±¬ÁÏÍø

Le Tribunal d'appel a estim¨¦ que la d¨¦cision de l'Administration de ne pas enqu¨ºter davantage sur les all¨¦gations de M. Lutfiev ¨¤ l'encontre de son ancien chef de cabinet ¨¦tait justifi¨¦e, ¨¦tant donn¨¦ que ce dernier n'¨¦tait plus membre du personnel de l'±¬ÁÏÍøRWA.

En outre, le Tribunal d'appel a estim¨¦ que la d¨¦cision du Tribunal disciplinaire de l'±¬ÁÏÍøRWA annulant la cessation de service de M. Lutfiev avait ¨¦t¨¦ prise ¨¤ tort. Le Tribunal du contentieux a appliqu¨¦ une m¨¦thodologie erron¨¦e ¨¤ l'examen des motifs de la cessation de service de M. Lutfiev et n'a pas proc¨¦d¨¦ ¨¤ ce que l'on appelle l'examen...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in finding the staff member¡¯s challenge to the non?installation of dependents receivable because the request for management evaluation was filed outside the mandatory 60?day deadline under Staff Rule 11.2(c). The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that Article 8(3) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute prohibits waiving or suspending this deadline and that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT acted beyond its jurisdiction by deciding that the Administration had waived the timeliness argument.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in concluding that the denial of the optional reduced non?family service allowance was...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal was timely, as Article 11(5) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT Statute provides that the filing period begins upon receipt of the Arabic translation of the judgment when the application was originally submitted in Arabic. Since Ms. Al Dawoud received the Arabic version on 9 January 2025 and filed her appeal on 10 March 2025, the appeal was timely.

On the merits, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT correctly identified the Agency¡¯s error in treating an email shared by Ms. Al Dawoud as confidential and acknowledged the harm caused by the erroneous disciplinary measure. However, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly determined that the former staff member¡¯s claims for compensation under Appendix D based on ±¬ÁÏÍøAMID living conditions were not receivable because he had not exhausted mandatory medical review remedies. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT reaffirmed the principle that staff members must exhaust internal remedies before resorting to litigation.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in reviewing the merits of the x?ray machine injury claim while a medical board review was pending. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that both elements of the Appendix D claim were premature and should have been declared...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in dismissing both applications as not receivable. Regarding the first application, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the Settlement Agreement encompassed all disciplinary sanctions imposed on 9 December 2022, including the deferment of eligibility for salary increment. Therefore, the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was wrong to conclude that the deferment was outside the scope of the Agreement and that the Agreement had been fully implemented. The application for enforcement was properly receivable.

As to the second application, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Administration¡¯s interpretation of the Settlement...

Le T±¬ÁÏÍøAT a estim¨¦ que le TUDN avait commis une erreur en concluant que les actes du fonctionnaire ne constituaient pas une faute professionnelle. Le T±¬ÁÏÍøAT a conclu qu'il avait ¨¦t¨¦ ¨¦tabli, ¨¤ la lumi¨¨re des preuves, que le fonctionnaire avait refus¨¦ de coop¨¦rer ¨¤ une enqu¨ºte men¨¦e par le Bureau des services de contr?le interne (BSCI) concernant un autre fonctionnaire faisant l'objet d'une enqu¨ºte pour avoir fourni de fausses informations sur son lieu de r¨¦sidence.

Il a estim¨¦ que le fonctionnaire avait d¨¦lib¨¦r¨¦ment dissimul¨¦ des informations et fourni des r¨¦ponses g¨¦n¨¦riques, vagues et trompeuses...

