Â鶹APP

UNAT a accord¨¦ la demande de correction. Le tribunal a d¨¦clar¨¦ que l'identification erron¨¦e du sup¨¦rieur ¨¦tait une erreur accidentelle et ¨¦tait en fait incorrecte. Le Tribunal, cependant, a ajout¨¦ que cette erreur avait peu ou pas d'incidence sur l'issue de l'affaire. En ce qui concerne la demande d'explications plus approfondies sur le jugement, UNAT a rejet¨¦ la demande concluant que le jugement est compr¨¦hensible et qu'il s'agissait d'une simple tentative du membre du personnel de critiquer le jugement.

UNDT a constat¨¦ correctement que la demande de Mme Mokrova n'¨¦tait pas ¨¤ recevoir Ratione Materiae parce qu'elle a d¨¦pos¨¦ une demande d'¨¦valuation de la gestion au-del¨¤ des 60 jours de notification de la d¨¦cision contest¨¦e par le sous-secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral du DSS.

Les preuves d'erreurs de proc¨¦dure et d'irr¨¦gularit¨¦s ont soutenu les conclusions de fait du Tribunal des disputes qui ont conduit ¨¤ la conclusion justifiable selon laquelle, si les irr¨¦gularit¨¦s n'avaient pas eu lieu, M. Russo-Got avait une chance de s¨¦lection pr¨¦visible et significative compte tenu de ses qualifications. L'approche adopt¨¦e par undt et par laquelle UNT a ¨¦valu¨¦ MR.; Les chances de Russo-Got d'¨ºtre s¨¦lectionn¨¦es pour le poste comme une sur cinq ¨¦taient raisonnables. En l'absence d'erreurs de fait ou de loi par undt, Unat d¨¦forme sa discr¨¦tion dans l'attribution et la...

Unat a refus¨¦ les deux candidatures. En ce qui concerne la demande d'interpr¨¦tation, le tribunal a jug¨¦ que le jugement majoritaire ¨¦tait clair et sans ambigu?t¨¦ dans son sens, ne laissant aucune confusion ou doute raisonnable sur ses conclusions ou raisons. Le Tribunal a constat¨¦ qu'il s'agissait d'une mani¨¨re d¨¦guis¨¦e par le membre du personnel de critiquer ou de d¨¦saccord avec le jugement. En ce qui concerne la demande de r¨¦vision, UNAT a expliqu¨¦ que le membre du personnel n'avait pas identifi¨¦ de fait d¨¦cisif qui ¨¦tait inconnu au moment du jugement. Au lieu de cela, le membre du personnel...

Inscrit en d¨¦saccord avec UNDT et a constat¨¦ que la proc¨¦dure ¨¦tablie dans les r¨¦glementations et les r¨¨gles du personnel n'a pas ¨¦t¨¦ correctement suivie, car telle l'exclusion par le Secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral du membre du personnel du processus de s¨¦lection n'¨¦tait pas l¨¦gale, rationnelle, correcte de mani¨¨re proc¨¦durale ou proportionn¨¦e. Unat a d'abord jug¨¦ que UNDT avait commis une erreur lorsqu'il a jug¨¦ que l'e-mail d'invitation respect¨¦ l'exigence d'avance ¨¤ l'avance. UNAT a estim¨¦ que le jour de l'¨¦v¨¦nement (la r¨¦ception de l'e-mail) ne peut pas ¨ºtre compt¨¦ dans le calcul du nombre de jours...

Unat a jug¨¦ que l'appel du membre du personnel ¨¦tait d¨¦fectueux parce qu'elle ne pr¨¦cisait pas quelles erreurs ont ¨¦t¨¦ commises par un unistr dt en arrivant ¨¤ son jugement. Cependant, ¨¦tant donn¨¦ que le membre du personnel n'¨¦tait pas l¨¦galement repr¨¦sent¨¦, UNAT a ensuite examin¨¦ le fond de l'appel. Unat a jug¨¦ que l'UNRWA DT ne s'est pas tromp¨¦ lorsqu'il a jug¨¦ que le membre du personnel n'avait aucun droit d'¨ºtre nomm¨¦ et que la recommandation du chef RH ne m?rit pas dans un droit ex¨¦cutoire. Deuxi¨¨mement, Unat a jug¨¦ qu'il n'y avait aucun droit de recevoir des heures suppl¨¦mentaires, car...

UNAT agreed with the UNRWA DT that the contested decision was a lawful exercise of discretion. Regarding the Appellant¡¯s claim that the process was tainted because of the lapse of time since the complained of behavior occurred (ten years) and because of the hearsay nature of the evidence, UNAT explained that these same arguments were made both to the DT and to the Administration during the investigation phase. The Tribunal agreed with the UNRWA DT that there was sufficient corroborating evidence to back the allegations. The Tribunal also noted that it is within the UNRWA DT¡¯s role to review...

UNAT considered an appeal by Mr. Kennedy. UNAT found that the sanction letter and record provided inadequate reasons for judicial review leading to the finding that no rational connection or relationship between the evidence and the objective of the disciplinary action has been established. As a result, UNAT was unable to assess the proportionality and lawfulness of the imposition of the disciplinary sanctions.

