±¬ÁÏÍø

Mme Mkhabela a fait appel.

En ce qui concerne la recevabilit¨¦ ratione temporis, l'±¬ÁÏÍøAT a estim¨¦ que le RC ne pouvait pas ¨ºtre consid¨¦r¨¦ comme ayant l¨¦galement prolong¨¦ les d¨¦lais de d¨¦p?t d'une demande de contr?le hi¨¦rarchique. Outre le fait qu¡¯il n¡¯existe aucune preuve d¡¯une telle promesse, la v¨¦rit¨¦ est que le CR ne disposait pas d¡¯un tel pouvoir, qui est uniquement conf¨¦r¨¦ au Secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral, comme le prescrit l¡¯article 11.2(c) du R¨¨glement du personnel. De m¨ºme, l'affirmation de Mme Mkhabela selon laquelle elle n'a pas ¨¦t¨¦ inform¨¦e des raisons ou de la d¨¦cision de s'¨¦carter du plan de...

Ms. Mkhabela appealed.

As regards receivability ratione temporis, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the RC could not be seen as having lawfully extended the time limits to file a management evaluation request. Apart from the fact that there is no evidence of such a promise, the truth is that the RC did not have such authority, which is only bestowed upon the Secretary-General, as prescribed by Staff Rule 11.2(c). Likewise, Ms. Mkhabela¡¯s claim that she was not apprised of the reasons or decision to deviate from the Transition Plan is without merit, as she is not entitled to be made aware of reasons behind...

Le Tribunal du contentieux administratif ¨¦tait confront¨¦ ¨¤ deux versions inconciliables de l'affaire et il lui fallait donc s'assurer de la cr¨¦dibilit¨¦ et de la fiabilit¨¦ des diff¨¦rents t¨¦moins factuels et des probabilit¨¦s. Cette t?che a ¨¦t¨¦ rendue particuli¨¨rement difficile pour le Tribunal du contentieux administratif dans la mesure o¨´ les t¨¦moins concern¨¦s n'ont pas pr¨¦sent¨¦ leurs d¨¦positions en personne. En l¡¯esp¨¨ce, les ¨¦l¨¦ments de preuve pr¨¦sent¨¦s par le Secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral ¨¦taient d¡¯une nature et d¡¯une valeur extr¨ºmement limit¨¦es. Le Secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral s¡¯est appuy¨¦ exclusivement sur le...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was faced with two irreconcilable versions of the case, and thus it was necessary for the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT to satisfy itself on the credibility and reliability of the various factual witnesses and probabilities. This task was made especially difficult for the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT since the relevant witnesses did not present their evidence in person. In this case, the evidence presented by the Secretary-General was of an exceedingly limited nature and value. The Secretary-General relied exclusively on the contents of the written report of the OIOS investigation, which was entirely hearsay and, in some instances...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the JAB made considerable internal changes in its law to satisfy the requirements of Article 2(10) of the Appeals Tribunal Statute. It found that the JAB no longer provided only advice or mere recommendations to the ISA Secretary-General, but rather final decisions and, therefore, was a neutral first instance process.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the plain reading of the facts left no doubt that: i) at the time when the contested decision was taken, there was no willingness of abandonment of post by the Appellant; ii) despite his poor mental health condition that was medically...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no reason why the Appeals Tribunal should intervene and modify the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s findings, which were both reasonable and equitable. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that while the hiring of the casual workers was not part of Mr. Saleh¡¯s official duties, Mr. Saleh coordinated and supervised the work of the ±¬ÁÏÍøHCR implementing partner which was responsible for hiring at the warehouse, and Mr. Saleh also had the function of overseeing the warehousing operations. Given these responsibilities, as well as his previous intense involvement in the setting up and management of the warehouse, which...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Applicant¡¯s application for revision did not comply with the requirements set out in Article 11(1) of the Appeals Tribunal Statute and Article 24 of the Appeals Tribunal Rules of Procedure. Indeed, it concluded that there was no fact discovered after the issuance of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Judgment, which was unknown to the Appeals Tribunal and to the Applicant. Rather, it found that his submissions basically repeat or add to the same arguments which were previously assessed by the Agency, the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT and the Appeals Tribunal. It concluded that the only new arguments advanced by...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the staff member.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that, in his appeal, the staff member failed to state the grounds of appeal, identify the defects of the impugned judgment and demonstrate on which grounds it was erroneous.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that, in reaching its conclusion, the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT found that the staff member admittedly did not submit a request for decision review. The ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT did not err when it found that the staff member¡¯s application was on that basis not receivable ratione materiae.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed Judgment No. ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA/DT/2022/022.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT a jug¨¦ que le m¨¦morandum contest¨¦ n'¨¦tait pas une d¨¦cision administrative car l'appelant n'a pas identifi¨¦ comment elle affectait ses conditions ou conditions de nomination. Unat a jug¨¦ que le m¨¦morandum contest¨¦ concernait une d¨¦l¨¦gation g¨¦n¨¦rale de l'autorit¨¦ et, par cons¨¦quent, ¨¦tait une d¨¦cision de demande g¨¦n¨¦rale.

