Â鶹APP

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...

Le Tribunal d'appel a rejet¨¦ les deux appels.

Le Tribunal d'appel a estim¨¦ que le Tribunal du contentieux administratif avait correctement constat¨¦ que la lettre d'inculpation ne constituait pas une d¨¦cision administrative susceptible de recours et que, de ce fait, la requ¨ºte de M. Schifferling n'¨¦tait pas recevable ratione materiae.

Le Tribunal a ¨¦galement estim¨¦ que la question de savoir si le Tribunal avait commis une erreur en ne joignant pas le Secr¨¦tariat en tant que partie n¨¦cessaire ¨¤ la requ¨ºte ¨¦tait devenue sans objet et qu'en tout ¨¦tat de cause, l'appel interlocutoire n'¨¦tait pas...

The Appeals Tribunal dismissed both appeals.

The Appeals Tribunal held that the UNDT correctly found that the Charge Letter did not constitute a reviewable administrative decision, and that as such Mr. Schifferling¡¯s application was not receivable ratione materiae.

The Appeals Tribunal further found that the question of whether the Dispute Tribunal erred in not joining the Secretariat as a necessary party to the application had become moot and that in any event, the interlocutory appeal was not receivable.

The Appeals Tribunal found that in its rigid treatment of the evidence in relation to AAY¡¯s conduct, the UNDT failed to have appropriate regard to what had been admitted to by AAY when interviewed by OIOS. The fact that AAY chose not to testify at the UNDT hearing made it clear that he stood by his statement to the OIOS investigators. The UNDT was required to consider this undisputed evidence from him in its assessment whether the misconduct against him had been proved, more so in circumstances in which he did not elect to testify further in his own defence. The fact that the three witnesses...

Le TANU a estim¨¦ que l'ancienne fonctionnaire ne s'¨¦tait pas acquitt¨¦e de la charge de d¨¦montrer que le jugement de l'UNDT ¨¦tait entach¨¦ d'irr¨¦gularit¨¦s, se contentant de faire valoir que la d¨¦cision n'¨¦tait pas ¨¦quitable.Au contraire, le TANU a estim¨¦ qu'en ne renouvelant pas son engagement ¨¤ dur¨¦e d¨¦termin¨¦e, l'administration avait agi l¨¦galement et ¨¦quitablement.
Le TANU a soulign¨¦ que la d¨¦cision de l'administration s'inscrivait dans le cadre d'une v¨¦ritable restructuration qui impliquait, entre autres mesures, de red¨¦finir les priorit¨¦s des ressources existantes par la r¨¦affectation, le...

The UNAT held that the former staff member did not meet the burden of showing that the UNDT Judgment was defective, instead merely arguing that the decision was not fair. On the contrary, the UNAT found that in not renewing her fixed-term appointment, the Administration acted lawfully and fairly.

The UNAT emphasized that the Administration¡¯s decision was part of a genuine restructuring which involved, among other measures, reprioritizing existing resources through reassignment, redeployment, and reclassification of staff, including the redeployment of the former staff member¡¯s position from...

Le TANU a not¨¦ que la requ¨¦rante avait d¨¦pos¨¦ la demande de r¨¦vision quelque trois mois apr¨¨s avoir pris connaissance des faits d¨¦cisifs identifi¨¦s dans la demande. Le TANU a estim¨¦ que la demande avait ¨¦t¨¦ d¨¦pos¨¦e au-del¨¤ du d¨¦lai de 30 jours et qu'elle n'¨¦tait donc pas recevable.

Le TANU a constat¨¦ qu'en tout ¨¦tat de cause, l'un des documents n'existait pas au moment de l'arr¨ºt du TANU. Le TANU a ¨¦galement not¨¦ que le document n'avait pas ¨¦t¨¦ d¨¦cisif pour parvenir ¨¤ une d¨¦cision dans l'appel et que, pour cette raison, la demande constituait une tentative de r¨¦examen de l'appel. Le TANU a...

The UNAT noted that the applicant had filed the application for revision some three months after she became aware of the decisive facts as identified in the application. The UNAT held that the application had been filed beyond the 30-day time limit and was, therefore, not receivable.

The UNAT found that, in any event, one of the documents had not been in existence at the time of the UNAT Judgment. The UNAT also noted that the document had not been decisive in reaching a decision in the appeal and, for this reason, the application was an attempt to re-litigate the appeal. The UNAT concluded...

Mme Ocokoru a interjet¨¦ appel.

Le Tribunal d'appel a rejet¨¦ l'appel. Le Tribunal d'appel a estim¨¦ que Mme Ocokoru n'avait pas d¨¦pos¨¦ son recours dans le d¨¦lai applicable conform¨¦ment ¨¤ l'article 7(1) du Statut du TANU et n'avait pas demand¨¦ de suspension, de renonciation ou de prorogation des d¨¦lais. Le TANU a conclu que le recours ¨¦tait donc prescrit et non recevable ratione temporis.

Le Tribunal d'appel a estim¨¦ qu'en tout ¨¦tat de cause, le TANU n'avait pas commis d'erreur en d¨¦clarant la requ¨ºte irrecevable ratione materiae au motif que les arguments soulev¨¦s par Mme Ocokoru avaient d¨¦j¨¤...

Ms. Ocokoru filed an appeal.

The Appeals Tribunal dismissed the appeal. The Appeals Tribunal found that Ms. Ocokoru had failed to file her appeal within the applicable time limit pursuant to Article 7(1) of the UNAT Statute and had failed to request a suspension, waiver or extension of the time limits. The UNAT concluded that the appeal was therefore time-barred and not receivable ratione temporis.

