Â鶹APP

Selon le compte des deux parties, les frais pr¨¦c¨¦demment attribu¨¦s avaient ¨¦t¨¦ pay¨¦s et, par cons¨¦quent, ce qui restait ¨¤ consid¨¦rer, c'est si la d¨¦cision contest¨¦e en 2014 a ¨¦t¨¦ enti¨¨rement annul¨¦e ou non. Les probl¨¨mes en jeu sont de nature m¨¦dicale et c'est pourquoi ce tribunal a renvoy¨¦ la question par commande n ¡ã 24 (GVA / 2016) afin qu'une commission m¨¦dicale soit convoqu¨¦e et une d¨¦termination sur les droits de cong¨¦ de maladie du demandeur est prise. Cette d¨¦termination m¨¦dicale est une condition sine qua non pour la soumission ¨¤ consid¨¦rer pour un b¨¦n¨¦fice d'invalidit¨¦ par le UNSPC...

- La question ¨¤ accomplir est de savoir si la requ¨¦rante a ¨¦t¨¦ enti¨¨rement rembours¨¦e pour sa responsabilit¨¦ fiscale en 2019, quelle que soit sa part de responsabilit¨¦ fiscale. Ce qui affecte les conditions d¡¯emploi d¡¯un demandeur, c'est le paiement de sa responsabilit¨¦ fiscale totale et non la fa?on dont les diff¨¦rentes entit¨¦s doivent le couvrir. Tout probl¨¨me concernant la division de la responsabilit¨¦ fiscale doit ¨ºtre trait¨¦ par les organisations impliqu¨¦es, et non par le demandeur. - Le montant total re?u par le demandeur est ¨¦gal au montant total incontest¨¦ qu'elle avait le droit de...

- Conform¨¦ment ¨¤ l'art. 9 des r¨¨gles de proc¨¦dure du tribunal et de la jurisprudence ¨¦tablie, le Tribunal peut choisir de rendre un jugement sommaire sans prendre d'argument ou de preuve des parties, car la loi du Tribunal l'emp¨ºche de recevoir une affaire qui n'est pas cr¨¦able. De m¨ºme, art. 19 pr¨¦voit qu'il peut ¨¦mettre toute ordonnance ou orientation appropri¨¦e pour l'¨¦limination ¨¦quitable et rapide de l'affaire. En outre, cette disposition permet au Tribunal de faire face aux questions de cr¨¦ance comme une question pr¨¦liminaire dans l'int¨¦r¨ºt de l'¨¦conomie judiciaire. Par cons¨¦quent, le...

?tant donn¨¦ que la comp¨¦tence du tribunal est une question de droit, qui peut ¨ºtre jug¨¦e m¨ºme sans servir la demande au d¨¦fendeur pour r¨¦ponse et m¨ºme si elle n'est pas soulev¨¦e par les parties (voir GEHR 2013-UNAT-313; Boutroue undt / 2014/048),, Le tribunal juge appropri¨¦ de d¨¦cider de la pr¨¦sente demande par voie de jugement sommaire, comme pr¨¦vu dans l'art. 9 de ses r¨¨gles de proc¨¦dure. Le requ¨¦rant ne conteste pas une d¨¦cision administrative prise par le Secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral en tant que directeur administratif des Nations Unies. De plus, le tribunal consid¨¨re que le PAM n'est pas l'une des...

No new evidence is to be filed by the parties with their closing submission and pursuant to the principle of equality of arms, both parties must have the opportunity to test the evidence on record. Disciplinary proceedings within the Organization do not amount to criminal procedures. Use of video footage from an external entity during the investigation is not illegal as UNHC rules provide that investigators may avail themselves of external supporting evidence. Sick leave requests must be approved by a staff member¡¯s service/Human Resources section or the respective Medical Service. The...

Public interest, transparency, scrutiny and accountability are not impaired by the removal of the Applicant¡¯s name from the public domain. Consequently, and taking into consideration the sensitive nature of the facts, which involve alleged ¡°sexual exploitation of a vulnerable person¡±, the Tribunal grants the Applicant¡¯s request for anonymity. The decision not to renew the Applicant¡¯s fixed-term appointment, communicated to him on 23 September 2019, is not grounded on disciplinary considerations, which were the subject of the instant case, and constitutes an autonomous administrative decision...

Receivability In the present case, the Applicants contest the Administration¡¯s decision dated 14 August 2021 to consider Mr. Oming, whom the Administration identified as the spouse of the deceased staff member, as the recipient of a death benefit pursuant to staff rule 9.11(a)(vii). In this respect, the Tribunal recalls that the extension of its jurisdiction to deceased staff members is intended to permit resolution of disputes concerning contractual rights acquired during previous employment by staff members whose contracts have expired (see Arango 2021-UNAT-1120, para. 28). The...

The contested memorandum is not an administrative decision open to challenge as per the definition adopted by the Â鶹APP Administrative Tribunal and the Â鶹APP Appeals Tribunal. The Applicant failed to identify an administrative decision affecting her terms of employment and the contested memorandum concerns a general delegation of authority. Consequently, the application is rejected as not receivable ratione materiae.