Le Tribunal d'appel a constat¨¦ que l'±¬ÁÏÍøDT avait commis une erreur en droit en appliquant le cadre juridique inappropri¨¦, le cadre juridique pertinent n'¨¦tant pas ST / SGB / 2008/5, mais le cadre disciplinaire de l'±¬ÁÏÍøFPA et la politique de harc¨¨lement de l'±¬ÁÏÍøFPA. L'±¬ÁÏÍøAT a expliqu¨¦ que l'±¬ÁÏÍøFPA, ¨¦tant l'un des fonds administr¨¦s s¨¦par¨¦ment de l'organisation, a son propre cadre juridique et n'est pas r¨¦glement¨¦ par les ¨¦missions administratives g¨¦n¨¦rales du Secr¨¦tariat telles que ST / SGB / 2008/5, sauf indication contraire ou sauf si elle n'a express¨¦ment pas ¨¦t¨¦ express¨¦ment accept¨¦ leur...

L'±¬ÁÏÍøAT a jug¨¦ que la plainte de harc¨¨lement sexuel d¨¦pos¨¦ par le membre du personnel contre ses anciens superviseurs (Fro et SRO) a conduit ¨¤ des enqu¨ºtes dont les rapports ont ¨¦t¨¦ la base des processus disciplinaires et des sanctions contre les deux personnes, ainsi qu'une mesure administrative suppl¨¦mentaire contre son ancienne ancienne Sro. L'administration a agi rapidement, lorsqu'elle est officieusement inform¨¦e des actes r¨¦pr¨¦hensibles, en pla?ant le membre du personnel en cong¨¦ de maladie certifi¨¦ pendant environ deux mois, avant de la r¨¦affecter ¨¤ sa demande ¨¤ un nouveau lieu de...

L'±¬ÁÏÍøAT a rejet¨¦ l'appel de M. Ponce-Gonzalez. L'±¬ÁÏÍøAT a rejet¨¦ l'argument de M. Ponce-Gonzalez sur l'appr¨¦hension de la partialit¨¦ du responsable du recrutement affirmant qu'il y avait un motif inappropri¨¦ pour l'¨¦liminer injustement. Le tribunal d'appel a constat¨¦ que le simple fait que le responsable du recrutement ¨¦tait impliqu¨¦ dans deux exercices de s¨¦lection dans lesquels M. Ponce-Gonzalez n'a pas ¨¦t¨¦ r¨¦ussi n'a pas indiqu¨¦ de partialit¨¦, mais plut?t un exercice r¨¦gulier de la routine de l'administration de s¨¦lectionner les candidats ¨¤ des postes annonc¨¦s. L'±¬ÁÏÍøAT a en outre constat¨¦ que l...

L'±¬ÁÏÍøAT a rejet¨¦ l'appel. Il a jug¨¦ que l¡¯±¬ÁÏÍøDT avait commis une erreur dans son examen de l¡¯¨¦valuation par l¡¯administration de l¡¯exp¨¦rience de M. Ponce-Gonzalez contre les crit¨¨res d¡¯¨¦valuation; L'±¬ÁÏÍøDT a ¨¦galement commis une erreur lorsqu'elle a annul¨¦ l'annulation du processus de s¨¦lection, invalidant la raison ¨¦tant alors ¨¦tant donn¨¦ que ?aucun des candidats r¨¦chang¨¦s n'avait r¨¦pondu ¨¤ tous les crit¨¨res requis et souhaitables de l'ouverture de l'emploi?, et concluant que ?au moins l'un des Les candidats r¨¦chang¨¦s (le demandeur) ont respect¨¦ et d¨¦pass¨¦ tous les crit¨¨res ?. Ce faisant, le ±¬ÁÏÍøT a...