The Appeals Tribunal found that, in any event, the UNDT did not err in finding the application not receivable ratione materiae on grounds that the arguments raised by Ms. Ocokoru had already...

En ce qui concerne l'application pr¨¦tendument discriminatoire et arbitraire de la r¨¨gle 105.3 du personnel de l'OACI concernant les heures suppl¨¦mentaires, le Tribunal d'appel a estim¨¦ que la Commission de recours n'avait pas commis d'erreur en constatant que M. Alvear n'avait pas identifi¨¦ de d¨¦cision administrative sp¨¦cifique susceptible de recours, et qu'elle n'avait donc pas commis d'erreur en rejetant sa demande.

En ce qui concerne la plainte de M. Alvear selon laquelle il n'avait pas re?u les r¨¦sultats de la classification de son poste, le Tribunal d'appel a estim¨¦ que la Commission de...

With respect to the alleged discriminatory and arbitrary application of ICAO Staff Rule 105.3 regarding overtime, the Appeals Tribunal was satisfied that the Appeals Board had made no error in finding that Mr. Alvear had failed to identify any specific appealable administrative decision, and that it therefore did not err in dismissing his application.

Turning to Mr. Alvear¡¯s complaint that he did not receive the desk audit classification results for his position, the Appeals Tribunal found that the ICAO Appeals Board did err in finding the application not receivable since the Administration¡¯s...

Le Tribunal d'appel a estim¨¦ que la d¨¦cision de l'administration de ne pas poursuivre l'enqu¨ºte sur les all¨¦gations de M. Lutfiev contre son ancien chef de cabinet ¨¦tait une d¨¦cision qu'elle ¨¦tait en droit de prendre ¨¦tant donn¨¦ que l'ancien chef de cabinet n'¨¦tait plus un membre du personnel de l'UNRWA.

En outre, le Tribunal d'appel est convaincu que la d¨¦cision du DT de l'UNRWA annulant la cessation de service de M. Lutfiev a ¨¦t¨¦ prise ¨¤ tort. Le Tribunal du contentieux administratif a appliqu¨¦ une m¨¦thodologie erron¨¦e pour examiner les motifs de la cessation de service de M.

Lutfiev et n...

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...

D'embl¨¦e, le Tribunal d'appel a not¨¦ que Mme Monasebian n'avait fourni que peu ou pas de raisons ¨¤ l'appui de sa demande d'anonymisation de l'arr¨ºt, si ce n'est une d¨¦claration g¨¦n¨¦rale selon laquelle les informations relatives ¨¤ son affaire ¨¦taient sensibles. Le Tribunal a estim¨¦ que l'anonymisation n'¨¦tait pas justifi¨¦e en l'esp¨¨ce et a rejet¨¦ sa demande.

Le Tribunal d'appel a estim¨¦ que le Tribunal n'avait pas commis d'erreur en concluant qu'il existait une pr¨¦pond¨¦rance de la preuve que Mme Monasebian avait adopt¨¦ un comportement qui avait cr¨¦¨¦ un environnement de travail intimidant...

At the outset, the Appeals Tribunal noted that Ms. Monasebian had provided little or no reason in support of her request for the anonymization of the Judgment other than a general statement that the information in her case was sensitive. The Appeals Tribunal took the view that anonymization was not warranted in this case and dismissed her request.

The Appeals Tribunal was satisfied that the UNDT did not err in finding that there was a preponderance of the evidence that Ms. Monasebian had engaged in a pattern of conduct through which she created an intimidating, hostile and/or offensive work...

Le Tribunal d'appel a estim¨¦, en ce qui concerne la premi¨¨re demande, que Mme Said n'avait produit aucune preuve de pr¨¦judice, et encore moins de pr¨¦judice caus¨¦ par une ill¨¦galit¨¦, et que la demande de dommages-int¨¦r¨ºts ¨¦tait donc rejet¨¦e.
En ce qui concerne la deuxi¨¨me demande, le Tribunal d'appel a constat¨¦ que l'enqu¨ºte avait ¨¦t¨¦ cl?tur¨¦e sans qu'aucune mesure n'ait ¨¦t¨¦ prise et qu'aucun ¨¦l¨¦ment d¨¦favorable r¨¦sultant de cette enqu¨ºte n'avait ¨¦t¨¦ vers¨¦ au dossier administratif de Mme Said. En l'absence de d¨¦cision administrative susceptible de recours, le Tribunal d'appel a estim¨¦ que le...

The Appeals Tribunal found, in relation to the first application, that Ms. Said has produced no evidence of harm, much less of harm caused by an illegality, and therefore the request for damages was denied.

As to the second application, the Appeals Tribunal found that the investigation had been closed with no action taken, and no adverse material from that investigation had been placed in Ms. Said¡¯s Official Status File. In the absence of an appealable administrative deciison, the Appeals Tribunal was satisfied that the UNRWA DT was correct in finding that the second application was not...

Le Tribunal d'appel a estim¨¦ que l'UNDT avait ¨¤ juste titre rejet¨¦ la demande de M. Salon comme irrecevable au motif qu'il n'avait pas ¨¦tabli qu'une d¨¦cision administrative susceptible de recours avait ¨¦t¨¦ prise par l'Organisation et qu'en tout ¨¦tat de cause, il n'avait pas demand¨¦ d'¨¦valuation de la gestion.

The Appeals Tribunal found that the UNDT correctly dismissed Mr. Salon¡¯s application as not receivable on grounds that he had failed to establish that an appealable administrative decision had been taken by the Organization and that in any event, he had failed to request management evaluation.