Â鶹APP

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 exprim¨¦ sa profonde pr¨¦occupation quant ¨¤ l'absence de motifs suffisants justifiant le choix du candidat retenu plut?t que celui du membre du personnel au moment de la d¨¦cision contest¨¦e.

L'UNAT a constat¨¦ que les consid¨¦rations li¨¦es au genre et ¨¤ la r¨¦partition g¨¦ographique avaient ¨¦t¨¦ appliqu¨¦es de mani¨¨re in¨¦gale dans le processus de s¨¦lection, ¨¦valuant positivement le candidat britannique de sexe masculin tout en ignorant ou en n¨¦gligeant le fait que le membre du personnel ¨¦tait une femme indienne. Contrairement ¨¤ l'article 4.4 du Statut du personnel, qui pr¨¦voit que les...

L'UNAT a estim¨¦ que l'UNDT avait correctement conclu que le retard de 30 mois pris par l'ABCC dans le traitement de la demande d'indemnisation ¨¦tait excessif. Il a estim¨¦ qu'un d¨¦lai raisonnable pour prendre une d¨¦cision dans cette affaire n'aurait pas d? d¨¦passer 24 semaines. Il a estim¨¦ que le retard suppl¨¦mentaire de 24 mois et 13 jours, sans explication ad¨¦quate, ¨¦tait ill¨¦gal et violait l'obligation de l'Administration de traiter les personnes ¨¤ charge du fonctionnaire d¨¦c¨¦d¨¦ de mani¨¨re ¨¦quitable et raisonnable.

En ce qui concerne l'indemnisation accord¨¦e, le TUNU a confirm¨¦ la d¨¦cision...

L'UNAT a not¨¦ que la lettre du membre du personnel concernant sa retraite anticip¨¦e devait ¨ºtre consid¨¦r¨¦e comme une lettre de d¨¦mission. L'UNAT a not¨¦ que quelques mois plus tard, elle avait envoy¨¦ une autre lettre ¨¤ l'Administration demandant le retrait de sa d¨¦mission. L'UNAT a estim¨¦ que le TFP n'avait pas commis d'erreur de droit en identifiant la d¨¦cision contest¨¦e comme ¨¦tant la d¨¦cision de ne pas accepter le retrait de la d¨¦mission de la fonctionnaire, et que l'approche du TFP ne lui avait pas caus¨¦ de pr¨¦judice puisqu'il avait pu examiner tous ses arguments.

L'UNAT a estim¨¦ que la...

The UNAT found that the unexplained delay of almost a year in filing the request for interpretation would alone cause the UNAT to reject it. The UNAT held that, in addition, the request for interpretation lacked a jurisdictional basis. The UNAT found that the staff member had demonstrated no equivocality or lack of clarity of the Judgment.

The UNAT was of the view that the request for execution relied on the staff member¡¯s success in having the earlier Judgment interpreted in the manner he sought and, therefore, his request for execution was moot. The UNAT further noted that the Judgment had...

The UNAT held that the former staff member had a duty to promptly disclose to UNFPA that she was under investigation when she resigned from Oxfam¨Ca fact that it considered relevant to her suitability for the position. It noted that the application form included a specific question about whether she resigned while under investigation, indicating her awareness of the Organisation¡¯s core values. The UNAT also emphasized that her letter of appointment stated that she was responsible for providing any required information during both the application process and subsequent employment.

The UNAT...

The UNAT held that even if it were to consider that his request for management evaluation had not been premature but valid in respect of all the non-payment decisions, the request had been submitted belatedly. The UNAT found that the staff member should have submitted the request for management evaluation within 60 days from receipt of his final pay statement. The UNAT concluded that the UNDT had not erred in finding that his request had not been timely and had not committed an error by obscuring the underlying facts of the case.

The UNAT was of the view that it was unclear what Covid-19...

