Â鶹APP

Le TANU a estim¨¦ que M. Almasri ne remplissait pas les conditions requises pour la r¨¦vision de l'arr¨ºt ant¨¦rieur du TANU. Le principal grief de M. Almasri ¨¦tait que la r¨¦paration qui lui avait ¨¦t¨¦ accord¨¦e ne l'avait pas rendu ¨¦ligible ¨¤ une meilleure pension de retraite sur la base d'un service r¨¦put¨¦ plus long et d'ant¨¦c¨¦dents en mati¨¨re de cotisations.

Le TANU a constat¨¦ que M. Almasri n'avait avanc¨¦ aucun fait nouveau qui aurait ¨¦t¨¦ inconnu de lui ou du TANU ¨¤ l'¨¦poque de l'arr¨ºt pr¨¦c¨¦dent, ni aucun fait qui aurait ¨¦t¨¦ d¨¦cisif dans la prise de d¨¦cision s'il avait ¨¦t¨¦ connu. Au contraire...

Le TANU a estim¨¦ que la demande de l'agent n'¨¦tait pas recevable ratione materiae. Il a ¨¦galement estim¨¦ que l'e-mail identifi¨¦ comme la d¨¦cision contest¨¦e ¨¦tait une r¨¦ponse g¨¦n¨¦rale du partenaire des ressources humaines ¨¤ la demande g¨¦n¨¦rale de l'agent concernant le SEG, qui n'abordait pas sa situation personnelle. En tant que tel, il ne constituait pas une d¨¦cision administrative individuelle ou d¨¦finitive affectant ses conditions d'engagement au titre de la r¨¨gle 11.2(a) du R¨¨glement du personnel.

Le TANU a rejet¨¦ l'appel et confirm¨¦ le jugement n¡ã UNDT/2023/107, bien que pour des raisons...

? titre pr¨¦liminaire, le Tribunal d'appel a rejet¨¦ les demandes d'audience des appelants au motif qu'une audience ne serait pas rapide et qu'¨¤ la lumi¨¨re des observations ¨¦crites d¨¦taill¨¦es, il n'y aurait rien ¨¤ gagner ¨¤ entendre les avocats des appelants en personne.

Le Tribunal d'appel a estim¨¦ qu'en l'absence d'une promesse expresse de renouvellement des engagements ¨¤ dur¨¦e d¨¦termin¨¦e des requ¨¦rants, ces derniers n'avaient pas d'esp¨¦rance l¨¦gitime de renouvellement de leurs contrats ¨¤ dur¨¦e d¨¦termin¨¦e. Les d¨¦clarations donnant des assurances aux membres du personnel de l'UNOPS n'ont pas ¨¦t¨¦...

The UNAT held that the staff member¡¯s application was not receivable ratione materiae. It further found that the e-mail identified as the contested decision was a general response from the Human Resources Partner to the staff member¡¯s general inquiry regarding SEG, which did not address his personal situation. As such, it did not constitute an individual or final administrative decision affecting his terms of appointment under Staff Rule 11.2(a).

The UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed Judgment No. UNDT/2023/107, albeit for different reasons, with Judge Colgan dissenting.

As a preliminary matter, the Appeals Tribunal dismissed the Appellants' requests for an oral hearing on grounds that an oral hearing would not be expeditious and that in light of comprehensive written submissions nothing would be gained from hearing the Appellants¡¯ counsel in person.

The Appeals Tribunal found that in the absence of an express promise of renewal of the Appellants¡¯ fixed-term appointments, the Appellants did not have a legitimate expectation of renewal of their fixed-term contracts. The statements giving assurances to UNOPS staff members were not made by a UNOPS official with...

The UNAT held that Mr. Almasri did not fulfil the requirements for revision of the prior UNAT Judgment. Mr. Almasri¡¯s primary complaint was that the remedy awarded to him failed to make him eligible for a better retirement pension based on a longer deemed service and contribution history.

