±¬ÁÏÍø

L'±¬ÁÏÍøAT a examin¨¦ un appel interjet¨¦ par le fonctionnaire.

L'±¬ÁÏÍøAT a estim¨¦ que le Tribunal n'avait pas commis d'erreur de fait en n'ayant pas consid¨¦r¨¦ la cessation de service, mentionn¨¦e dans l'avis de cessation de service, comme le motif de la d¨¦cision contest¨¦e ; la mention de la retraite n¡¯avait aucune incidence sur la cessation de service du fonctionnaire. L'±¬ÁÏÍøAT a estim¨¦ que la lettre l'informant de l'expiration de son engagement de dur¨¦e d¨¦termin¨¦e ¨¦tait conforme ¨¤ la suppression du poste qu'elle occupait.

L'±¬ÁÏÍøAT a not¨¦ que le contr?le judiciaire dans le contexte d'une suspension d...

? titre pr¨¦liminaire, l¡¯±¬ÁÏÍøAT a rejet¨¦ la demande d¡¯audience de M. Qassem. L'±¬ÁÏÍøAT a estim¨¦ que les questions factuelles et juridiques soulev¨¦es par l'appel avaient ¨¦t¨¦ clairement d¨¦finies par les parties et qu'en outre, une audience orale ne ? contribuerait pas ¨¤ r¨¦gler l'affaire de mani¨¨re rapide et ¨¦quitable ?.

L'±¬ÁÏÍøAT a estim¨¦ que, puisque l'engagement de dur¨¦e d¨¦termin¨¦e de M. Qassem avait ¨¦t¨¦ prolong¨¦ au-del¨¤ du 31 mars 2020, sans effet donn¨¦ ¨¤ la d¨¦cision administrative initiale de ne pas renouveler son engagement au-del¨¤ de cette date, le Tribunal n'avait pas commis d'erreur en concluant...

As a preliminary matter, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed Mr. Qassem¡¯s request for an oral hearing. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the factual and legal issues arising from the appeal had been clearly defined by the parties and moreover, an oral hearing would not ¡°assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case¡±.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that since Mr. Qassem¡¯s fixed-term appointment was extended beyond 31 March 2020, with no effect given to the initial administrative decision not to renew his employment beyond this date, the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in finding that the application was moot since the administrative decision...

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

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had not erred in fact when it had not considered separation on retirement, mentioned in the separation notice, to be the reason for the contested decision; the mention of retirement had no import on the staff member¡¯s separation. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT was of the view that the letter informing her of the expiry of her fixed-term appointment was in line with the abolition of the post she encumbered.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that judicial review in the context of suspension of action is different from the review conducted by the Tribunal...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT denied the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing, finding that that the issues were well-defined and required no further development through an oral hearing.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant¡¯s application for review of the response to his request for management evaluation of his non-selection was not receivable ratione materiae as it did not produce direct legal consequences for him and was, therefore, not a reviewable administrative decision.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also found that the Appellant was informed of the outcome of his request for a management evaluation regarding his non-selection...

L'±¬ÁÏÍøAT a estim¨¦ que la r¨¦paration demand¨¦e dans la requ¨ºte concernait une question qui n'avait pas ¨¦t¨¦ soulev¨¦e auparavant devant l'±¬ÁÏÍøDT ou l'±¬ÁÏÍøAT, ¨¤ savoir le recouvrement d'un montant d¨¦j¨¤ pay¨¦ ¨¤ titre de d¨¦pense admissible selon une ¨¦chelle mobile.

L'±¬ÁÏÍøAT a estim¨¦ qu'il n'y avait rien de flou ou d'ambigu dans le sens ou la port¨¦e du jugement ant¨¦rieur, les termes de l'ordonnance ¨¦tant clairs. L¡¯±¬ÁÏÍøAT a not¨¦ qu¡¯il n¡¯¨¦tait pas n¨¦cessaire d¡¯interpr¨¦ter le jugement ant¨¦rieur pour en clarifier le sens, et qu¡¯il n¡¯existait pas non plus de doutes raisonnables sur ce qui constituait la d¨¦cision de...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the relief sought in the application concerned an issue not previously raised before the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT or the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT, being the recovery of an amount already paid as an admissible expense on a sliding scale.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was nothing in the meaning or scope of the prior Judgment that was unclear or ambiguous, the terms of the order were clear. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted there was no need to interpret the prior Judgment to clarify its meaning, nor were there reasonable doubts about what constituted the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT¡¯s decision or the reasons for it.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT was of the view that there was also...