UNAT considered an appeal by Ms. Patkar. UNAT dismissed the Appellant's argument that the UNDT erred in fact, law or failed to exercise its jurisdiction in concluding that the Appellant had not been granted sick leave that was then terminated or retracted. The MSD email to the Appellant concerned an evaluation of her fitness to work based on the medical report she had submitted and there was no evidence that the UNOPS Administration had approved such leave. UNAT further held that that the Appellant¡¯s entitlement to sick leave did not outlive the expiration of the fixed-term appointment as...

As a preliminary matter, UNAT denied the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing. UNAT held that the Appellant failed to discharge his burden of showing that the UNDT Judgment was defective or identifying grounds for appeal. In addition, UNAT held there was no basis for vacating the UNDT Judgment. UNAT held that the Appellant did not specifically contest the UNDT¡¯s findings on receivability and that receivability was not therefore an issue before it. UNAT held that even if receivability was an issue before it, there was nothing provided by the Appellant to suggest that UNDT erred in its...

UNAT held that the Appellant did not meet the burden of showing that the UNDT Judgment was defective on the grounds outlined in Article 2(1) of the UNAT Statute. UNAT held that UNDT fully and fairly considered the Appellant¡¯s allegations and there was no error of law or fact in the UNDT Judgment. UNAT held that there was no evidence that the Appellant¡¯s gender or status of being on maternity leave factored into the decision not to renew her contract. UNAT held that the reasons proffered by the Administration for not renewing the Appellant¡¯s fixed-term appointment, namely the lack of funding...

UNAT agreed that the application was not receivable ratione materiae. The Tribunal explained that on 21 March 2019, it had become clear to the staff member that the Agency had not shortlisted her for these two posts. This information was confirmed on 21 March 2019 by HR to the staff member. The Tribunal also noted that there were nothing in the communications between the parties indicating that the matter would be reopened or reconsidered. Furthermore, the subsequent email from HR on 8 April 2019 detailing the reasons why she was not selected was not a new administrative decision but rather a...

UNAT noted that, although the appeal was technically inadequate because the Appellants had failed to specifically identify the errors allegedly committed by the UNRWA DT, it had previously recognised that if an appellant was not legally represented some latitude may be allowed in the interests of justice. Accordingly, UNAT held that it would review the merits of the appeal. UNAT held that the UNRWA DT erred on a question of fact that resulted in a manifestly unreasonable decision by failing to consider the full application and the question of when the Appellants received notification of the...

UNAT found that the UNRWA DT did not err in concluding that the Agency had failed to observe its own regulatory framework and failed to act lawfully, reasonably and fairly in exercising its discretion. The discretion of the Commissioner-General to reject a request for these benefits such as EVS is not unfettered.

The Dispute Tribunal committed an error in procedure by relying on ex parte evidence in the form of three doctors¡¯ notes, of which the Secretary-General received the translated copies only two days before the issuance of the impugned Judgment, in violation of audi alteram partem. The Dispute Tribunal failed to consider the ¡°checks and balances to ensure transparency¡± instituted in established procedures as outlined in the Guidelines and the ability of the Applicant to raise timely concerns about potential bias after the interview. As there is no obligation to provide the names of the...

UNAT found the UNDT correctly reviewed and rescinded the contested decision because of the procedural irregularities encountered during the investigation. But in addition to the procedural issues, UNAT also noted there were other significant errors. The Tribunal found that the panel erred when it sought to determine the Medical Officer¡¯s intent during the breast examination. The panel had previously concluded that there was no clear and convincing evidence that the actions of the Medical Officer during the breast examination were sexual in nature. Referring to Section 1.3 of ST/SGB/2008/5, the...

UNAT granted the application for correction. The Tribunal stated that the misidentification of the superior was an accidental error and was factually incorrect. The Tribunal, however, added that this error had little or no bearing on the outcome of the case. Regarding the request for further explanation on the Judgment, UNAT dismissed the request finding that the Judgment is comprehensible and that this was a mere attempt by the staff member to criticize the Judgment.

UNAT denied both applications. Regarding the application for interpretation, the Tribunal held that the Majority Judgment was clear and unambiguous in its meaning, leaving no confusion or reasonable doubt about its conclusions or reasons. The Tribunal found that it was a disguised way by the staff member to criticize or disagree with the Judgment. Regarding the application for revision, UNAT explained that the staff member did not identify a decisive fact that was unknown at the time of the Judgment. Instead, the staff member referred to events that occurred subsequent to the Judgment. As such...

The Tribunals do not have reviewability of ICSC decisions, they do have jurisdiction to review the Secretary-General¡¯s mechanical power in implementing such decisions on narrow grounds for legality. The ICSC decision to adjust the salary scale and post-adjustment allowance multiplier was not a reviewable decision. The Secretary-General¡¯s implementation of that decision was an administrative decision as it was not a general policy but had adverse individual impact per staff member via their payslips and was therefore receivable. While receivable the ICSC decision remained not reviewable for...

UNAT agreed that the Secretary-General has implied discretion to revoke benefits if a staff member does not satisfactorily furnish evidence of continued eligibility of existing entitlements, which may arise because of a change in circumstances. UNAT also found that UNDT did not err when it held that the legal frameworks for the two benefit systems are different and that the decisions made under the two legal regimes need not be consistent. Article 33 of the UNSPF Regulations does not require proof of a loss of earning capacity and the requirement of ¡°incapacitation¡± is a purely medical...