Â鶹APP

The UNAT held that the UNRWA DT had appropriately concluded that Mr. Issa failed to submit a timely Request for Decision Review regarding the first of three months¡¯ non-payment of his salary. However, the UNAT held that, since each non-payment constitutes a separate administrative decision, Mr. Issa's Request for Decision Review regarding the second- and third-months¡¯ non-payment was timely, rendering his application partially receivable.

The UNAT further concluded however, that since Mr. Issa disregarded a directive circulated before his annual leave (when he was able to check his e-mail)...

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 UNAT held that the UNDT did not err in finding that the former staff member¡¯s change of title following a reclassification did not amount to an abolition or discontinuance of her post, rendering her termination of appointment unlawful.

The UNAT also determined that the UNDT did not err in awarding the former staff member compensation in lieu of two years¡¯ net base salary. In this regard, the UNAT emphasized that the UNDT correctly considered the fact that the former staff member¡¯s permanent appointment included a specific undertaking stating that she could only be terminated due to an...

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 administrative decision concerning reimbursements to the staff member took effect in law on 7 May 2019, when he received the wire transfer from the Organization. The reasons for this reimbursement amount were discussed with him shortly before the wire transfer was made. Although explanations of the underlying calculations were repeated in subsequent email exchanges with the staff member, those repetitions were not additional or new administrative decisions that were open to challenge by the staff member, thereby resetting the statute of limitations.

The UNAT found that...

The UNAT held that the staff member¡¯s application was not receivable, as he did not file a timely request for management evaluation of the contested decision.

The UNAT observed that the staff member was notified of the contested decision on 9 November 2023. Accordingly, he had until 8 January 2024 to file his request for management evaluation, but instead filed it on 12 August 2024, more than 270 days after being notified of the contested decision. It further found that, even assuming that he was notified of the contested decision in February 2024, his request was still submitted well...

The UNAT held that the Inspector General¡¯s Office (IGO) and the Administration failed to properly consider relevant factors brought to their attention during the investigation into the staff member's misconduct. Specifically, they did not considerate the medical context in which the established misconduct occurred, which could have been exculpatory for the staff member. The UNAT found that they failed to investigate and appreciate the potential effects of the staff member's brain tumour and/or treatment on certain aspects of his interpersonal relations with other staff members.

The UNAT held...

The UNAT held that the UNDT erred in concluding that the staff member¡¯s actions did not constitute misconduct. The UNAT found that it had been established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the staff member had failed to cooperate with an investigation conducted by the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS), which concerned another staff member under investigation for misrepresenting his place of accommodation.

It found that the staff member had deliberately withheld information and provided generic, vague, and misleading responses during his initial OIOS interview regarding the...

The UNAT determined that the decision to maintain the staff member¡¯s performance rating ¡°C ¨C Partially meets expectations¡± constituted a reviewable administrative decision that had direct legal effect on his employment. It observed that under the applicable legal framework, a rating of ¡°Partially meets expectations¡± justifies a determination that a salary increment is not warranted, and that the increment shall be withheld pending the outcome of a PIP. The UNAT considered these consequences to be disadvantageous effects resulting directly from the rating.

The UNAT also concluded that the...

The UNAT held that the former staff member¡¯s challenge to the ALWP decision and the New York position decision was not receivable, as she had not sought management evaluation of those decisions.

Regarding the disciplinary measure, the UNAT determined that her statements and social media posts constituted unauthorized outside activities amounting to misconduct. It noted that she issued statements, posted articles, and gave interviews without prior authorization, despite repeated warnings. It held that her social media engagements referenced international humanitarian assistance, humanitarian...

The UNAT held that the UNDT did not err in concluding that the former staff member¡¯s application was not receivable ratione materiae because he did not attempt to resolve the dispute through the office of the Â鶹APP Funds and Programmes Ombudsman, as explicitly required by the Settlement Agreement to which he had expressly agreed. The UNAT found that the terms of the Settlement Agreement remained binding and enforceable on the parties, and that the UNDT committed no error in holding the parties to its terms.

The UNAT further found that the UNDT did not err in determining that the...

L'UNAT a estim¨¦ que l'analyse faite par le TUDT du cadre juridique applicable r¨¦gissant l'allocation d'¨¦tudes, en particulier les frais admissibles au remboursement, ¨¦tait erron¨¦e et que le TUDT avait outrepass¨¦ sa comp¨¦tence en jugeant ill¨¦gale la promulgation de l'instruction administrative modifi¨¦e. L'UNAT a estim¨¦ que le TUDT n'avait pas fourni les motifs, les faits et les dispositions juridiques sur lesquels il avait fond¨¦ son jugement.

L'UNAT a estim¨¦ que les frais qui ¨¦taient clairement destin¨¦s ¨¤ couvrir des activit¨¦s extrascolaires ou des services g¨¦n¨¦raux non acad¨¦miques, et qui n...

L'UNAT a estim¨¦ que la contestation de l'ancien fonctionnaire portait sur une recommandation du pr¨¦sident suppl¨¦ant du comit¨¦ d'¨¦thique et qu'en tant que recommandation ¨¦thique, il ne s'agissait pas d'une d¨¦cision administrative susceptible de faire l'objet d'un contr?le juridictionnel. L'UNDT a donc rejet¨¦ ¨¤ juste titre cette partie de la requ¨ºte comme irrecevable.