L'±¬ÁÏÍøAT a examin¨¦ trois recours du requ¨¦rant.

L'±¬ÁÏÍøAT a estim¨¦ que l'ordonnance contest¨¦e ¨¦tait une ordonnance interlocutoire et ne relevait manifestement pas de sa comp¨¦tence.

L'±¬ÁÏÍøAT a estim¨¦ que le requ¨¦rant n'avait pas pr¨¦sent¨¦ de documents prouvant qu'il ¨¦tait membre du personnel des Nations Unies et qu'il n'avait aucun statut juridique devant le Tribunal. L'±¬ÁÏÍøAT a not¨¦ que rien ne prouvait qu'une offre d'engagement lui avait ¨¦t¨¦ adress¨¦e pour l'un ou l'autre poste. Deuxi¨¨mement, il n¡¯a pas accompli les formalit¨¦s pr¨¦alables au recrutement pour les deux postes. Troisi¨¨mement, il n'a pas...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered three appeals by the applicant.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the impugned Order was an interlocutory order and was obviously beyond the competence of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the applicant had not submitted documents to prove being a United Nations staff member and that he had no legal standing before the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that there was no evidence of an offer of appointment having been issued to him for either post. Second, he failed to complete the pre-recruitment formalities for both posts. Third, he failed to confirm, within a reasonable time, his interest and...

L'±¬ÁÏÍøAT a rejet¨¦ l'affirmation de M. Neupane selon laquelle l'±¬ÁÏÍøDT avait commis une erreur en estimant qu'il contestait la d¨¦cision de r¨¦affectation alors qu'en fait il contestait l'absence d'habilitation du Comit¨¦ central de contr?le des missions et d'inscription sur la liste pour le poste r¨¦affect¨¦. La requ¨ºte ¨¦tait assez floue et portait principalement sur la question de la r¨¦gularit¨¦ de la d¨¦cision de r¨¦affectation qui ¨¦tait conforme ¨¤ la demande de contr?le hi¨¦rarchique de M. Neupane contestant directement et clairement sa r¨¦affectation. La question de l¡¯inscription sur la liste n¡¯a ¨¦t¨¦...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed Mr. Neupane's contention that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred when it found that he was contesting the reassignment decision when in fact he was contesting the lack of his Field Central Review Board clearance and roster membership for the reassigned post. The application was quite unclear, and focused mainly on the question of regularity of the reassignment decision which was in line with Mr. Neupane¡¯s request for management evaluation challenging directly and clearly his reassignment. The issue of rostering was raised only as an argument to prove the alleged procedural irregularity of Mr...

M. Nastase a fait appel du jugement du Tribunal.

Le TANU a confirm¨¦ la conclusion du TDNU selon laquelle il n'avait pas ¨¦t¨¦ ¨¦tabli par des preuves que la d¨¦cision administrative de classer sa plainte ¨¦tait motiv¨¦e par un parti pris ¨¤ son encontre et ¨¦tait donc ill¨¦gale.

L'±¬ÁÏÍøAT a rejet¨¦ l'affirmation de M. Nastase selon laquelle le Tribunal avait commis une erreur en concluant que le fait qu'en 2019, M. Nastase avait d¨¦pos¨¦ une plainte contre le CIOS pour mauvaise conduite n'avait aucun rapport avec ses probl¨¨mes de performance. L'±¬ÁÏÍøAT a estim¨¦ que ces ¨¦v¨¦nements ne faisant pas partie de sa...

Mr. Nastase appealed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Judgment.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT's finding that it had not been established by evidence that the administrative decision to close his complaint was actuated by bias against him and was therefore unlawful.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed Mr. Nastase's contention that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in finding that the fact that in 2019, Mr. Nastase had filed a complaint against the CIOS alleging misconduct was unrelated to his performance issues. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that because these events were not part of his complaint of harassment and abuse of authority in relation to his performance...

? titre pr¨¦liminaire, l¡¯±¬ÁÏÍøAT a acc¨¦d¨¦ ¨¤ la demande d¡¯anonymat d¡¯AAM. Consid¨¦rant que le jugement contenait des d¨¦tails m¨¦dicaux concernant AAM, l'±¬ÁÏÍøAT a jug¨¦ n¨¦cessaire de prot¨¦ger ses informations confidentielles.