The UNAT found that no new fact was advanced by Mr. Almasri that had been unknown either to him or the UNAT at the time of the prior Judgment, nor one that would have been decisive in reaching the decision had it been known. Instead, it was Mr. Almasri¡¯s negligence that brought about his factual ignorance...

The UNAT noted that before the applicant became a staff member, he had been employed by UNRWA as complementary personnel with non-staff status and was not entitled to any benefit beyond what had been established for daily-paid workers. The UNAT observed that neither his daily-paid service contracts nor a sample of daily-paid service contracts applicable at the relevant time mentioned payment of any compensation upon expiration.

The UNAT found that upon each expiry of the applicant¡¯s daily-paid service contract, it was successively renewed and he was bound by the Agency¡¯s regulations and...

Le TANU a estim¨¦ que le DT de l'UNRWA avait commis une erreur de droit en estimant que le cadre juridique applicable permettait au jury d'entretien de proc¨¦der ¨¤ des ¨¦valuations techniques des candidats.Toutefois, le TANU a estim¨¦ que l'irr¨¦gularit¨¦ proc¨¦durale du jury, qui a organis¨¦ une deuxi¨¨me s¨¦rie d'entretiens de nature purement technique, n'¨¦tait pas suffisante pour faire droit au recours, car l'issue du processus de recrutement aurait ¨¦t¨¦ la m¨ºme.
Le TANU a estim¨¦ que le DT de l'UNRWA n'avait pas commis d'erreur en ce qui concerne l'incapacit¨¦ de l'Office ¨¤ appliquer correctement les...

The UNAT found that the UNRWA DT had erred in law when it found that the applicable legal framework allowed the interview panel to conduct technical assessments of the candidates. However, the UNAT held that the procedural irregularity of the panel having held a second round of interviews of a purely technical nature, would not suffice to grant the appeal because the outcome of the recruitment process would have been the same.

The UNAT held that the UNRWA DT had not erred with regards to the Agency¡¯s failure to correctly apply gender parity rules. The UNAT found that gender parity had not...

The UNAT found that the decision not to select the staff member for TJO 161651 was lawful. It held that since the staff member did not challenge the cancellation of TJO 14924, under which the Administration initially advertised the position of Administrative Officer, that cancellation decision was not part of the contested decision under review. In any event, the UNAT determined that the Administration had the discretion to cancel TJO 149241 and re-advertise the position under TJO 161651 after the selected candidate withdrew her candidature. It was under no obligation to invite the second...

The UNAT held that the UNDT did not err in finding that the former staff member¡¯s change of title following a reclassification did not amount to an abolition or discontinuance of her post, rendering her termination of appointment unlawful.

The UNAT also determined that the UNDT did not err in awarding the former staff member compensation in lieu of two years¡¯ net base salary. In this regard, the UNAT emphasized that the UNDT correctly considered the fact that the former staff member¡¯s permanent appointment included a specific undertaking stating that she could only be terminated due to an...

The UNAT rejected the new evidence submitted for the first time on appeal, which sought to justify the late filing of the case by attributing it to the appellant¡¯s attorney¡¯s personal circumstances.

The UNAT was of the opinion that staff members must generally adhere to the specified time limits. However, in this case, the UNAT found that the UNDT had erred in fact and law in dismissing Mr. Khan¡¯s application as not receivable ratione temporis. It concluded that Mr. Khan¡¯s exceptional circumstances¡ªincluding severe flooding disrupting internet service and affecting his ability to access e...

The UNAT held that the UNRWA DT had appropriately concluded that Mr. Issa failed to submit a timely Request for Decision Review regarding the first of three months¡¯ non-payment of his salary. However, the UNAT held that, since each non-payment constitutes a separate administrative decision, Mr. Issa's Request for Decision Review regarding the second- and third-months¡¯ non-payment was timely, rendering his application partially receivable.

The UNAT further concluded however, that since Mr. Issa disregarded a directive circulated before his annual leave (when he was able to check his e-mail)...