Le TUNAT a en outre estim¨¦ que le rejet par l'Administration du rapport et de la recommandation du pr¨¦sident suppl¨¦ant de mars 2020 ne pouvait ¨ºtre interpr¨¦t¨¦ par le Bureau de la d¨¦ontologie comme une demande de proc¨¦der ¨¤ un...

L'UNAT a estim¨¦ que le Secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral n'avait pas implicitement retir¨¦ les pouvoirs d¨¦l¨¦gu¨¦s au Secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral adjoint charg¨¦ de la strat¨¦gie, des politiques et de la conformit¨¦ en mati¨¨re de gestion (USG/DMSPC) lorsque le chef de cabinet a sollicit¨¦ l'avis de l'USG/DMSPC.

L'UNAT a estim¨¦ que l'UNDT n'avait pas commis d'erreur en concluant que l'USG/DMSPC avait raisonnablement rejet¨¦ le rapport du pr¨¦sident suppl¨¦ant de mars 2020. L'UNAT a confirm¨¦ que l'administration ¨¦tait implicitement habilit¨¦e ¨¤ refuser de donner suite ¨¤ un rapport qu'elle consid¨¦rait comme d¨¦passant les param¨¨tres...

L'UNAT a not¨¦ que les primes d'assurance maladie impos¨¦es par l'UPU en 2023 variaient en fonction de facteurs tels que l'?ge, le statut de retraite et le pays de r¨¦sidence.

L'UNAT a estim¨¦ que l'argument des requ¨¦rants concernant le principe de solidarit¨¦ utilis¨¦ dans la l¨¦gislation suisse en mati¨¨re de s¨¦curit¨¦ sociale n'¨¦tait pas fond¨¦, car ce principe n'¨¦tait plus appliqu¨¦ par l'UPU depuis plusieurs ann¨¦es.

L'UNAT a d¨¦termin¨¦ que le taux de contribution de l'UPU ne diff¨¦rait pas entre les diff¨¦rents groupes d'?ge et qu'il n'y avait aucune preuve que les augmentations de primes ¨¦taient...

L'UNAT a estim¨¦ que l'UNDT n'avait pas commis d'erreur en concluant que la mesure transitoire ¨C accordant 10 semaines de cong¨¦ sp¨¦cial avec salaire int¨¦gral (SLWFP) uniquement aux m¨¨res qui ¨¦taient encore en cong¨¦ de maternit¨¦ au 1er janvier 2023 ¨C n'¨¦tait pas ill¨¦galement discriminatoire.

Elle a estim¨¦ que, m¨ºme si l'on pouvait faire valoir que le fait de privil¨¦gier les m¨¨res biologiques par rapport aux p¨¨res dans les dispositions transitoires entre l'ancien et le nouveau r¨¦gime de cong¨¦ parental ¨¦tait discriminatoire, cela ne constituait pas une discrimination ill¨¦gale pour deux raisons : i)...

L'UNAT a conclu que l'UNDT n'avait pas commis d'erreur en estimant que les deux retards dans le traitement des plaintes de l'ancienne fonctionnaire ne constituaient pas une preuve de partialit¨¦ ¨¤ son ¨¦gard. L'UNAT a estim¨¦ que le retard seul n'¨¦tait pas r¨¦v¨¦lateur d'une partialit¨¦.

L'UNAT a en outre estim¨¦ que les all¨¦gations de l'ancienne fonctionnaire relatives ¨¤ un certain communiqu¨¦ de presse avaient d¨¦j¨¤ fait l'objet de d¨¦cisions rendues par le Tribunal et ne pouvaient faire l'objet d'un nouveau litige.

Le TUNI a ¨¦galement estim¨¦ que le TND avait correctement confirm¨¦ que la cr¨¦ation du...

L'UNAT a estim¨¦ que l'UNDT n'avait pas commis d'erreur en concluant qu'il avait ¨¦t¨¦ prouv¨¦ par des ¨¦l¨¦ments clairs et convaincants que la fonctionnaire s'¨¦tait livr¨¦e ¨¤ du harc¨¨lement et ¨¤ des abus de pouvoir, avait utilis¨¦ son poste ¨¤ des fins personnelles pour nuire ¨¤ la situation d'un coll¨¨gue, avait divulgu¨¦ des informations sensibles, n'avait pas signal¨¦ les ¨¦ventuels fautes professionnelles d'autres personnes, avait utilis¨¦ une adresse ¨¦lectronique personnelle en violation des dispositions applicables et avait ¨¦chang¨¦ des messages inappropri¨¦s au sujet de coll¨¨gues.

Le TUNAT a estim¨¦ que...

L'UNAT a estim¨¦ que l'UNDT avait commis une erreur en concluant que l'administration n'avait pas prouv¨¦ de mani¨¨re claire et convaincante que M. Ammar avait publi¨¦ le message sur Facebook, car le bureau de l'inspecteur g¨¦n¨¦ral (IGO) avait ¨¦cart¨¦ de mani¨¨re inappropri¨¦e la possibilit¨¦ que le compte Facebook de M. Ammar ait ¨¦t¨¦ pirat¨¦. L'UNAT a estim¨¦ que l'administration s'¨¦tait acquitt¨¦e de son obligation de prouver qu'il ¨¦tait hautement probable que M. Ammar ait publi¨¦ le commentaire et ait ainsi exprim¨¦ publiquement son soutien ¨¤ un crime d'honneur. L'administration a produit des preuves non...