Â鶹APP

The UNAT found that the UNDT made several errors of law and of fact leading to a manifestly unreasonable outcome.

In particular, the UNAT found that the UNDT erred in refusing to hold a hearing of evidence that Mr. Nkoyock sought to call to establish his defence to the allegations against him and to impeach the Secretary-General¡¯s witnesses. The UNDT further erred when it failed to reach its own conclusions on disputed facts and relied overly on the internal investigation¡¯s findings. The UNAT found that the UNDT also erred in relying on evidence that it had ruled irrelevant and inadmissible...

L'UNAT a examin¨¦ un appel du Secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral de l'OMM. L'UNAT a estim¨¦ que le fonctionnaire cherchait ¨¤ adh¨¦rer ¨¤ une modification convenue de son contrat qui, en ¨¦change d'un raccourcissement de sa dur¨¦e d'emploi, lui donnait droit ¨¤ une indemnit¨¦ de licenciement.

L'UNAT a not¨¦ que le Tribunal avait eu raison d'¨¦tablir comme condition de recevabilit¨¦ l'effet direct et n¨¦gatif provoqu¨¦ par la mise en ?uvre de la d¨¦cision contest¨¦e. L¡¯UNAT ¨¦tait d¡¯avis que la d¨¦cision de l¡¯OMM visant ¨¤ r¨¦silier son accord affectait les projets professionnels et personnels ¨¦tablis par le fonctionnaire...

The UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General of WMO.

The UNAT found that the staff member was seeking to adhere to an agreed variation to his contract which, in return for foreshortening his period of employment, entitled him to a termination indemnity. The UNAT noted that the UNDT had been correct in establishing a direct and negative effect, brought about by the implementation of the contested decision, as a condition for receivability.

The UNAT was of the view that WMO¡¯s decision purporting to rescind its agreement affected the staff member¡¯s established career and personal...

L'UNAT a estim¨¦ que le voyage de la requ¨¦rante n'¨¦tait pas autoris¨¦ en vertu de l'article 7.10 du R¨¨glement du personnel car elle n'avait b¨¦n¨¦fici¨¦ que d'un seul jour de cong¨¦ annuel approuv¨¦ le 24 juin 2021, suivi d'une p¨¦riode de repos et de repos du 12 juillet au 16 juillet 2021. L'UNAT a ¨¦galement conclu que le L'administration a pris les mesures appropri¨¦es en lui envoyant le 25 juillet 2021 un e-mail lui rappelant que tous les membres du personnel international devaient soumettre leur demande de renouvellement de visa soudanais dans les d¨¦lais.

L¡¯UNAT a estim¨¦ que les ¨¦v¨¦nements qui ont...

The UNAT held that the Appellant¡¯s travel was not authorized pursuant to Staff Rule 7.10 because she had just one approved day of annual leave on 24 June 2021 followed by a period of R&R from the 12 July to 16 July 2021. The UNAT also found that the Administration took the appropriate action by sending her on 25 July 2021 an e-mail reminding her that all the international staff members had to submit their Sudanese visa renewal application in a timely manner. The UNAT held that the events that delayed the Appellant¡¯s return to her duty station could not be construed as force majeure as they...

L'UNAT a estim¨¦ que la d¨¦cision d'annuler la proc¨¦dure de nomination et d'en engager une nouvelle relevait clairement du pouvoir discr¨¦tionnaire de l'Administration. Une nouvelle proc¨¦dure de nomination ayant ¨¦t¨¦ engag¨¦e, il n¡¯y avait plus de d¨¦cision administrative pr¨¦tendument non conforme aux conditions d¡¯engagement ou au contrat de travail d¡¯AAP. Tout diff¨¦rend concernant le processus de nomination initial ¨¦tait sans objet dans le sens o¨´ il n'y avait aucune question en litige qui exigeait une d¨¦cision du Tribunal. L¡¯UNAT a estim¨¦ que le Tribunal avait ¨¤ juste titre rejet¨¦ la requ¨ºte d¡¯AAP...

The UNAT held that the decision to cancel the appointment process and initiate a new process was one which fell squarely within the discretionary authority of the Administration. Given that a new appointment process had been embarked upon, there was no longer any administrative decision alleged to be in non-compliance with AAP¡¯s terms of appointment or contract of employment. Any dispute concerned with the initial appointment process was moot in the sense that there was no live issue in dispute which required determination by the UNDT. The UNAT held that the UNDT correctly dismissed AAP¡¯s...

