Â鶹APP

L'UNAT a estim¨¦ que la seule question en appel ¨¦tait de savoir si le TUDN avait commis une erreur en jugeant la sanction disciplinaire suppl¨¦mentaire disproportionn¨¦e et en l'annulant. Il a soulign¨¦ qu'en vertu de l'article 10.3 b) du R¨¨glement du personnel, les sanctions doivent ¨ºtre proportionn¨¦es, mais que l'Administration jouit d'un large pouvoir discr¨¦tionnaire en mati¨¨re disciplinaire, sous r¨¦serve d'un contr?le judiciaire quant ¨¤ la l¨¦galit¨¦, la rationalit¨¦ et la proportionnalit¨¦.

Le TUNAT a estim¨¦ que le TUDN avait outrepass¨¦ ses pouvoirs en substituant son propre avis ¨¤ celui du...

L'UNAT a not¨¦ que le fonctionnaire figurait en t¨ºte de la liste des candidats recommand¨¦s, mais a estim¨¦ que le Haut-Commissaire n'¨¦tait pas tenu de le s¨¦lectionner, car tous les candidats figurant sur la liste avaient ¨¦t¨¦ jug¨¦s aptes ¨¤ exercer les fonctions du poste.

L'UNAT a conclu que le fonctionnaire n'avait pas fourni, dans son recours, de raison convaincante expliquant pourquoi et comment une audience devant le TFP aurait pu influencer la d¨¦cision rendue dans cette affaire.

Le TUNAT a estim¨¦ que le fonctionnaire n'avait pas re?u une note de performance erron¨¦e et que le TDPI n'avait pas...

L'UNAT a observ¨¦ que le Secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral avait choisi de limiter la port¨¦e de son appel aux seules conclusions du TDPI concernant deux des neuf cas de faute pr¨¦sum¨¦e commise par l'ancien fonctionnaire. L'UNAT a en outre reconnu que le Secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral soutenait que le TDPI avait commis une erreur de droit en appliquant les crit¨¨res juridiques relatifs au harc¨¨lement et au harc¨¨lement sexuel aux deux incidents.

N¨¦anmoins, le TUNAS a estim¨¦ que pour trancher la question en appel, il ne suffisait pas d'appliquer simplement le crit¨¨re juridique correct. Pour parvenir ¨¤ une conclusion, il ne...

Le Tribunal d'appel a estim¨¦ que la d¨¦cision de l'Administration de ne pas enqu¨ºter davantage sur les all¨¦gations de M. Lutfiev ¨¤ l'encontre de son ancien chef de cabinet ¨¦tait justifi¨¦e, ¨¦tant donn¨¦ que ce dernier n'¨¦tait plus membre du personnel de l'UNRWA.

En outre, le Tribunal d'appel a estim¨¦ que la d¨¦cision du Tribunal disciplinaire de l'UNRWA annulant la cessation de service de M. Lutfiev avait ¨¦t¨¦ prise ¨¤ tort. Le Tribunal du contentieux a appliqu¨¦ une m¨¦thodologie erron¨¦e ¨¤ l'examen des motifs de la cessation de service de M. Lutfiev et n'a pas proc¨¦d¨¦ ¨¤ ce que l'on appelle l'examen...

The UNAT held that the UNDT correctly determined that the former staff member¡¯s claims for compensation under Appendix D based on UNAMID living conditions were not receivable because he had not exhausted mandatory medical review remedies. The UNAT reaffirmed the principle that staff members must exhaust internal remedies before resorting to litigation.

The UNAT further held that the UNDT erred in reviewing the merits of the x?ray machine injury claim while a medical board review was pending. The UNAT found that both elements of the Appendix D claim were premature and should have been declared...

The UNAT held that the UNDT erred in dismissing both applications as not receivable. Regarding the first application, UNAT found that the Settlement Agreement encompassed all disciplinary sanctions imposed on 9 December 2022, including the deferment of eligibility for salary increment. Therefore, the UNDT was wrong to conclude that the deferment was outside the scope of the Agreement and that the Agreement had been fully implemented. The application for enforcement was properly receivable.

As to the second application, UNAT held that the Administration¡¯s interpretation of the Settlement...

