Â鶹APP

Le Tribunal d'appel a rejet¨¦ l'appel. Le Tribunal d'appel a estim¨¦ que l'UNDT avait correctement jug¨¦ que la demande de M. Qasem devant l'UNDT contestant la d¨¦cision de le placer en cong¨¦ administratif avec traitement avait ¨¦t¨¦ d¨¦pos¨¦e hors d¨¦lai et n'¨¦tait donc pas recevable ratione temporis. En outre, sa demande contestant la d¨¦cision de mener diverses enqu¨ºtes ¨¤ son sujet n'¨¦tait pas recevable ratione materiae en l'absence d'une demande de r¨¦vision de la d¨¦cision.

The Appeals Tribunal dismissed the appeal. The Appeals Tribunal found that the UNDT correctly held that Mr. Qasem's application before the UNDT challenging the decision to place him on administrative leave with pay was filed untimely and was therefore not receivable ratione temporis. Furthermore, his application contesting the decision to conduct various investigations of him was not receivable ratione materiae in the absence of a request for decision review.

Le TANU a estim¨¦ que les tentatives de l'agent pour plaider ¨¤ nouveau sa cause n'avaient pas permis d'identifier une quelconque erreur susceptible d'¨ºtre examin¨¦e dans le jugement du TNDU, ce qui justifiait ¨¤ lui seul le rejet de son recours. En tout ¨¦tat de cause, ind¨¦pendamment du bien-fond¨¦ de sa demande, le TANU a estim¨¦ que sa requ¨ºte ¨¦tait prescrite en vertu de l'article 8, paragraphe 4, du statut du TANU, puisqu'elle l'avait introduite 27 ans apr¨¨s avoir re?u la d¨¦cision contest¨¦e. Rappelant qu'aucun des deux tribunaux n'est habilit¨¦ ¨¤ prolonger les d¨¦lais dans ces circonstances, le...

Le TANU a estim¨¦ que la demande de r¨¦vision de l'agent ne r¨¦pondait pas aux exigences statutaires ¨¦nonc¨¦es ¨¤ l'article 11, paragraphe 1, du statut du TANU. Le TANU a conclu que les arguments de l'agent reprenaient essentiellement ceux qu'il avait d¨¦j¨¤ avanc¨¦s devant le TANU et le TNDU. Par cons¨¦quent, le TANU a estim¨¦ que sa demande de r¨¦vision ¨¦quivalait ¨¤ une demande de r¨¦examen par le TANU de son pr¨¦c¨¦dent recours infructueux. En outre, le TANU a observ¨¦ que les observations du requ¨¦rant contenaient un certain nombre d'accusations injustes et inappropri¨¦es ¨¤ l'encontre des personnes qui...

The UNAT held that the staff member's application for revision failed to meet the statutory requirements outlined in Article 11(1) of the UNAT Statute. The UNAT concluded that the staff member's arguments essentially reiterated those he previously advanced before the UNAT and the UNDT. As a result, the UNAT held that his application for revision amounted to a request for the UNAT to reconsider his previous unsuccessful appeal. Moreover, the UNAT observed that the applicant's submissions contained a number of unfair and inappropriate accusations against persons who had dealt with his case, and...

The UNAT held that the staff member¡¯s attempts to reargue her case failed to identify any reviewable error in the UNDT Judgment, warranting alone dismissal of her appeal. In any event, regardless of the merits of her claim, the UNAT found that her application was time-barred under Article 8(4) of the UNDT Statute since she filed it 27 years after her receipt of the contested decision. Recalling that there is no authority given to either tribunal to extend time limits in these circumstances, the UNAT concluded that the UNDT was correct to conclude that her application was not receivable.

The...

M. Ronved a fait appel.

L'UNAT a rejet¨¦ l'appel et confirm¨¦ le jugement du UNDT.

L'UNAT a estim¨¦ que le Tribunal avait commis une erreur en jugeant la requ¨ºte irrecevable en ce qui concerne le refus d'une promotion temporaire ¨¤ la classe P-4. La d¨¦cision contest¨¦e devant le Tribunal du contentieux administratif ¨¦tait la d¨¦cision de proroger le SPA, que l'appelant a contest¨¦e en temps utile devant le MEU et le Tribunal du contentieux administratif du Tribunal. La prolongation du PSA et le refus d'accorder une promotion ¨¦taient les deux faces d'une m¨ºme d¨¦cision, avec les m¨ºmes d¨¦lais pour le...

