±¬ÁÏÍø

Apr¨¨s l'appel de M. Yousef et que le commissaire g¨¦n¨¦ral a ¨¦t¨¦ soumis, M. vous-m¨ºme a d¨¦pos¨¦ une requ¨ºte pour retirer l'appel en raison du fait qu'un r¨¨glement interne avait ¨¦t¨¦ convenu avec l'±¬ÁÏÍøRWA et le commissaire g¨¦n¨¦ral a d¨¦pos¨¦ une requ¨ºte en retiron L'Ace-aper. Non a ordonn¨¦ au registraire de fermer l'affaire.

Unat a consid¨¦r¨¦ un appel du secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral. Unat a jug¨¦ que la d¨¦cision de mettre fin ¨¤ M. Crotty en raison de l'abolition du poste n'a jamais ¨¦t¨¦ mise en ?uvre parce qu'il a obtenu un autre poste aupr¨¨s de l'organisation et que cela a rendu la d¨¦cision de l'administration de le mettre fin. Unat a jug¨¦ que la d¨¦cision administrative n'¨¦tait plus une question en direct et que ±¬ÁÏÍøT n'¨¦tait pas comp¨¦tente pour porter un jugement sur la demande. Unat a jug¨¦ que ±¬ÁÏÍøDT avait commis une erreur de droit lorsqu'elle a constat¨¦ que la demande de M. Crotty. Unat a jug¨¦ qu'¨¤ la lumi¨¨re de l'erreur de l...

Unat a consid¨¦r¨¦ un appel du secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral. Unat a tenu que l'±¬ÁÏÍøDT a correctement d¨¦termin¨¦ que M. Zachariah contestions une d¨¦cision administrative qui produisait des cons¨¦quences juridiques directes affectant son emploi. Unat a jug¨¦ qu'il n'y avait aucun fondement ¨¤ la plainte que Undt avait commis une erreur en droit et d¨¦passait sa juridiction en consid¨¦rant les questions au-del¨¤ de la port¨¦e de la demande de M. Zachariah pour l'¨¦valuation de la gestion et la r¨¦ponse de l'unit¨¦ d'¨¦valuation de la gestion, sur la base qu'il s'agissait du r?le de ±¬ÁÏÍøDT pour interpr¨¦ter et comprendre...

Unat a consid¨¦r¨¦ un appel du secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral. Unat a jug¨¦ que la d¨¦cision de mettre fin ¨¤ M. Alsado en raison de l'abolition du poste n'a jamais ¨¦t¨¦ mise en ?uvre parce qu'il a obtenu un autre poste aupr¨¨s de l'organisation et que cela a rendu la d¨¦cision de l'administration de le mettre fin. Unat a jug¨¦ que la d¨¦cision administrative n'¨¦tait plus une question en direct et que ±¬ÁÏÍøT n'¨¦tait pas comp¨¦tente pour porter un jugement sur la demande. Unat a jug¨¦ que ±¬ÁÏÍøDT avait commis une erreur de droit lorsqu'elle a r¨¦v¨¦l¨¦ que la demande de la demande de M. Alsado. Unat a jug¨¦ qu'¨¤ la lumi¨¨re de l...

Unat a consid¨¦r¨¦ un appel du secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral. En ce qui concerne la cr¨¦ance, contrairement ¨¤ l'affirmation de M. Lemonnier selon laquelle l'appel du secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral n'est pas ¨¤ recevoir parce que le jugement contest¨¦ ne lui a pas accord¨¦ de dommages et n'¨¦tait que ?une victoire morale?, Unat a jug¨¦ que le succ¨¨s avant de ne d¨¦pend de la question de savoir si le personnel La demande du membre est accord¨¦e, en tout ou en partie, pas sur le recours accord¨¦ au membre du personnel, et que le membre du personnel peut pr¨¦valoir ou r¨¦ussir sa r¨¦clamation sans recevoir de dommages-int¨¦r¨ºts. Selon...

