Â鶹APP

The UNAT held that the UNDT correctly determined that the non-selection decision was superseded and rendered moot by the Administration's subsequent rescission of the decision, which ended the selection process without anyone being selected for the position. It concluded that, from that moment, the non-selection decision ceased to have any legal effect and was no longer a live issue on which the UNDT had jurisdiction to pass judgment on.

The UNAT further affirmed that it was entirely within the Administration¡¯s authority to rescind the non-selection decision given the procedural irregularities...

The UNAT noted that the interview panel had nominated the staff member as one of the recommended candidates for appointment to the post but the Recruitment Report had been erroneously silent as to whether she had been considered on an equivalency basis. The UNAT observed that the advisory committee had subsequently found that her experience did not qualify her for equivalency and that she had not met the educational qualifications.

The UNAT held that because the staff member had been wrongly shortlisted, her participation in the remainder of the recruitment process had been unlawful and any...

The UNAT held that the UNDT correctly concluded that the former staff member committed misconduct by repeatedly violating, over more than a year and a half, the rules prohibiting his wife from staying overnight with him in the UNMISS compound of a non-family duty station, without authorization or payment of the required accommodation fees, despite multiple warnings and a prior reprimand.

The UNAT also confirmed that, during a counselling session, the former staff member threatened to kill his wife and any staff member to protect their marriage and his perceived right to cohabitation. It agreed...

The UNAT held that the UNDT erred in concluding that the staff member¡¯s application was not receivable. It found that the staff member did, in fact, challenge an administrative decision which she claimed was in non-compliance with her terms of employment. Consequently, the UNDT had jurisdiction to decide whether or not to order the conduct of an investigation or take other courses of action concerning the staff member¡¯s allegations and complaints. The UNAT concluded that, by instead finding the staff member¡¯s application not receivable, the UNDT acted in contravention of Section 5.6 of...

L'UNAT a estim¨¦ que l'UNITAR n'¨¦tait pas tenu de mettre fin ¨¤ l'engagement du fonctionnaire en vertu du paragraphe 9 c) de la circulaire AC/UNITAR/2019/05, qui lui aurait donn¨¦ droit ¨¤ une indemnit¨¦ de licenciement. L'UNITAR ¨¦tait en droit de le placer en SLWOP conform¨¦ment au paragraphe 9 f), afin de pouvoir r¨¦gler la question du financement de son poste avec le donateur. Le TDPNU n'a pas commis d'erreur en concluant que l'UNITAR avait exerc¨¦ son pouvoir discr¨¦tionnaire de mani¨¨re appropri¨¦e, l¨¦gale et raisonnable.

L'UNAT a ¨¦galement confirm¨¦ la conclusion du TDPNU selon laquelle l'ancien...

L'UNAT a estim¨¦ que la d¨¦cision contest¨¦e ¨¦tait une d¨¦cision de cessation de service li¨¦e ¨¤ l'expiration d'un contrat, et non une d¨¦cision de licenciement fond¨¦e sur la suppression d'un poste ou une r¨¦duction des effectifs. L'ancien fonctionnaire n'entrait pas dans la cat¨¦gorie des fonctionnaires ayant le droit d'¨ºtre pris en consid¨¦ration de mani¨¨re pr¨¦f¨¦rentielle pour le maintien en fonction et l'Administration n'avait pas l'obligation de lui trouver un autre poste appropri¨¦ ¨¤ la suite de la suppression ou du reclassement de son poste.

Le TUNI a observ¨¦ que, bien que l'ancien fonctionnaire...

L'UNAT a estim¨¦ qu'il incombait au fonctionnaire de prouver que le fait que le Secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral n'ait pas r¨¦agi aux politiques discriminatoires du pays h?te et ¨¤ la tentative pr¨¦sum¨¦e des autorit¨¦s charg¨¦es de l'application de la loi de ce pays h?te de le recruter constituait une d¨¦cision unilat¨¦rale prise par l'Administration, qui s'appliquait ¨¤ lui individuellement et avait des cons¨¦quences juridiques directes sur ses conditions d'engagement ou son contrat de travail. Le TFP a estim¨¦ que le fonctionnaire ne pouvait pas s'acquitter de cette charge, car ces questions relevaient du domaine de...