The Appeals Tribunal found that in its rigid treatment of the evidence in relation to AAY¡¯s conduct, the UNDT failed to have appropriate regard to what had been admitted to by AAY when interviewed by OIOS. The fact that AAY chose not to testify at the UNDT hearing made it clear that he stood by his statement to the OIOS investigators. The UNDT was required to consider this undisputed evidence from him in its assessment whether the misconduct against him had been proved, more so in circumstances in which he did not elect to testify further in his own defence. The fact that the three witnesses...

The UNAT held that the UNDT committed an error of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision, when it found that a termination decision was made on 1 April 2022. In this regard, the UNAT found that while a decision to place a note in the former staff member¡¯s Official Status File (OSF) was made on 1 April 2022, the termination decision was actually taken on 11 March 2022. Therefore, the UNDT should have identified either decision as the contested decision, but erred in following the former staff member¡¯s assertion that a termination decision was taken on 1 April 2022.

Nevertheless...

The UNAT held that the President of the Council of ICAO, in taking the decision not to approve the appointment of the staff member to the post, had regard to relevant considerations: the staff member was negatively assessed by the interview panel and the assessment centre, and had serious weaknesses in areas of vision and other competencies which were critical skills for ICAO. The UNAT found that the reasons provided by the President accorded with the facts.

The UNAT was of the view that, although the President discussed the matter with some members of the panel, these discussions had not...

Le Tribunal a conclu que le Tribunal n'avait pas commis d'erreur en estimant que l'administration avait ¨¦tabli que l'AAR avait divulgu¨¦ ill¨¦galement des informations confidentielles et qu'il avait ill¨¦galement omis de signaler un conflit d'int¨¦r¨ºts et de se r¨¦cuser.

Le Tribunal d'appel a ¨¦galement estim¨¦ que la mesure administrative impos¨¦e ¨¤ AAR ¨¦tait proportionn¨¦e ¨¤ sa faute et que le Tribunal n'avait pas commis d'erreur en accordant des dommages moraux pour le pr¨¦judice subi par AAR en raison du retard excessif dans l'ach¨¨vement de la proc¨¦dure disciplinaire.

Le Tribunal d'appel a donc...

The Appeals Tribunal concluded that the UNDT did not err in finding that the Administration had established that AAR had unlawfully disclosed confidential information and had unlawfully failed to disclose a conflict of interest and recuse himself.

The Appeals Tribunal was also satisfied that the administrative measure imposed on AAR was proportionate to his misconduct, and that the UNDT did not commit any error in awarding moral damages for the harm AAR incurred due to the undue delay in completing the disciplinary process.

The Appeals Tribunal therefore dismissed the appeals.

Le Tribunal d'appel a estim¨¦ que la d¨¦cision de l'administration de ne pas poursuivre l'enqu¨ºte sur les all¨¦gations de M. Lutfiev contre son ancien chef de cabinet ¨¦tait une d¨¦cision qu'elle ¨¦tait en droit de prendre ¨¦tant donn¨¦ que l'ancien chef de cabinet n'¨¦tait plus un membre du personnel de l'UNRWA.

En outre, le Tribunal d'appel est convaincu que la d¨¦cision du DT de l'UNRWA annulant la cessation de service de M. Lutfiev a ¨¦t¨¦ prise ¨¤ tort. Le Tribunal du contentieux administratif a appliqu¨¦ une m¨¦thodologie erron¨¦e pour examiner les motifs de la cessation de service de M.

Lutfiev et n...

The Appeals Tribunal found that the Administration¡¯s decision not to investigate further Mr. Lutfiev¡¯s allegations against his former Chief of Staff was one which it was entitled to make given that the former Chief of Staff was no longer an UNRWA staff member.

Furthermore, the Appeals Tribunal was satisfied that the UNRWA DT¡¯s decision rescinding Mr. Lutfiev¡¯s separation from service was decided erroneously. The Dispute Tribunal applied the wrong methodology to its consideration of the grounds for Mr. Lutfiev¡¯s separation from service and failed to undertake what is known as the four...