L'±¬ÁÏÍøAT a rejet¨¦ l'appel. L'±¬ÁÏÍøAT a constat¨¦ qu'AAL avait ¨¦t¨¦ avis¨¦ de la n¨¦cessit¨¦ pour elle de retourner au poste de remise des droits, ainsi que des opportunit¨¦s suffisantes de demander des cong¨¦s de maladie. Cependant, elle n'a pas demand¨¦ de cong¨¦s de maladie, et elle n'est pas retourn¨¦e au travail, ne laissant aucune option ¨¤ l'administration autre que de la placer sur Slwop. Elle n'a pas non plus t¨¦moign¨¦ qu'il y avait des ?circonstances personnelles convaincantes? afin d'engestion de la d¨¦cision de lui permettre de continuer ¨¤ se t¨¦l¨¦charger de l'ext¨¦rieur de son poste officiel. L'±¬ÁÏÍøAT a...

L'±¬ÁÏÍøAT a jug¨¦ que l'argument du membre du personnel selon lequel le ±¬ÁÏÍøT a appliqu¨¦ la norme de preuve incorrecte n'est pas fond¨¦e, car les principaux faits de l'affaire ¨¦taient incontest¨¦s par les deux parties. Elle avait admis avoir utilis¨¦ le compte UPS des femmes de l¡¯ONU pour envoyer deux exp¨¦ditions priv¨¦es ¨¤ l'¨¦tranger, sans mentionner aucune autorisation pr¨¦alable. Les ¨¦l¨¦ments aggravants et att¨¦nuants examin¨¦s par les ±¬ÁÏÍøT ¨¦taient par nature p¨¦riph¨¦riques de la sanction impos¨¦e. L'±¬ÁÏÍøAT a constat¨¦ que m¨ºme s'il n'¨¦tait pas appropri¨¦ pour l'administration d'utiliser un acte pr¨¦alable d...

Le TANU a rejet¨¦ la demande d'audience du requ¨¦rant et a estim¨¦ qu'une telle audience ne contribuerait pas au r¨¨glement rapide et ¨¦quitable de l'affaire, comme l'exige l'article 18, paragraphe 1, du r¨¨glement de proc¨¦dure du TANU. Le TANU a estim¨¦ que le Tribunal n'avait pas commis d'erreur en supprimant les ¨¦l¨¦ments de preuve joints aux conclusions finales du requ¨¦rant ou en refusant d'entendre les superviseurs du requ¨¦rant en tant que t¨¦moins. Le TANU a estim¨¦ qu'il existait des preuves claires et convaincantes que l'appelant avait utilis¨¦ la carte d'exemption de TVA et la carte de cr¨¦dit...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed Mr. Ponce-Gonzalez's appeal. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed Mr. Ponce-Gonzalez¡¯s argument of apprehension of partiality of the hiring manager claiming that there was an improper motive to unfairly eliminate him. The Appeals Tribunal found that the mere fact that the hiring manager was involved in two selection exercises in which Mr. Ponce-Gonzalez was not successful did not indicate any partiality, but rather a regular exercise of the Administration¡¯s routine of selecting candidates for advertised positions. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in finding no irregularity in...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal. It held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in its consideration of the Administration¡¯s assessment of Mr. Ponce-Gonzalez¡¯s experience against the evaluation criteria; the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT also erred when it rescinded the cancellation of the selection process, invalidating the reason then given that ¡°none of the rostered candidates had met all of the required and desirable criteria of the job opening¡±, and concluding that ¡°at least one of the rostered candidates (the Applicant) met and exceeded all criteria¡±. In so doing, the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT improperly appropriated the discretion of the Secretary...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that AAL was given notice of the need for her to return to the duty station, as well as sufficient opportunity to apply for sick leave. However, she did not request such sick leave, nor did she return to work, leaving no option for the Administration other than to place her on SLWOP. She also failed to provide evidence that there were ¡°compelling personal circumstances¡± so as to engender a decision to allow her to continue to telecommute from outside her official duty station. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in finding that AAL...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the staff member¡¯s argument that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT applied the incorrect standard of proof is unsubstantiated, as the main facts of the case were undisputed by both parties. She had admitted having used ±¬ÁÏÍø Womens¡¯ UPS account to send two private shipments abroad, without mentioning any prior authorization. The aggravating and mitigating elements reviewed by the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT were by nature peripheral to the sanction imposed. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that even if it was not appropriate for the Administration to use a prior act of possible misconduct as an aggravating factor (as it was not previously...