The UNAT held that UNITAR was not obligated to terminate the staff member¡¯s appointment under paragraph 9(c) of AC/UNITAR/2019/05, which would have provided him with a termination indemnity. UNITAR was within its rights to place him on SLWOP pursuant to paragraph 9(f), to enable it to resolve the issue of funding with the donor for financing the staff member¡¯s position. The UNDT did not err in finding that UNITAR exercised its discretion properly, lawfully and reasonably.

The UNAT also affirmed the UNDT¡¯s finding that the former staff member had not met his burden of proof that he had...

The UNAT held that the contested decision was a separation decision hinged on expiration of an appointment, and not a termination decision based on abolition of post or reduction of staff. The former staff member did not fall within the category of staff with the right to be considered on a preferential basis for retention and the Administration did not have an obligation to find him an alternative and suitable position following the abolition or reclassification exercise.

The UNAT observed that although the former staff member was informed in his non-renewal letter that he would be placed on...

The UNAT held that the staff member bore the burden of proving that the Secretary-General¡¯s failures to address both the discriminatory policies of the host country and the alleged attempt of the law enforcement authorities of that host country to recruit him, constituted unilateral decisions taken by the Administration, which applied to him individually, and had direct legal consequences on his terms of appointment or contract of employment. The UNAT held that the staff member could not meet this burden because these issues fell within the realm of diplomacy, are subject to the rules of...

L'UNAT a estim¨¦ que l'UNDT n'avait pas commis d'erreur en rejetant la demande d'audience orale de la fonctionnaire, car le dossier ¨¦tait ? complet ? et il n'y avait ? aucun diff¨¦rend irr¨¦conciliable entre les parties quant aux faits ?.

Le TUNAS a estim¨¦ que le placement de la fonctionnaire en cong¨¦ administratif ¨¦tait justifi¨¦, ¨¦tant donn¨¦ qu'elle avait re?u les noms des membres du comit¨¦ d'enqu¨ºte charg¨¦ d'enqu¨ºter sur sa faute pr¨¦sum¨¦e et qu'elle ¨¦tait en mesure d'approuver le contrat de consultant de l'un de ces membres, ce qui cr¨¦ait un conflit d'int¨¦r¨ºts et un risque r¨¦el d'ing¨¦rence dans...

L'UNAT a estim¨¦ que le fonctionnaire connaissait tous les faits pertinents et avait ¨¦t¨¦ suffisamment inform¨¦ et d?ment notifi¨¦ de la d¨¦cision contest¨¦e au plus tard le 18 mai 2023 afin de pouvoir d¨¦poser une demande d'¨¦valuation de la direction dans les d¨¦lais impartis. Or, le fonctionnaire n'a d¨¦pos¨¦ sa demande d'¨¦valuation de la direction que le 16 septembre 2023, soit apr¨¨s l'expiration du d¨¦lai de 60 jours.

Le TUNI a observ¨¦ que l'objet des ¨¦changes de courriels en ao?t 2023 entre l'Administration et le fonctionnaire ¨¦tait des demandes de ? clarification ? du fondement d'une d¨¦cision...

L'UNAT a observ¨¦ que M. Ponce-Gonzalez tentait de persuader le Tribunal d'appel qu'un fonctionnaire qui pr¨¦tendait avoir d¨¦l¨¦gu¨¦ le pouvoir de prendre des d¨¦cisions en mati¨¨re d'embauche n'avait en fait pas ce pouvoir. M. Ponce-Gonzalez a affirm¨¦ disposer de nouveaux documents ¨¤ l'appui de son argumentation.

L'UNAT a estim¨¦ que les nouveaux faits d¨¦couverts ne r¨¦pondaient pas ¨¤ l'exigence l¨¦gale d'avoir une incidence d¨¦cisive sur l'issue du pr¨¦c¨¦dent recours et que, par cons¨¦quent, la demande de r¨¦vision ne satisfaisait pas au crit¨¨re l¨¦gal strict pr¨¦vu ¨¤ l'article 11(1) du Statut de l'UNAT...

L'UNAT a observ¨¦ que M. Ponce-Gonzalez tentait de persuader le Tribunal d'appel qu'un fonctionnaire qui pr¨¦tendait avoir d¨¦l¨¦gu¨¦ le pouvoir de prendre des d¨¦cisions en mati¨¨re d'embauche n'avait en fait pas ce pouvoir. M. Ponce-Gonzalez a affirm¨¦ disposer de nouveaux documents ¨¤ l'appui de son argumentation.

