jugement du Tribunal ¨¦tait d¨¦fectueux ¨¤ cet ¨¦gard. Il s'est content¨¦ de r¨¦p¨¦ter les arguments intenables qu'il avait pr¨¦sent¨¦s devant le Tribunal. L'UNAT a not¨¦ que M. Saleh a admis deux chefs d'accusation de fraude. L'UNAT a ensuite estim¨¦ que la conduite de M. Saleh avait incontestablement port¨¦ atteinte ¨¤ la relation de confiance...

Le Secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral a fait appel du jugement du Tribunal. L'UNAT a constat¨¦ que le Tribunal n'avait pas donn¨¦ suite au rapport d'enqu¨ºte de l'OAI, dont l'acceptation avait conduit au licenciement de Mme Lekoetje. Le rapport d'enqu¨ºte constituait un ¨¦l¨¦ment de preuve important qui aurait d? ¨ºtre examin¨¦ et analys¨¦ par le Tribunal du contentieux administratif, mais il ne l'a pas ¨¦t¨¦. Le Tribunal du contentieux administratif a eu tort de rejeter les all¨¦gations de mauvaise conduite port¨¦es contre Mme Lekoetje sans tenir compte des preuves contenues dans le rapport d¡¯enqu¨ºte. En raison de la...

UNAT considered an appeal by Ms. Banaj against Judgment No. UNDT/2021/030.

L'UNAT a estim¨¦ qu'une r¨¦attribution des t?ches en attendant les r¨¦sultats d'une enqu¨ºte, comme cela s'est produit dans le cas de Mme Banaj, est admissible ¨¤ titre de mesure provisoire dans de telles circonstances, mais non dans le cadre de l'exercice du pouvoir g¨¦n¨¦ral d'affectation dont dispose le Secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral en vertu du Statut du personnel. 1.2(c) [¡­] Mais, en vertu de l'article 10.4 du R¨¨glement du personnel et du Cadre relatif aux mesures provisoires en attendant une enqu¨ºte et une proc¨¦dure disciplinaire...

L'UNAT a conclu que le Tribunal a commis une erreur en consid¨¦rant que les diff¨¦rentes p¨¦riodes de cong¨¦ non pay¨¦ pendant lesquelles M. Okwakol avait ¨¦t¨¦ plac¨¦ faisaient l'objet d'une d¨¦cision administrative unique et continue. L'UNAT a estim¨¦ que chacune des trois p¨¦riodes identifiables faisait l'objet d'un examen ou d'un r¨¦examen des circonstances ¨¤ ce moment-l¨¤. ? chaque fois, l'Organisation a pris une d¨¦cision sur l'¨¦tat de l'enqu¨ºte pour faute professionnelle et sur sa nature en cours et a inform¨¦ M. Okwakol en cons¨¦quence. Il n'¨¦tait pas d¨¦cisif, ni m¨ºme important, que les...

The UNAT concluded that the UNDT erred in considering that the different periods of ALWOP on which Mr. Okwakol was placed, were the subject of a single and continuing administrative decision. The UNAT held that each of the three identifiable periods was the subject of consideration or reconsideration of the circumstances at that time. On each occasion, the Organisation took a decision about the state of the misconduct investigation and its ongoing nature and advised Mr. Okwakol accordingly. It was not decisive or even material that the renewals of the ALWOP were referred to as extensions of...

L'UNAT a confirm¨¦ la conclusion du TDNU selon laquelle la d¨¦cision de l'Administration de ne pas constituer une commission d'enqu¨ºte visant ¨¤ ¨¦tablir les faits contre le FRO et le SRO de M. Yavuz ¨¦tait l¨¦gale, car les incidents d¨¦crits dans la plainte de M. Yavuz ne fournissaient pas de motifs suffisants pour qu'ils se soient livr¨¦s ¨¤ un comportement interdit ( harc¨¨lement, abus d'autorit¨¦) mais relevait du domaine des d¨¦saccords sur le lieu de travail. L'UNAT a estim¨¦ que M. Yavuz n'avait pas d¨¦montr¨¦ que les incidents mentionn¨¦s dans sa plainte concernant la conduite de son FRO et de son SRO...