As per the account of both parties, previously awarded costs had been paid and, thus, what remained to be considered is if the 2014 contested decision has been fully rescinded or not. The issues at stake are of a medical nature and that is why this Tribunal remanded the matter by Order No. 24 (GVA/2016) so that a Medical Board is convened and a determination on the Applicant¡¯s sick leave entitlements is made. This medical determination is a condition sine qua non for the submission for consideration for a disability benefit by the UNSPC. Contrary to what the Applicant argues, UNJSPF...

- The question at hand is whether the Applicant has been fully reimbursed for her 2019 tax liability, regardless of tax liability share. What affects an Applicant¡¯s terms of employment is the payment of her total tax liability and not how different entities are to cover it. Any issue concerning the division of tax liability is to be dealt with by the Organizations involved, not by the Applicant. - The total amount received by the Applicant equals the undisputed total amount that she was entitled to receive. Consequently, the Applicant has been reimbursed in full for her tax liability.

Considering that the Tribunal¡¯s competence is a matter of law, which may be adjudicated even without serving the application to the Respondent for reply and even if not raised by the parties (see Gehr 2013-UNAT-313; Boutroue UNDT/2014/048), the Tribunal deems it appropriate to decide on the present application by way of summary judgment, as provided for in art. 9 of its Rules of Procedure. The Applicant does not contest an administrative decision taken by the Secretary-General as the Chief Administrative Officer of the Â鶹APP. Moreover, the Tribunal considers that WFP is not one of the...

Pursuant to art. 9 of the Tribunal¡¯s Rules of Procedure and to established jurisprudence, the Tribunal can choose to issue a summary judgment without taking any argument or evidence from the parties as the Tribunal¡¯s Statute prevents it from receiving a case that is not receivable. Likewise, art. 19 provides that it may issue any order or direction that is appropriate for the fair and expeditious disposal of the case. In addition, such provision allows the Tribunal to deal with issues of receivability as a preliminary matter in the interest of judicial economy. Therefore, the Tribunal can...

Whether the facts on which the disciplinary measure was based have been established With respect to Count One, the Tribunal finds that there is clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant did not disclose his spouse¡¯s and his father in law¡¯s involvement with two UNICEF implementing partners, of which the Applicant was the responsible Programme Manager on behalf of UNICEF. In his application, the Applicant does not dispute this fact either. Turning to Count Two, the Tribunal is convinced that the Applicant received a spouse dependency allowance to which he was not entitled. Moreover, the...

Management evaluation of the decision concerning Applicant's share of contribution for medical insurance not filed within the statutory deadline. Consequently, this part of the application is not receivable ratione materiae. Application is receivable concerning the decision concerning the Applicant's share of contribution for the Â鶹APP Joint Staff Pension Fund (UNJSPF). Art. 25.b)i) of the UNJSPF Regulations clearly provides that contributions during SLWOP are paid either 1) in full by the staff member, 2) in full by the employing Organization or 3) partly by the staff member and...

Management evaluation not requested within the statutory deadline. Application not receivable ratione materiae.

As a result of the Applicant's request for management evaluation, the contested decision was rescinded. Therefore, said decision no longer produces legal effects and the application is moot.

The present matter can be determined on a priority basis without first transmitting a copy of the application to the Respondent for a reply as provided for in art. 8.4 of the Tribunal¡¯s Rules of Procedure. There is no nexus between the Applicant¡¯s former employment and the contested decision. Accordingly, the Applicant does not have standing and the application is not receivable ratione personae. Having filed the application pending the response of the management evaluation and prior to the expiry of the relevant response period, the Tribunal is not competent to hear the matter at issue. The...

Regardless of the source of information published in public articles, the decision to issue a press release in response to publications falls, as a matter of principle, within the discretion of the Organization and is a managerial prerogative. Organizations subject to a high level of public scrutiny, which is the case of the UN, have a right to respond to public allegations and to defend their interests, their image, and, ultimately, their work within the boundaries set by their internal law. In the current case, the Tribunal needs to assess if the content of a press release impacted the...

ST/AI/400 explicitly applies to the abandonment of post and sets out the process to be followed under such circumstances. The Applicant's case is not one of abandonment of post but one of unauthorized absence under ST/AI/2005/3. The mere submission of a medical certificate in support of an absence does not suffice. Said certificate must be approved by the respective Medical Service. This has not been so in the Applicant's case, whose medical situation will be examined by a Medical Board pursuant to ST/AI/2019/1, and her placement on SLWOP is not a violation of her rights.

UNDT noted that the Applicant did not assert any right acquired in terms of his previous contract of employment with the Organization. UNDT held that there was no nexus between the Applicant¡¯s former employment and the contested decision. UNDT held that the Applicant did not have standing and that the application was not receivable ratione personae. UNDT rejected the application in its entirety.