L'UNAT a estim¨¦ que les nouveaux faits d¨¦couverts ne r¨¦pondaient pas ¨¤ l'exigence l¨¦gale d'avoir une incidence d¨¦cisive sur l'issue du pr¨¦c¨¦dent recours et que, par cons¨¦quent, la demande de r¨¦vision ne satisfaisait pas au crit¨¨re l¨¦gal strict pr¨¦vu ¨¤ l'article 11(1) du Statut de l'UNAT et...

Le TUNAT a estim¨¦ que le TDPNU avait commis une erreur en ne pronon?ant pas la r¨¦paration pr¨¦vue ¨¤ l'article 10(5)(a) du Statut du TDPNU apr¨¨s avoir conclu que la d¨¦cision disciplinaire ¨¦tait ill¨¦gale. Le TDPNU a commis une erreur en refusant d'annuler la d¨¦cision contest¨¦e au motif que le fonctionnaire avait abus¨¦ de la proc¨¦dure judiciaire. Le TUNAT a renvoy¨¦ l'affaire devant le TDPNU afin qu'il statue sur la r¨¦paration appropri¨¦e.

Le TUNAT a confirm¨¦ la conclusion du TUD que l'ancien fonctionnaire avait manifestement abus¨¦ de la proc¨¦dure judiciaire en produisant des documents falsifi¨¦s...

L'UNAT a estim¨¦ que le fonctionnaire avait d¨¦pos¨¦ son recours plus d'un an apr¨¨s le prononc¨¦ du jugement du TFP et que, m¨ºme s'il avait demand¨¦ une d¨¦rogation au d¨¦lai en raison de circonstances exceptionnelles, son recours ¨¦tait prescrit et irrecevable ratione temporis.

Le TUNAT a n¨¦anmoins not¨¦ que la requ¨ºte d¨¦pos¨¦e par le fonctionnaire aupr¨¨s du TUDI n'¨¦tait pas recevable en vertu de la doctrine de la res judicata, car le TUNAT avait d¨¦j¨¤ confirm¨¦ dans son jugement ant¨¦rieur un jugement du TUDI statuant sur sa contestation de la m¨ºme d¨¦cision administrative.

L'UNAT a estim¨¦ que le...

Le TFP a estim¨¦ que, puisque l'indemnit¨¦ compensatoire a pour but de replacer un fonctionnaire dans la situation qui aurait ¨¦t¨¦ la sienne si l'Organisation avait respect¨¦ ses obligations contractuelles, le traitement de base net ¨¤ verser conform¨¦ment ¨¤ l'arr¨ºt du TFP ¨¦tait le traitement de base net que l'ancien fonctionnaire aurait per?u ¨¤ la date de la d¨¦cision contest¨¦e et de la cessation de ses fonctions, ¨¤ savoir le 20 mai 2021. Par cons¨¦quent, le TFP a conclu que le calcul du Secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral, qui avait retenu deux ans de salaire de base net, ¨¦tait appropri¨¦.

Le TFP a en outre estim¨¦ que...

The UNAT held that, since the purpose of compensation in lieu is to place a staff member in the same position he or she would have been had the Organization complied with its contractual obligations, the net base salary to be paid in accordance with the UNAT Judgment was the net base salary that the former staff member would have earned at the date of the contested decision and his separation from service, namely 20 May 2021. Therefore, the UNAT concluded that the Secretary-General¡¯s calculation of two years¡¯ net base salary was appropriate.

The UNAT further held that the deductions made for...

The UNAT found that the staff member had filed his appeal more than a year after the issuance of the UNDT Judgment and even if he had requested a waiver of the time limit on the basis of exceptional circumstances, his appeal was time-barred and not receivable ratione temporis.

The UNAT nevertheless noted that the staff member¡¯s application filed with the UNDT was not receivable under the doctrine of res judicata because the UNAT had already affirmed in its earlier judgment a UNDT judgment deciding his challenge to the same administrative decision.

The UNAT found that the staff member sought to...

The UNAT observed that Mr. Ponce-Gonzalez was attempting to persuade the Appeals Tribunal that an official who claimed to have delegated authority to make hiring decisions did not in fact have such authority. Mr. Ponce-Gonzalez claimed to have new documents in support of his argument.

The UNAT held that the new facts discovered did not meet the statutory requirement for decisiveness on the outcome of the earlier appeal and hence the application for revision did not satisfy the strict statutory test under Article 11(1) of the UNAT Statute, and the application was denied.