L'UNAT a estim¨¦ que l'UNDT n'avait pas commis d'erreur en concluant que la demande d'indemnisation d'ATR en tant que victime de harc¨¨lement sexuel n'¨¦tait pas recevable, car la d¨¦cision administrative contest¨¦e ne concernait pas l'indemnisation et le cadre juridique applicable ne pr¨¦voyait pas un tel droit. Le TUNU a not¨¦ que, bien que l'article 10(5)(b) du Statut du TUDN autorise l'indemnisation du pr¨¦judice, ce recours doit ¨ºtre li¨¦ ¨¤ la d¨¦cision administrative faisant l'objet du recours, qui dans le cas pr¨¦sent concernait la divulgation de mesures disciplinaires et non une indemnisation.

Le...

L'UNAT a estim¨¦ que le TSD avait correctement exerc¨¦ son pouvoir discr¨¦tionnaire en rejetant les all¨¦gations de racisme au sein de la CAF formul¨¦es par l'ancien fonctionnaire, ainsi que son affirmation selon laquelle son avocat avait ¨¦t¨¦ trait¨¦ de mani¨¨re injuste lors de l'audience du TSD, et en rejetant sa demande de citer l'enqu¨ºteur ¨¤ compara?tre. N¨¦anmoins, l'UNAT a conclu que le TSD avait commis une erreur en concluant que les faits ¨¤ l'origine de la faute pr¨¦sum¨¦e avaient ¨¦t¨¦ prouv¨¦s par des ¨¦l¨¦ments de preuve clairs et convaincants, en particulier dans son ¨¦valuation de la cr¨¦dibilit¨¦...

L'UNAT a estim¨¦ que l'UNDT n'avait pas commis d'erreur en concluant que l'Administration avait l¨¦galement impos¨¦ la mesure disciplinaire consistant en un d¨¦classement d'un ¨¦chelon avec report de trois ans de l'¨¦ligibilit¨¦ ¨¤ la promotion et une formation ¨¤ la sensibilit¨¦ au genre. Le TUNAT a estim¨¦ que le TUD avait correctement appliqu¨¦ le cadre juridique applicable, notamment l'article 1.2 f) du R¨¨glement du personnel et la circulaire ST/SGB/2008/5, en concluant que le comportement du fonctionnaire, ¨¤ savoir une remarque inappropri¨¦e faisant r¨¦f¨¦rence ¨¤ la nudit¨¦ et un geste de caresse, l...

L'UNAT a not¨¦ que plusieurs mois apr¨¨s le d¨¦c¨¨s du participant au Fonds, l'appelant avait produit des formulaires Pens.A/2 visant ¨¤ modifier la d¨¦signation du b¨¦n¨¦ficiaire du r¨¨glement r¨¦siduel, sign¨¦s d'une empreinte digitale et non de la signature du participant. L'UNAT a ¨¦galement pris note des preuves m¨¦dicales attestant des signes de d¨¦mence du participant.

L'UNAT a conclu que l'appelant n'avait fourni aucune preuve ¨¤ l'appui de l'affirmation selon laquelle les capacit¨¦s mentales du participant s'¨¦taient am¨¦lior¨¦es au moment o¨´ il avait appos¨¦ son empreinte digitale sur les formulaires...

L'UNAT a estim¨¦ que l'UNDT avait commis une erreur en concluant que les performances de l'ancienne fonctionnaire n'avaient pas ¨¦t¨¦ ¨¦valu¨¦es de mani¨¨re ¨¦quitable et objective. Il a constat¨¦ qu'elle savait que son accord de t¨¦l¨¦travail ¨¦tait temporaire et qu'elle s'¨¦tait n¨¦anmoins pr¨¦sent¨¦e ¨¤ son lieu d'affectation aux Fidji quelques mois plus tard seulement. Il a soulign¨¦ que son retard dans la demande de paiement d'une indemnit¨¦ forfaitaire de voyage et dans la demande de visa pour sa m¨¨re ne justifiait pas son absence de pr¨¦sentation en temps voulu. Le TUNAT a confirm¨¦ que, pour ¨¦valuer...