L'±¬ÁÏÍøAT a estim¨¦ que la d¨¦cision de maintenir la note de performance ? C ¨C R¨¦pond partiellement aux attentes ? attribu¨¦e au fonctionnaire constituait une d¨¦cision administrative susceptible de recours ayant un effet juridique direct sur son emploi. Elle a fait remarquer que, dans le cadre juridique applicable, une note ? R¨¦pond partiellement aux attentes ? justifie la d¨¦cision de ne pas accorder d'augmentation salariale et que celle-ci doit ¨ºtre suspendue dans l'attente des r¨¦sultats d'un PIP. Le T±¬ÁÏÍøAT a consid¨¦r¨¦ que ces cons¨¦quences constituaient des effets d¨¦favorables r¨¦sultant directement...

L'±¬ÁÏÍøAT a estim¨¦ que la contestation par l'ancienne fonctionnaire de la d¨¦cision de l'ALWP et de la d¨¦cision de New York n'¨¦tait pas recevable, car elle n'avait pas demand¨¦ ¨¤ la direction d'¨¦valuer ces d¨¦cisions.

En ce qui concerne la mesure disciplinaire, le T±¬ÁÏÍøI a d¨¦termin¨¦ que ses d¨¦clarations et ses publications sur les r¨¦seaux sociaux constituaient des activit¨¦s ext¨¦rieures non autoris¨¦es ¨¦quivalant ¨¤ une faute professionnelle. Il a not¨¦ qu'elle avait publi¨¦ des d¨¦clarations, des articles et donn¨¦ des interviews sans autorisation pr¨¦alable, malgr¨¦ des avertissements r¨¦p¨¦t¨¦s. Il a estim¨¦ que...

L'±¬ÁÏÍøAT a estim¨¦ que l'±¬ÁÏÍøDT n'avait pas commis d'erreur en concluant que la demande de l'ancien fonctionnaire n'¨¦tait pas recevable ratione materiae car il n'avait pas tent¨¦ de r¨¦soudre le litige par l'interm¨¦diaire du Bureau du M¨¦diateur des Fonds et programmes des Nations Unies, comme l'exigeait explicitement l'accord de r¨¨glement qu'il avait express¨¦ment accept¨¦. Le T±¬ÁÏÍøU a estim¨¦ que les termes de l'accord de r¨¨glement restaient contraignants et ex¨¦cutoires pour les parties, et que le TNDU n'avait commis aucune erreur en obligeant les parties ¨¤ respecter ces termes.

Le T±¬ÁÏÍøO a en outre estim¨¦...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in concluding that the contested decision by the OAI to close the staff member¡¯s complaint was lawful. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the Administration acted reasonably in determining that the allegations lacked sufficient evidence to warrant an investigation and that the assessment process complied with ±¬ÁÏÍøDP¡¯s legal framework.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly rejected the staff member¡¯s procedural arguments, including claims of bias and denial of witness testimony. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT emphasized that the proposed witnesses could not have altered the established...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA 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 ±¬ÁÏÍøAT 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 ±¬ÁÏÍøAT 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 ±¬ÁÏÍøAT 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 ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the staff member had given no convincing reason on appeal as to why and how an oral hearing before the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT would have impacted the decision of the case.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the staff member had not received a wrong performance rating and that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had not misrepresented or failed to give...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT 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 ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also determined that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in awarding the former staff member compensation in lieu of two years¡¯ net base salary. In this regard, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT emphasized that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT 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 ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA staff member.

Furthermore, the Appeals Tribunal was satisfied that the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA 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 ±¬ÁÏÍøAT observed that the Secretary-General elected to limit the scope of his appeal only against the findings of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT with respect to two of nine instances of alleged misconduct by the former staff member. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further acknowledged that the Secretary-General¡¯s contention was that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in law when it applied the legal tests for harassment and sexual harassment to the two incidents.

Nonetheless, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT 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 ±¬ÁÏÍøAT 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 ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT 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 ±¬ÁÏÍøAT 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 ±¬ÁÏÍøAT 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 ±¬ÁÏÍøAT 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 ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in concluding that the staff member¡¯s actions did not constitute misconduct. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT 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 ±¬ÁÏÍøAT 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 ±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered these consequences to be disadvantageous effects resulting directly from the rating.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also concluded that the...