±¬ÁÏÍø

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s conclusion on the receivability of the application but suggested that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT should have applied a different methodology for determining it.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the staff member did not have standing before the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT regarding claims made in his former capacity as an individual contractor, and thus this claim failed on ratione personae grounds. The other claims made in his former capacity as staff member failed on ratione materiae grounds. He failed to prove that a specific request had been made to the Administration for certification of service. Absent any...

L¡¯±¬ÁÏÍøAT a estim¨¦ que le Tribunal avait eu raison de consid¨¦rer qu¡¯il existait clairement des ¨¦l¨¦ments de preuve suffisants pour ¨¦tayer la conclusion de l¡¯Administration selon laquelle les performances du fonctionnaire ne r¨¦pondaient que partiellement aux attentes et que cette pr¨¦occupation lui avait ¨¦t¨¦ communiqu¨¦e. Bien que la confirmation de la notation par le Comit¨¦ de r¨¦futation et la pr¨¦paration d'une deuxi¨¨me ¨¦valuation des performances ¨¤ court terme aient eu lieu apr¨¨s le non-renouvellement, l'±¬ÁÏÍøAT a conclu que ces examens confirmaient n¨¦anmoins que l'¨¦valuation informelle pr¨¦alable de...

L¡¯±¬ÁÏÍøAT a rejet¨¦ la demande d¡¯anonymat de l¡¯appelant car la question soulev¨¦e dans son appel ¨¦tait purement proc¨¦durale et juridictionnelle et ne concernait aucune donn¨¦e personnelle devant ¨ºtre prot¨¦g¨¦e.

L¡¯±¬ÁÏÍøAT a ¨¦galement rejet¨¦ la demande d¡¯audience de l¡¯appelant, estimant que cela n¡¯aiderait pas le Tribunal d¡¯appel ¨¤ r¨¦gler l¡¯affaire de mani¨¨re rapide et ¨¦quitable.

L'±¬ÁÏÍøAT a estim¨¦ que le requ¨¦rant ayant d¨¦pos¨¦ sa requ¨ºte 93 jours apr¨¨s la r¨¦ception de la d¨¦cision administrative contest¨¦e, celle-ci n'¨¦tait pas recevable, sauf renonciation au d¨¦lai par le Tribunal. L¡¯±¬ÁÏÍøAT a observ¨¦ qu¡¯¨¦tant...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT denied the Appellant¡¯s request for anonymity as the issue presented in his appeal was purely procedural and jurisdictional and did not involve any personal data which had to be protected.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also denied the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing, finding that that it would not assist the Appeals Tribunal in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that because the Appellant filed his application 93 days after the receipt of the contested administrative decision, it was not receivable, absent waiver of the deadline of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT observed that given...

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

L'±¬ÁÏÍøAT a estim¨¦ que le raisonnement suivi par le DT de l'±¬ÁÏÍøRWA pour refuser une audience parce que le fonctionnaire n'avait pas ¨¦tabli que son recours ¨¦tait recevable ¨¦tait ex post facto et, par cons¨¦quent, erron¨¦.

L'±¬ÁÏÍøAT a constat¨¦ qu'il y avait une erreur dans le calcul de l'indemnit¨¦ par le DT de l'±¬ÁÏÍøRWA en remplacement de l'annulation de la d¨¦cision de non-s¨¦lection, car il n'y avait aucune preuve pour ¨¦tayer la conclusion selon laquelle l'±¬ÁÏÍøRWA l'aurait jug¨¦ inapte ¨¤ occuper ce poste ¨¤ la fin de la p¨¦riode. p¨¦riode de probation.

L¡¯±¬ÁÏÍøAT a estim¨¦ que le Tribunal a commis plusieurs erreurs de droit et de fait, conduisant ¨¤ un r¨¦sultat manifestement d¨¦raisonnable.

En particulier, l¡¯±¬ÁÏÍøAT a estim¨¦ que le Tribunal a commis une erreur en refusant de tenir une audition des preuves que M. Nkoyock cherchait ¨¤ appeler pour ¨¦tablir sa d¨¦fense face aux all¨¦gations port¨¦es contre lui et pour mettre en accusation les t¨¦moins du Secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral. Le Tribunal a ¨¦galement commis une erreur en ne parvenant pas ¨¤ tirer ses propres conclusions sur les faits contest¨¦s et en s¡¯appuyant de mani¨¨re excessive sur les conclusions de l¡¯enqu¨ºte...

L'±¬ÁÏÍøAT a estim¨¦ que l'absence de discussion sur la gestion de l'affaire et d'audience devant le TCNU ne constituait pas une erreur de proc¨¦dure.

Le TANU a estim¨¦ que le Tribunal n'avait pas commis d'erreur en admettant et en examinant le m¨¦morandum d'all¨¦gations de mauvaise conduite, car celui-ci avait ¨¦t¨¦ utilis¨¦ par l'Administration uniquement pour v¨¦rifier que les circonstances justifiant le placement du requ¨¦rant en ALWP existaient.