L'UNAT a estim¨¦ que l'UNDT n'avait pas commis d'erreur en concluant que la demande de l'ancien fonctionnaire n'¨¦tait pas recevable ratione materiae car il n'avait pas tent¨¦ de r¨¦soudre le litige par l'interm¨¦diaire du Bureau du M¨¦diateur des Fonds et programmes des Nations Unies, comme l'exigeait explicitement l'accord de r¨¨glement qu'il avait express¨¦ment accept¨¦. Le TUNU a estim¨¦ que les termes de l'accord de r¨¨glement restaient contraignants et ex¨¦cutoires pour les parties, et que le TNDU n'avait commis aucune erreur en obligeant les parties ¨¤ respecter ces termes.

Le TUNO a en outre estim¨¦...

The UNAT held that the only issue on appeal was whether the UNDT erred in finding the additional disciplinary sanction disproportionate and rescinding it. It emphasized that under Staff Rule 10.3(b), sanctions must be proportionate, but the Administration enjoys broad discretion in disciplinary matters, subject to judicial review for lawfulness, rationality, and proportionality.

The UNAT found that the UNDT exceeded its authority by substituting its own opinion for that of the Secretary-General. It noted that the Administration had considered all relevant factors, including the seriousness of...

The UNAT noted that months after the death of the participant in the Fund, the Appellant had produced Pens.A/2 forms purporting to change the designation of the beneficiary of the residual settlement, executed by a thumbprint and not the participant¡¯s signature. The UNAT also noted the medical evidence of signs of the participant¡¯s dementia.

The UNAT found that the Appellant had provided no evidence to support the contention that the participant¡¯s mental capacity had improved by the time of thumbprinting the later forms. The UNAT held that the Fund had not erred when it found those forms...

The UNAT noted that the staff member had been ranked first on the list of recommended candidates but held that the High Commissioner had been under no obligation to select him, since all the candidates included in the list had been deemed suitable to carry out the functions of the post.

The UNAT found that the staff member had given no convincing reason on appeal as to why and how an oral hearing before the UNDT would have impacted the decision of the case.

The UNAT found that the staff member had not received a wrong performance rating and that the UNDT had not misrepresented or failed to give...

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-pronged...

The UNAT observed that the Secretary-General elected to limit the scope of his appeal only against the findings of the UNDT with respect to two of nine instances of alleged misconduct by the former staff member. The UNAT further acknowledged that the Secretary-General¡¯s contention was that the UNDT erred in law when it applied the legal tests for harassment and sexual harassment to the two incidents.

Nonetheless, the UNAT held that to determine the issue on appeal required more than simply an application of the correct legal test. To reach any conclusions requires more than simply regard to...

The UNAT held that the UNDT did not err in finding that ATR¡¯s claim for compensation as a victim of sexual harassment was not receivable because the contested administrative decision did not concern compensation and the applicable legal framework does not provide for such entitlement. The UNAT noted that while Article 10(5)(b) of the UNDT Statute allows for compensation for harm, this remedy must relate to the administrative decision under review, which in this case concerned disclosure of disciplinary measures, not compensation.

The UNAT further held that the UNDT exceeded its jurisdiction in...

The UNAT held that the UNDT properly exercised its discretion in excluding the former staff member¡¯s allegations of racism within the CAF and his claim that his counsel was treated unfairly during the UNDT hearing, as well as in denying his request to call the investigator to testify. Nevertheless, the UNAT concluded that the UNDT erred in finding that the facts underlying the alleged misconduct had been proven by clear and convincing evidence, particularly in its assessment of the credibility of the witnesses.

Regarding V01¡¯s allegations, the UNAT found that the UNDT improperly explained away...

The UNAT held that the UNDT did not err in concluding that the Administration lawfully imposed the disciplinary measure of demotion by one grade with deferment for three years of promotion eligibility and gender?sensitivity training. The UNAT found that the UNDT correctly applied the governing legal framework, including Staff Rule 1.2(f) and ST/SGB/2008/5, in determining that the staff member¡¯s conduct, an inappropriate remark referencing nudity and a stroking gesture, physical intimidation of a colleague, and leering at female staff, constituted sexual harassment and workplace harassment.

The...