L¡¯UNAT a d¡¯abord rejet¨¦ comme irrecevable l¡¯appel de M. Loto contre l¡¯ordonnance du Tribunal du Tribunal rejetant sa requ¨ºte en radiation d¡¯un enregistrement audio et de certaines conclusions pr¨¦sent¨¦es par le Secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral. L¡¯UNAT a estim¨¦ que ces questions pouvaient ¨ºtre abord¨¦es dans le cadre de l¡¯appel interjet¨¦ par M. Loto contre le jugement sur le fond de sa requ¨ºte. Le TANU a estim¨¦ que le Tribunal avait correctement admis l'enregistrement audio de la r¨¦union entre la victime pr¨¦sum¨¦e, M. Loto et d'autres personnes, dans la mesure o¨´ cet enregistrement contribuait ¨¤ r¨¦soudre tout...

UNAT upheld the UNDT¡¯s conclusion that the Administration¡¯s decision not to set up a fact-finding investigation panel against Mr. Yavuz¡¯s FRO and SRO was lawful, as the incidents described in Mr. Yavuz¡¯s complaint did not provide sufficient grounds they had engaged in prohibited conduct (harassment, abuse of authority) but fell in the realm of workplace disagreements. UNAT found that Mr. Yavuz did not show that the incidents mentioned in his complaint with regard to the conduct of his FRO and SRO were in any way motivated by any of the characteristics or traits (or similar) listed in Section 1...

The UNAT held that it was satisfied that execution of the UNDT Judgment (as affirmed by the UNAT) had occurred in Mr. Ozturk¡¯s case. The Administration had complied with the UNAT Judgment and exercised its discretion in determining a new, revised amount to be deducted for child support from Mr. Ozturk's salary on the basis of national court orders.

The UNAT observed that Mr. Ozturk appeared only to disagree with the ¡°refund calculation¡± by the Administration for prior overpayments. However, the UNAT noted that implementation by the Administration of a Tribunal¡¯s order constitutes in itself an...

UNAT endorsed the UNDT¡¯s holding that the decision to issue a press release in response to allegations that OHCHR had endangered the lives of Chinese human rights defenders who attended the Human Rights Council in Geneva in March 2013 fell within the discretion of the Organization and was a managerial prerogative. UNAT found that the specific part of it which concerned the issue of the provision of names of Chinese human rights activists to the Chinese government fell outside the scope of its judicial review due to the general nature of its content and to the fact that it embodied a...

Mr. Moulana appealed the UNDT judgment.

UNATnoted that the UNDT dismissed Mr. Moulana's application on the grounds of insufficient evidence, whereas he had not been afforded the opportunity to provide the evidence. UNAT held that the UNDT, by failing to address the Appellant¡¯s requests for the production of documents, including ignoring his motion, violated the Appellant¡¯s due process rights and deprived him of the opportunity to have his motion assessed and possibly granted, following which he could have submitted the pieces of evidence which the UNDT found he failed to provide. Therefore...

The UNAT considered an appeal by the UNRWA staff members. The UNAT held that the UNRWA DT was incorrect in finding that the reminder letters were not reprimands for the purposes of Appellants being able to challenge the letters¡¯ placement in their official status files. This was because such a reminder could not be considered a neutral action, but rather a warning of any possible disregard of the Agency¡¯s regulatory framework. The UNAT found that to the eyes of an average person, such a reminder is undeniably akin to a reprimand.

The UNAT agreed with the Appellants that there is no UNRWA...

The UNAT considered an appeal by Mr. Dahoud.

The UNAT held that the UNRWA DT correctly found that the disability benefit paid to Mr. Dahoud in accordance with Area Staff Rule 109.7(1) was different from the termination indemnity paid to certain staff members in accordance with Area Staff Rule 109.9.

The UNAT found that despite the Medical Board's conclusion that he had an 8 per cent permanent impairment, this does not necessarily lead to a finding of permanent and total disability, as required by Area Staff Rule 109.7(7), so as to receive the supplemental benefit. Nor does this medical...