L'UNAT a estim¨¦ que l'UNDT avait commis une erreur en estimant que l'administration avait mal interpr¨¦t¨¦ l'une des exigences pour le poste annonc¨¦ dans le JO 127555, ¨¤ savoir ? l'exp¨¦rience dans la direction de grandes ¨¦quipes ?, comme exigeant une exp¨¦rience de la supervision directe de 10 personnes ou plus. L¡¯UNAT a en outre estim¨¦ que l¡¯avis de vacance permettait une interpr¨¦tation contextuelle dans la mesure o¨´ le sens litt¨¦ral du terme ? diriger ? est tr¨¨s g¨¦n¨¦ral et ne permet pas, en soi, de comprendre exactement le sens voulu. Par cons¨¦quent, l¡¯UNAT a estim¨¦ qu¡¯il ¨¦tait raisonnable pour...

The UNAT held that the UNDT erred in holding that the Administration misinterpreted one of the requirements for the position advertised in JO 127555, namely ¡°experience in leading large teams¡±, as requiring experience of direct supervision of 10 people or more. The UNAT further found that the vacancy announcement allowed for a such contextual interpretation as the literal meaning of ¡°lead¡± is very general and does not, by itself, allow for an exact comprehension of the intended meaning. Therefore, the UNAT held that it was reasonable for the Administration to interpret the requirement of...

L'UNAT a estim¨¦ que l'appel contre les deux ordonnances interlocutoires ¨¦tait devenu sans objet apr¨¨s le prononc¨¦ du jugement n¡ã UNDT/2022/124 et que l'UNDT n'avait pas commis d'erreur en rendant son jugement pendant la dur¨¦e de cet appel. L'UNAT a n¨¦anmoins observ¨¦ que l'UNDT avait commis une erreur de droit en imposant un d¨¦lai d¨¦raisonnablement court pour se conformer ¨¤ l'ordonnance n¡ã 157 (NBI/2022). Malgr¨¦ cela, l'UNAT a conclu que, la proc¨¦dure ¨¦tant irrecevable, cette conclusion n'¨¦tait pas d'une grande aide pour l'appelant dans sa cause. Concernant l'ordonnance n¡ã 158 (NBI/2022), l...

The UNAT held that the appeal against the two interlocutory Orders became moot following the issuance of Judgment No. UNDT/2022/124 and that the UNDT did not err in delivering its Judgment during the pendency of that appeal. The UNAT nevertheless observed that the UNDT erred in law by imposing an unreasonably short period for compliance with Order No. 157 (NBI/2022). Despite this, the UNAT concluded that, as the proceeding was unreceivable, this finding did not assist the Appellant in his case. With regard to Order No. 158 (NBI/2022), the UNAT held that the UNDT rightfully refused to...

L'UNAT a rejet¨¦ l'appel, sans pr¨¦judice.

L¡¯UNAT a not¨¦ que le recours de M. Radu concernait la d¨¦cision administrative du 8 novembre 2021 concernant sa cessation de service pendant un arr¨ºt de maladie certifi¨¦.

L'UNAT a en outre not¨¦ qu'un recours distinct de M. Radu, d'abord devant la Commission de recours et maintenant devant l'UNAT, concernait cette m¨ºme d¨¦cision administrative du 8 novembre 2021 sur le fond, ¨¤ savoir la mesure disciplinaire de cessation de service pour la faute all¨¦gu¨¦e ( Cas UNAT n¡ã 2023-1804).

L'UNAT a estim¨¦ que la d¨¦cision attaqu¨¦e de la Commission de recours dans...

The UNAT dismissed the appeal, without prejudice.

The UNAT noted that Mr. Radu¡¯s appeal concerned the administrative decision of 8 November 2021 in respect of his separation from service during certified sick leave.

The UNAT further noted that a separate appeal by Mr. Radu, first before the Appeals Board and now before the UNAT, concerned that same administrative decision of 8 November 2021 on its merits, i.e. the disciplinary measure of separation from service for the alleged misconduct (UNAT Case No. 2023-1804).

The UNAT found that the impugned Appeals Board Decision in this case was not...