Unat a jug¨¦ que les appelants n'avaient soulev¨¦ ni la diff¨¦rence factuelle ni des probl¨¨mes juridiques diff¨¦rents de ceux qui ont ¨¦t¨¦ interrog¨¦s dans les affaires compagnons et ¨¦limin¨¦ dans le jugement n ¡ã 2017-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-750 (Kagizi et al.) Et ±¬ÁÏÍøAT a donc adopt¨¦ le raisonnement de son jugement ant¨¦rieur aux paragraphes 18-27. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT a rejet¨¦ les appels et a confirm¨¦ les jugements ±¬ÁÏÍøDT.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by Mr Wu and a cross-appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the cross-appeal was receivable, despite it being a default judgment and the Secretary-General not having been allowed to participate in the proceedings or to file a reply. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the application was not receivable ratione materiae on the basis that he had not made a timely request for management evaluation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that therefore ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had no jurisdiction to address the merits of the claims in the application and those claims were not properly before ±¬ÁÏÍøAT for consideration. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the decision to terminate Mr. Crotty due to abolition of post was never implemented because he obtained another position with the Organisation and that this rendered moot the Administration¡¯s decision to terminate him. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the administrative decision was no longer a live issue and ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was not competent to pass judgment on the application. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT made an error of law when it found Mr. Crotty¡¯s application receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that in light of ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s error in receiving the application, the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly determined that Mr. Zachariah was challenging an administrative decision that produced direct legal consequences affecting his employment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no merit to the complaint that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in law and exceeded its jurisdiction by considering matters beyond the scope of Mr. Zachariah¡¯s request for management evaluation and the Management Evaluation Unit¡¯s response, on the basis that it was the role of ±¬ÁÏÍøDT to adequately interpret and comprehend the application and that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had the inherent power to...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the decision to terminate Mr Alsado due to abolition of post was never implemented because he obtained another position with the Organisation and that this rendered moot the Administration¡¯s decision to terminate him. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the administrative decision was no longer a live issue and ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was not competent to pass judgment on the application. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT made an error of law when it found Mr Alsado¡¯s application receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that in light of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s error in receiving the application, the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. On the issue of receivability, contrary to Mr Lemonnier¡¯s contention that the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal is not receivable because the impugned judgment did not award him any damages and was mere ¡°a moral victory¡±, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that success before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT depends on whether the staff member¡¯s application is granted, in whole or in part, not on the remedy afforded to the staff member, and that the staff member may prevail or succeed on his claim(s) without receiving an award of damages. According to ±¬ÁÏÍøAT, as the unsuccessful party before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT, the...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellants had raised neither factual difference nor legal issues different from those canvassed in companion cases and disposed of in judgment No. 2017-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-750 (Kagizi et al. ) and ±¬ÁÏÍøAT, therefore, adopted the reasoning from its prior judgment at paragraphs 18-27. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeals and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgments.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no merit to the Appellant¡¯s claims that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT failed to exercise its jurisdiction or erred in law by using the summary judgment procedure to determine the application was not receivable ratione materiae. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the application to ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not challenge an administrative decision that was alleged to be in non-compliance with the terms of appointment or the contract of employment of the staff member, rather the Appellant challenged the MEU¡¯s wording in a letter to him acknowledging the receipt of his grievance or complaint. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in law...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the central question before it was whether the Organisation complied with its obligation to Ms. El-Kholy to find her a suitable post. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Administration failed in its obligation to demonstrate that all reasonable and good faith efforts had been made to consider the staff member for available and suitable posts within ±¬ÁÏÍøDP before terminating her permanent appointment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Administration¡¯s obligation to find a vacant and suitable post did not shift to the Appellant, regardless of the following: her...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that there was no dispute as to the applicable statutory provision governing the timeliness of the Appellant¡¯s application to ±¬ÁÏÍøDT or that management evaluation was not required as the Appellant was challenging a disciplinary measure. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant¡¯s application was not receivable ratione temporis, noting that the Appellant himself acknowledged that his application was untimely. On the Appellant¡¯s claim that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in not waiving the time limit for him to file the application due to exceptional circumstances, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly applied judgment No. 2011...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT upheld the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT ruling that the 2010 decisions were time-barred and not receivable ratione temporis. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT acted ultra vires or in excess of its competence and jurisdiction by considering whether the Appellant had shown exceptional circumstances justifying a waiver of the filing deadline, and thus held that the relevant paragraphs of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment were obiter dicta and should be stricken. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in holding the Appellant¡¯s motion or request for waiver of the deadline as not receivable ratione temporis on the basis that while it was not timely, that did...

After Mr. Yousef¡¯s appeal and the Commissioner-General¡¯s cross-appeal had been submitted, Mr. Yourself filed a motion to withdraw the appeal based on the fact that an internal settlement had been agreed with ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA and the Commissioner-General filed a motion to withdraw the cross-appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT directed the Registrar to close the case.

On the issue of ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s denial of the Appellant¡¯s request for confidentiality, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in law or fact in denying her request as if confidentiality were attached to the identity of each staff member, there would be no transparency. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT did not admit into evidence additional documents as they were of no assistance to it and there were no exceptional circumstances. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant merely gave passing reference to the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute¡¯s grounds of appeal and offered no legal authority to support her claims. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with the characterization of the issue by ±¬ÁÏÍøDT...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT upheld ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s determination and noted that it gave a clear directive to the Administration that, upon remand, it should consider staff member¡¯s suitability for conversion to a permanent appointment ¡°by reference to the relevant circumstances as they stood at the time of the first impugned refusal to convert her appointment¡± and that the Administration failed to comply with the said directive. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also agreed with ±¬ÁÏÍøDT that the Assistant Secretary-General for Office of Human Resources Management failed to give any consideration whatsoever to...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal and Ademagic¡¯s cross-appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT upheld ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s determination that the Assistant Secretary-General for Office of Human Resources Management did not give meaningful individual consideration to the staff members¡¯ requests for conversion to permanent appointments. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that it gave a clear directive to the Administration that, upon remand, it should consider the staff members¡¯ suitability for conversion to permanent appointments ¡°by reference to the relevant circumstances as they stood at the time of the first impugned refusal to convert their...