The UNAT held that the UNDT correctly concluded that the ABCC¡¯s 30-month delay in processing the claim for compensation was excessive. It found that a reasonable delay for decision-making in this claim would have been no more than 24 weeks. It held that the additional delay of 24 months and 13 days, without adequate explanation, was unlawful and violated the Administration¡¯s duty to treat the dependents of the deceased staff member fairly and reasonably.

With respect to the compensation awarded, the UNAT affirmed the UNDT¡¯s award of six months¡¯ net base salary for moral harm. However, the...

The UNAT noted that the staff member¡¯s letter regarding early retirement was to be considered a letter of resignation. The UNAT noted that a few months later she had sent another letter to the Administration requesting to withdraw her resignation. The UNAT found that the UNDT had not erred in law when it identified the contested decision as the decision not to accept the staff member¡¯s withdrawal of her resignation, and the UNDT¡¯s approach had not caused prejudice to her as it had been able to examine all her contentions.

The UNAT held that the staff member¡¯s resignation produced its legal...

The UNAT held that the UNDT did not err in concluding that it was established that the former staff member diverted funds contributed to the Â鶹APP Staff Union to support UN Staff Day to the Â鶹APP Athletic Club (UNAC). The UNAT affirmed that even if the former staff member did not obtain personal gain, she misused her office for the private gain of a third party, the UNAC, which constituted misconduct.

The UNAT held that irrespective of what the former staff member¡¯s work environment was like, it cannot justify misconduct.

The UNAT further held that any form of dishonest...

The UNAT held that the staff member knew all the relevant facts and was sufficiently made aware and properly notified of the contested decision by at least 18 May 2023 for the purpose of filing a timely request for management evaluation. However, the staff member did not file his request for management evaluation until 16 September 2023, which was beyond the 60 day time limit.

The UNAT observed that the subject line of the e-mail exchanges in August 2023 between the Administration and the staff member, were requests ¡°to clarify¡± the basis of an administrative decision that had been taken...

The UNAT noted that ABD¡¯s appeal was filed within 60 days of the Order¡¯s issuance, but more than 30 days after that event. Given that under Article 7(1)(c) of the UNAT Statute, a party has 30 days to appeal an order, ABD was out of time to appeal against the impugned UNDT Order.

The UNAT dismissed the appeal as not receivable.

The UNAT held that the UNDT had erred by failing to grant the remedy under Article 10(5)(a) of the UNDT Statute after it had found that the disciplinary decision was unlawful. The UNDT erred by refusing to rescind the contested decision on the grounds that the staff member had abused the judicial process. The UNAT remanded the case to the UNDT for determination of the appropriate remedy.

The UNAT agreed with the UNDT that the former staff member had manifestly abused the judicial process by filing forged documents before that Tribunal. However, the UNAT held that the UNDT had erred in the...

The UNAT expressed serious concern about the lack of a sufficient record of reasons supporting the choice of the selected candidate over the staff member at the time of the contested decision.

The UNAT found that gender and geographical considerations were unevenly applied in the selection exercise, positively assessing the British male while ignoring or discounting that the staff member was an Indian female. Contrary to Staff Regulation 4.4, in which the fullest regard should be given to internal candidates, the UNAT found that her UN experience was used to disadvantage her. The UNAT also...

L'UNAT a not¨¦ que la demande de mutation du membre du personnel avait ¨¦t¨¦ approuv¨¦e par le bureau ext¨¦rieur de Cisjordanie, mais que le bureau ext¨¦rieur de Jordanie avait par la suite inform¨¦ que la demande ne pouvait ¨ºtre accept¨¦e en raison d'un engagement pris dans le cadre de la feuille de route concernant l'embauche de travailleurs journaliers ¨¤ des postes ¨¤ dur¨¦e d¨¦termin¨¦e.

L'UNAT a estim¨¦ que le Commissaire g¨¦n¨¦ral avait d¨¦montr¨¦ les efforts d¨¦ploy¨¦s par les deux bureaux ext¨¦rieurs pour traiter la demande de transfert et que l'Agence s'¨¦tait acquitt¨¦e de son obligation de prouver que la...