L¡¯UNAT a observ¨¦ qu¡¯aucune des parties n¡¯avait demand¨¦ si la requ¨ºte d¡¯AAQ ¨¦tait recevable devant le Tribunal. L'UNAT a n¨¦anmoins estim¨¦ que, s'agissant d'une question de comp¨¦tence, elle ¨¦tait oblig¨¦e de la soulever elle-m¨ºme. L¡¯UNAT a not¨¦ qu¡¯en vertu de l¡¯article 2(1)(a) du Statut du TDNU, le membre du personnel ¨¦tait tenu d¡¯identifier une d¨¦cision administrative qui serait pr¨¦sum¨¦e non conforme aux conditions d¡¯engagement ou au contrat de travail. En outre, selon une jurisprudence constante, la d¨¦cision administrative doit avoir un effet ¨¤ la fois direct et n¨¦gatif sur l'emploi du...

? titre pr¨¦liminaire, l¡¯UNAT a rejet¨¦ la demande d¡¯audience de M. Qassem. L'UNAT a estim¨¦ que les questions factuelles et juridiques soulev¨¦es par l'appel avaient ¨¦t¨¦ clairement d¨¦finies par les parties et qu'en outre, une audience orale ne ? contribuerait pas ¨¤ r¨¦gler l'affaire de mani¨¨re rapide et ¨¦quitable ?.

L'UNAT a estim¨¦ que, puisque l'engagement de dur¨¦e d¨¦termin¨¦e de M. Qassem avait ¨¦t¨¦ prolong¨¦ au-del¨¤ du 31 mars 2020, sans effet donn¨¦ ¨¤ la d¨¦cision administrative initiale de ne pas renouveler son engagement au-del¨¤ de cette date, le Tribunal n'avait pas commis d'erreur en concluant...

As a preliminary matter, the UNAT dismissed Mr. Qassem¡¯s request for an oral hearing. The UNAT found that the factual and legal issues arising from the appeal had been clearly defined by the parties and moreover, an oral hearing would not ¡°assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case¡±.

The UNAT found that since Mr. Qassem¡¯s fixed-term appointment was extended beyond 31 March 2020, with no effect given to the initial administrative decision not to renew his employment beyond this date, the UNDT did not err in finding that the application was moot since the administrative decision...

The UNAT observed that neither party had raised whether AAQ¡¯s application was receivable before the UNDT. The UNAT nonetheless held that because this was a jurisdictional question, it was obliged to raise the issue itself. The UNAT noted that pursuant to Article 2(1)(a) of the UNDT Statute, the staff member was obliged to identify an administrative decision that was alleged to be in non-compliance with the terms of appointment or contract of employment. Further, pursuant to established case law, the administrative decision must have both a direct and adverse effect on the employment of the...

The UNAT held that the UNDT was correct to find that there was clearly sufficient evidence to support the Administration¡¯s conclusion that the staff member¡¯s performance only partially met expectations, and that this concern was communicated to him. Although the Rebuttal Board¡¯s confirmation of the rating, and the preparation of a second short-term performance appraisal occurred after the non-renewal was taken, the UNAT concluded that these reviews nonetheless confirmed that management¡¯s prior informal evaluation of the staff member¡¯s performance was not arbitrary but was instead well-based...

L'UNAT a estim¨¦ que la r¨¦paration demand¨¦e dans la requ¨ºte concernait une question qui n'avait pas ¨¦t¨¦ soulev¨¦e auparavant devant l'UNDT ou l'UNAT, ¨¤ savoir le recouvrement d'un montant d¨¦j¨¤ pay¨¦ ¨¤ titre de d¨¦pense admissible selon une ¨¦chelle mobile.

L'UNAT a estim¨¦ qu'il n'y avait rien de flou ou d'ambigu dans le sens ou la port¨¦e du jugement ant¨¦rieur, les termes de l'ordonnance ¨¦tant clairs. L¡¯UNAT a not¨¦ qu¡¯il n¡¯¨¦tait pas n¨¦cessaire d¡¯interpr¨¦ter le jugement ant¨¦rieur pour en clarifier le sens, et qu¡¯il n¡¯existait pas non plus de doutes raisonnables sur ce qui constituait la d¨¦cision de...

The UNAT found that the relief sought in the application concerned an issue not previously raised before the UNDT or the UNAT, being the recovery of an amount already paid as an admissible expense on a sliding scale.

The UNAT held that there was nothing in the meaning or scope of the prior Judgment that was unclear or ambiguous, the terms of the order were clear. The UNAT noted there was no need to interpret the prior Judgment to clarify its meaning, nor were there reasonable doubts about what constituted the UNAT¡¯s decision or the reasons for it.

The UNAT was of the view that there was also...