Mr. Ronved appealed.

The UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT Judgment.

The UNAT held that the UNDT erred in finding the application not receivable with respect to the refusal of a temporary promotion to the P-4 level.? The contested decision before the UNDT was the decision to extend the SPA, which the Appellant timely challenged before the MEU and the UNDT.? The extension of the SPA and the denial to grant a promotion were two sides of the same decision, with the same time limits for management evaluation.? Therefore, the request for management evaluation of both decisions was...

L'UNAT a examin¨¦ un appel interjet¨¦ par le fonctionnaire.

L'UNAT a constat¨¦ que le rapport de recommandation ne fournissait aucune explication permettant de comprendre la justification de la d¨¦cision de non-s¨¦lection. L'UNAT a not¨¦ qu'aucune information n'avait ¨¦t¨¦ fournie au cours de la proc¨¦dure judiciaire quant aux raisons pour lesquelles le candidat externe ¨¦tait le candidat le plus appropri¨¦. L'UNAT a estim¨¦ que, dans un souci de raisonnabilit¨¦, d'¨¦quit¨¦ et de transparence, l'Administration ¨¦tait cens¨¦e fournir des raisons pertinentes et v¨¦ritables ¨¤ l'appui de son choix final. L'UNAT a...

The UNAT considered an appeal by the staff member.

The UNAT found that the recommendation report did not provide any explanation to understand the rationale of the non-selection decision. The UNAT noted that no information had been given in the course of the judicial proceedings either as to why the external candidate was the most suitable candidate. The UNAT held that, for the sake of reasonableness, fairness and transparency, it was expected from the Administration to give relevant and true reasons supporting its ultimate choice. The UNAT found that the UNDT had made an error of fact...

L'UNAT a estim¨¦ que le Tribunal n'avait pas commis d'erreur en concluant que les faits ¨¤ l'origine de la r¨¦primande ¨¦crite ¨¦taient ¨¦tablis. L¡¯UNAT a reconnu que le plaidoyer de Mme Kamara-Joyner en faveur d¡¯un membre individuel du personnel ne relevait pas de ses r?les et fonctions, tant en sa qualit¨¦ de charg¨¦e de r¨¦solution des conflits pour l¡¯UNOMS que de pr¨¦sidente de l¡¯UNPAD. L'UNAT a constat¨¦ que Mme Kamara-Joyner n'avait pas express¨¦ment demand¨¦ l'approbation du conflit d'int¨¦r¨ºts entre ses deux fonctions et avait refus¨¦ de suivre les instructions visant ¨¤ ¨¦liminer le conflit d'int¨¦r¨ºts...

The UNAT held that the UNDT did not err in finding that the facts underlying the written reprimand were established. The UNAT agreed that Ms. Kamara-Joyner¡¯s advocacy for an individual staff member was outside of her roles and duties in both her capacity as a Conflict Resolution Officer for UNOMS and as President of UNPAD. The UNAT found that Ms. Kamara-Joyner failed to expressly seek approval for the conflict of interest between her two roles and refused to follow instructions on removing the conflict of interest. Accordingly, she was subject to a disciplinary or administrative measure. The...

L'UNAT a estim¨¦ que la DT de l'UNRWA n'avait pas commis d'erreur en accordant une indemnit¨¦ compensatrice. Elle a examin¨¦ ¨¤ juste titre les chances de M. Fanous d¡¯¨ºtre s¨¦lectionn¨¦ pour le poste lorsqu¡¯elle a d¨¦clar¨¦ qu¡¯elle consid¨¦rait qu¡¯il n¡¯y avait aucune garantie d¡¯une s¨¦lection future. La DT de l¡¯UNRWA a appliqu¨¦ un montant forfaitaire sp¨¦cifique au contexte. Elle a pris en compte la probabilit¨¦ de s¨¦lection et le salaire de M. Fanous ¨¤ l¡¯¨¦poque. Elle a rendu une d¨¦cision qui ¨¦tait juste et juste dans le cas pr¨¦sent, mais a ¨¦galement adopt¨¦ une approche fond¨¦e sur des principes qui a pris...

The UNAT found that the UNRWA DT did not err in its award of in-lieu compensation. It appropriately considered Mr. Fanous¡¯ chance of selection for the post when it stated that it considered there was no guarantee of a future selection. The UNRWA DT applied a context-specific lump sum amount. It considered the likelihood of selection and Mr. Fanous¡¯ salary at the time. It made a determination that was fair and just in the present case but also took a principled approach that considered all relevant considerations.