The UNAT noted that the staff member¡¯s transfer request had been approved by the West Bank Field Office but the Jordan Field Office had subsequently informed that the request could not be accommodated due to a commitment to the roadmap on hiring daily-paid workers in fixed-term posts.

The UNAT held that the Commissioner-General had demonstrated the efforts made by both Field Offices to process the transfer request and the Agency¡¯s burden to show that the request had been given full and fair consideration was satisfied. The UNAT found that the staff member had not discharged the burden of...

Le TANU a not¨¦ qu'au vu des multiples demandes concurrentes de transfert lat¨¦ral, l'agent n'avait pas ¨¦t¨¦ l'un des candidats recommand¨¦s et s¨¦lectionn¨¦s pour le poste parce que ses responsabilit¨¦s ¨¦taient diff¨¦rentes des fonctions du poste demand¨¦, et que l'Agence recherchait des candidats plus familiers avec ces fonctions.

Le TANU a estim¨¦ qu'en vertu des dispositions l¨¦gales r¨¦gissant les transferts lat¨¦raux, lues ensemble et non s¨¦par¨¦ment, l'Agence avait ¨¦t¨¦ autoris¨¦e ¨¤ fonder son ¨¦valuation sur l'aptitude des candidats ¨¤ occuper le poste plut?t que sur l'anciennet¨¦, les raisons imp¨¦rieuses...

Le TANU a estim¨¦ que le Tribunal avait commis une erreur de fait, entra?nant une d¨¦cision manifestement d¨¦raisonnable, lorsqu'il a constat¨¦ qu'une d¨¦cision de licenciement avait ¨¦t¨¦ prise le 1er avril 2022. ? cet ¨¦gard, le TANU a constat¨¦ que la d¨¦cision de placer une note dans le dossier administratif de l'ancien fonctionnaire avait ¨¦t¨¦ prise le 1er avril 2022, mais que la d¨¦cision de licenciement avait en fait ¨¦t¨¦ prise le 11 mars 2022. Par cons¨¦quent, le TANU aurait d? identifier l'une ou l'autre d¨¦cision comme ¨¦tant la d¨¦cision contest¨¦e, mais il a commis une erreur en suivant l...

Le TANU a rejet¨¦ les nouveaux ¨¦l¨¦ments de preuve pr¨¦sent¨¦s pour la premi¨¨re fois en appel, qui visaient ¨¤ justifier l'introduction tardive de l'affaire en l'attribuant ¨¤ la situation personnelle de l'avocat du requ¨¦rant.

Le TANU est d'avis que les membres du personnel doivent g¨¦n¨¦ralement respecter les d¨¦lais fix¨¦s. Toutefois, en l'esp¨¨ce, le TANU a estim¨¦ que l'UNDT avait commis une erreur de fait et de droit en rejetant la demande de M. Khan au motif qu'elle n'¨¦tait pas recevable ratione temporis. Il a conclu que les circonstances exceptionnelles de M. Khan - notamment de graves inondations...

Le TANU a estim¨¦ que l'ancienne fonctionnaire n'avait aucune esp¨¦rance l¨¦gitime de renouvellement de son engagement ¨¤ dur¨¦e d¨¦termin¨¦e, ¨¦tant donn¨¦ qu'il n'y avait aucune preuve que l'administration avait fait une promesse expresse qui aurait pu cr¨¦er une telle esp¨¦rance. Au contraire, le TANU a constat¨¦ que l'administration avait d?ment inform¨¦ tous les membres du personnel concern¨¦s, y compris l'ancienne employ¨¦e, de la date de fin du projet MADAD et qu'elle avait publi¨¦ 15 postes d'employ¨¦s de bureau en interne, en invitant le personnel ¨¤ postuler ¨¤ d'autres postes. Le TANU a ¨¦galement...