L¡¯±¬ÁÏÍøAT a estim¨¦ qu¡¯il y avait quatre questions ¨¤ trancher en appel : 1) la question de savoir si l¡¯appel d¡¯AAM ¨¦tait th¨¦orique/pr¨¦matur¨¦ ¨¤ la lumi¨¨re d¡¯une d¨¦cision m¨¦dicale en cours ; 2) si le Tribunal a commis une erreur en concluant que le Contr?leur avait le pouvoir d¨¦l¨¦gu¨¦ de rejeter la demande d¡¯indemnisation d¡¯AAM au titre de l¡¯Annexe D ; 3) si le Tribunal a commis une...

As a preliminary matter, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT granted AAM¡¯s request for anonymity. Considering that the Judgment set out medical details regarding AAM, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found it necessary to protect his confidential information.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that there were four issues for adjudication on appeal: 1) whether AAM¡¯s appeal was moot/premature in light of a pending medical determination; 2) whether the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in finding that the Controller had the delegated authority to deny AAM¡¯s claim for compensation under Appendix D; 3) whether the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in finding that the decision of the Controller was reasonable...

L'±¬ÁÏÍøAT a examin¨¦ un appel interjet¨¦ par le fonctionnaire.

Le TANU a estim¨¦ que le Tribunal avait examin¨¦ la d¨¦cision disciplinaire de mani¨¨re approfondie et m¨¦thodique ; le Tribunal n¡¯a pas commis d¡¯erreur de fait ou de droit en proc¨¦dant ¨¤ l¡¯analyse de proportionnalit¨¦ et il n¡¯y a eu aucune irr¨¦gularit¨¦ dans l¡¯enqu¨ºte et la proc¨¦dure disciplinaire justifiant une intervention.

L'±¬ÁÏÍøAT a convenu que l'obligation de ne pas divulguer d'informations internes ne se limite pas aux informations confidentielles. L'±¬ÁÏÍøAT a estim¨¦ que m¨ºme si la fonctionnaire exer?ait des fonctions de liaison avec les...

L'±¬ÁÏÍøAT a estim¨¦ que l'±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT avait exerc¨¦ son pouvoir discr¨¦tionnaire pour proc¨¦der par jugement sommaire, sans examiner le fond de l'affaire, de mani¨¨re l¨¦gale et appropri¨¦e. Elle a estim¨¦ que de cette mani¨¨re, la DT de l'±¬ÁÏÍøRWA avait agi non seulement conform¨¦ment aux principes d'¨¦conomie et d'efficacit¨¦ judiciaires, mais ¨¦galement dans l'int¨¦r¨ºt d'un r¨¨glement rapide de l'affaire. L'±¬ÁÏÍøAT a constat¨¦ que le requ¨¦rant a re?u la d¨¦cision administrative contest¨¦e le 3 novembre 2009 et a d¨¦pos¨¦ sa demande aupr¨¨s du DT de l'±¬ÁÏÍøRWA le 12 ao?t 2022. Il ¨¦tait donc ¨¦vident qu'il avait d¨¦pos¨¦ sa...

L¡¯±¬ÁÏÍøAT a d¡¯abord rejet¨¦ la demande d¡¯audience de M. Guenfoudi.

L'±¬ÁÏÍøAT a conclu qu'en tant que membre de longue date du Secr¨¦tariat, M. Guenfoudi ¨¦tait conscient des normes de performance requises pour sa fonction de traducteur verbatim. L'±¬ÁÏÍøAT a ¨¦galement estim¨¦ qu'il avait eu une possibilit¨¦ ¨¦quitable de rem¨¦dier ¨¤ ses lacunes en mati¨¨re de performances, mais il a refus¨¦ de participer aux deux plans d'am¨¦lioration des performances. L¡¯±¬ÁÏÍøAT a estim¨¦ que le cadre juridique de l¡¯Organisation indiquait clairement que le licenciement ¨¦tait une mesure pr¨¦visible apr¨¨s deux ann¨¦es cons¨¦cutives de...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT concluded that as a long-serving member of the Secretariat, Mr. Guenfoudi was aware of the required standards of performance for his function as a Verbatim Translator. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also held that he had been given a fair opportunity to address his performance shortcomings, but he refused to participate in the two performance improvement plans. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the Organization¡¯s legal framework was clear that termination was a foreseeable action following two consecutive years of substandard performance ratings. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also found that Mr. Guenfoudi¡¯s allegations that his...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT exercised its discretion to proceed by summary judgment, without examining the merits of the case, lawfully and appropriately. It found that in this way, the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT acted not only in accordance with the principles of judicial economy and efficiency, but also in the interest of expeditious disposal of the case.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the Appellant received the contested administrative decision on 3 November 2009 and filed his application with the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT on 12 August 2022. Therefore, it was obvious that he filed his application more than three years after his...