As to Mr. Fanous¡¯ request for moral damages, with regard to the First and...

Le Secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral a interjet¨¦ appel.

Le Tribunal d'appel a estim¨¦ que le TDNU avait outrepass¨¦ sa comp¨¦tence et commis une erreur de droit en interpr¨¦tant l'article 6(3)(a) du R¨¨glement du personnel comme autorisant Mme Barbulescu, en tant que m¨¨re commanditaire dans le cadre d'une maternit¨¦ de substitution, ¨¤ avoir droit ¨¤ un cong¨¦ de maternit¨¦, contrairement aux dispositions claires et sans ambigu?t¨¦. Statut et R¨¨glement du personnel. Le Tribunal a ¨¦largi la port¨¦e de l'article 6(3) du R¨¨glement du personnel au point de prendre une d¨¦cision politique qui rel¨¨ve de la comp¨¦tence du...

The Secretary-General filed an appeal.

The Appeals Tribunal found that the UNDT exceeded its jurisdiction and erred in law when it interpreted Staff Rule 6(3)(a) as allowing Ms. Barbulescu as a commissioning mother in a surrogacy to be entitled to maternity leave contrary to the clear and unambiguous Staff Regulations and Rules. The UNDT enlarged the scope of Staff Rule 6(3) to an extent that it made a policy decision which is in the purview of the Secretary-General. Further, the Dispute Tribunal erred in making factual findings without evidence.

The Appeals Tribunal however held that the...

M. Arvizu Trevino a d¨¦pos¨¦ une demande d'ex¨¦cution d'un jugement de l'UNAT.

L'UNAT a not¨¦ que plusieurs mois apr¨¨s que le Secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral ait ¨¦t¨¦ inform¨¦ du jugement, la seule mesure prise a ¨¦t¨¦ d'obtenir des r¨¦ponses de la part de quatre membres du personnel accus¨¦s dans la plainte d'avoir commis une faute et que ? ces r¨¦ponses, parall¨¨lement aux 22 pages et 18 annexes ? de la plainte ¨¦taient en cours d¡¯examen.

Notant la justification de l'inaction du Secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral par le fait qu'en l'esp¨¨ce aucun d¨¦lai pr¨¦cis n'avait ¨¦t¨¦ fix¨¦ pour l'ex¨¦cution, l'UNAT a estim¨¦ que l'Administration n...

The UNAT noted that several months after the Secretary-General had been notified of the Judgment, the only action taken was that some responses had been elicited from four staff members alleged in the complaint to have engaged in misconduct and that ¡°these responses alongside the 22 pages and 18 annexes¡± to the complaint were under review.

Noting the justification of the Secretary-General for the inaction that in the instant matter, no specific time had been set for execution, the UNAT held that the Administration had not acted as promptly as per the obligations imposed on it, "within a...

L¡¯UNAT a rejet¨¦ la demande d¡¯audience de M. Turk et n¡¯a trouv¨¦ aucune erreur dans la d¨¦cision du UNDT de ne pas ordonner la production de documents suppl¨¦mentaires. L'UNAT a r¨¦affirm¨¦ le cadre juridique qui pr¨¦voit que les membres du personnel n'ont aucune attente l¨¦gitime de renouvellement de leur engagement ¨¤ dur¨¦e d¨¦termin¨¦e.

L¡¯UNAT a ¨¦galement confirm¨¦ que les tribunaux n¡¯interf¨¦reront pas avec le pouvoir discr¨¦tionnaire de l¡¯Organisation en mati¨¨re de d¨¦cisions de restructuration et qu¡¯ils n¡¯ont pas le pouvoir de r¨¦viser les d¨¦cisions de l¡¯Assembl¨¦e g¨¦n¨¦rale relatives aux questions...

The UNAT declined Mr. Turk¡¯s request for an oral hearing, and found no error in the UNDT¡¯s decision not to order the production of additional documents.

The UNAT reaffirmed the legal framework which provides that staff members have no legitimate expectation of any renewal of their fixed-term appointments. The UNAT also confirmed that the Tribunals will not interfere with the Organization¡¯s discretion in restructuring decisions, and that the Tribunals have no authority to review General Assembly decisions related to administrative and budgetary matters. In this case, the UNAT held that the...