The Appeals Tribunal rejected AAD's request for an oral hearing because she provided no persuasive reasons in support of her request.

UNAT held that the Dispute Tribunal erred in determining whether the established facts qualify as misconduct and whether the disciplinary sanctions were proportionate. In its Judgment, the Dispute Tribunal also erred by substituting its determination of the appropriate disciplinary sanction for that of the Administration and, as such, the UNAT concluded that the UNDT Judgment must be vacated. AAD said her actions did not amount to misconduct and sought a...

L'UNAT a rejet¨¦ la demande de rectification du jugement de M. Zaqqout au motif que M. Zaqqout avait tent¨¦ de relancer son affaire au lieu de d¨¦montrer des erreurs de la nature de celles cens¨¦es ¨ºtre couvertes par l'article 11(2), et qu'il n'avait pas expliqu¨¦ les erreurs importantes retard dans la demande de correction des erreurs all¨¦gu¨¦es.

L'UNAT a ¨¦galement rejet¨¦ la demande de r¨¦vision du jugement pr¨¦sent¨¦e par M. Zaqqout. L'UNAT a estim¨¦ qu'il s'agissait de la deuxi¨¨me demande de r¨¦vision d¨¦pos¨¦e par M. Zaqqout dans cette affaire, il lui ¨¦tait demand¨¦ de d¨¦montrer des circonstances...

UNAT dismissed Mr. Zaqqout's application for correction of judgment on the grounds that Mr. Zaqqout attempted to relitigate his case instead of demonstrating mistakes in the nature of those intended to be covered by Article 11(2), and he had failed to explain the significant delay in applying to correct the alleged errors.

UNAT also dismissed Mr. Zaqqout's application for revision of judgment. UNAT found that this being the second application for revision Mr. Zaqqout had filed in this case, he was required to demonstrate exceptional circumstances, a test he did not meet; and that even if the...

M. Hassan a fait appel du jugement du Tribunal.

L'UNAT a estim¨¦ que l'appelant n'avait pas d¨¦montr¨¦ que le Tribunal avait commis une erreur en concluant que sa requ¨ºte n'¨¦tait pas recevable ratione personae. L'UNAT a conclu qu'au moment de la d¨¦cision de non-s¨¦lection contest¨¦e, le requ¨¦rant avait cess¨¦ ses fonctions depuis plus d'un an et n'¨¦tait plus membre du personnel. Il s'agissait d'un candidat externe qui n'avait pas qualit¨¦ pour contester la d¨¦cision de ne pas le s¨¦lectionner pour le nouveau poste d'associ¨¦ ¨¤ la r¨¦installation, dans la mesure o¨´ la d¨¦cision n'affectait pas ses anciens...

Mr. Hassan appealed the UNDT judgment.

The UNAT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate that the UNDT erred in finding that his application was not receivable ratione personae. UNAT concluded that at the time of the contested non-selection decision, the Appellant had been separated from service for more than a year and was no longer a staff member. He was an external candidate with no standing to challenge the decision not to select him for the new position of Resettlement Associate, as the decision was not affecting his former terms of appointment. Moreover, there was no offer of...

L'UNAT a examin¨¦ un appel de M. Dorji.

L'UNAT a estim¨¦ que l'appel ¨¦tait d¨¦fectueux dans la mesure o¨´ il n'avait identifi¨¦ aucun des cinq moyens d'appel ¨¦nonc¨¦s ¨¤ l'article 2(1) du Statut comme constituant la base juridique de l'appel. Comme le TCNU l'a estim¨¦ ¨¤ juste titre, la d¨¦mission forc¨¦e all¨¦gu¨¦e de M. Dorji et sa s¨¦paration ult¨¦rieure de l'Organisation ont eu lieu en mars et avril 2019. La demande de contr?le hi¨¦rarchique de M. Dorji a ¨¦t¨¦ d¨¦pos¨¦e en dehors du d¨¦lai l¨¦gal de 60 jours de plus de deux ans, le 25 juin 2021.

L'UNAT a rejet¨¦ l'appel et a confirm¨¦ le jugement n¡ã UNDT/2021...