L'±¬ÁÏÍøAT a ¨¦galement constat¨¦ que le rapport d'enqu¨ºte du BSCI ne faisait pas r¨¦f¨¦rence aux communications entre l'appelant et son conseil, ni aux ¨¦changes au...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the absence of a case management discussion and an oral hearing before the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was not a procedural error.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in admitting and considering the memorandum of allegations of misconduct, as it was used by the Administration only to verify that circumstances warranting the placement of the Appellant on ALWP occurred. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also found that the OIOS Investigation Report did not refer to the communications between the Appellant and his counsel, nor to exchanges during a mediation process, but only considered the Appellant¡¯s objective...

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

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s reasoning for refusing an oral hearing because the staff member failed to establish that her appeal was receivable, was ex post facto and, thereby, erroneous.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that there was an error in the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s calculation of compensation in lieu of rescission of the non-selection decision as there was no evidence to support the conclusion that the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA would have found her unsuitable for the role at the end of the probationary period.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT was of the view that the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s methodology of fixing...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT made several errors of law and of fact leading to a manifestly unreasonable outcome.

In particular, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in refusing to hold a hearing of evidence that Mr. Nkoyock sought to call to establish his defence to the allegations against him and to impeach the Secretary-General¡¯s witnesses. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT further erred when it failed to reach its own conclusions on disputed facts and relied overly on the internal investigation¡¯s findings. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT also erred in relying on evidence that it had ruled irrelevant and inadmissible...

L'±¬ÁÏÍøAT a examin¨¦ un appel du Secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral de l'OMM. L'±¬ÁÏÍøAT a estim¨¦ que le fonctionnaire cherchait ¨¤ adh¨¦rer ¨¤ une modification convenue de son contrat qui, en ¨¦change d'un raccourcissement de sa dur¨¦e d'emploi, lui donnait droit ¨¤ une indemnit¨¦ de licenciement.

L'±¬ÁÏÍøAT a not¨¦ que le Tribunal avait eu raison d'¨¦tablir comme condition de recevabilit¨¦ l'effet direct et n¨¦gatif provoqu¨¦ par la mise en ?uvre de la d¨¦cision contest¨¦e. L¡¯±¬ÁÏÍøAT ¨¦tait d¡¯avis que la d¨¦cision de l¡¯OMM visant ¨¤ r¨¦silier son accord affectait les projets professionnels et personnels ¨¦tablis par le fonctionnaire...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General of WMO.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the staff member was seeking to adhere to an agreed variation to his contract which, in return for foreshortening his period of employment, entitled him to a termination indemnity. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had been correct in establishing a direct and negative effect, brought about by the implementation of the contested decision, as a condition for receivability.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT was of the view that WMO¡¯s decision purporting to rescind its agreement affected the staff member¡¯s established career and personal...

L'±¬ÁÏÍøAT a estim¨¦ que le voyage de la requ¨¦rante n'¨¦tait pas autoris¨¦ en vertu de l'article 7.10 du R¨¨glement du personnel car elle n'avait b¨¦n¨¦fici¨¦ que d'un seul jour de cong¨¦ annuel approuv¨¦ le 24 juin 2021, suivi d'une p¨¦riode de repos et de repos du 12 juillet au 16 juillet 2021. L'±¬ÁÏÍøAT a ¨¦galement conclu que le L'administration a pris les mesures appropri¨¦es en lui envoyant le 25 juillet 2021 un e-mail lui rappelant que tous les membres du personnel international devaient soumettre leur demande de renouvellement de visa soudanais dans les d¨¦lais.

L¡¯±¬ÁÏÍøAT a estim¨¦ que les ¨¦v¨¦nements qui ont...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant¡¯s travel was not authorized pursuant to Staff Rule 7.10 because she had just one approved day of annual leave on 24 June 2021 followed by a period of R&R from the 12 July to 16 July 2021. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also found that the Administration took the appropriate action by sending her on 25 July 2021 an e-mail reminding her that all the international staff members had to submit their Sudanese visa renewal application in a timely manner. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the events that delayed the Appellant¡¯s return to her duty station could not be construed as force majeure as they...

L'±¬ÁÏÍøAT a estim¨¦ que la d¨¦cision d'annuler la proc¨¦dure de nomination et d'en engager une nouvelle relevait clairement du pouvoir discr¨¦tionnaire de l'Administration. Une nouvelle proc¨¦dure de nomination ayant ¨¦t¨¦ engag¨¦e, il n¡¯y avait plus de d¨¦cision administrative pr¨¦tendument non conforme aux conditions d¡¯engagement ou au contrat de travail d¡¯AAP. Tout diff¨¦rend concernant le processus de nomination initial ¨¦tait sans objet dans le sens o¨´ il n'y avait aucune question en litige qui exigeait une d¨¦cision du Tribunal. L¡¯±¬ÁÏÍøAT a estim¨¦ que le Tribunal avait ¨¤ juste titre rejet¨¦ la requ¨ºte d¡¯AAP...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the decision to cancel the appointment process and initiate a new process was one which fell squarely within the discretionary authority of the Administration. Given that a new appointment process had been embarked upon, there was no longer any administrative decision alleged to be in non-compliance with AAP¡¯s terms of appointment or contract of employment. Any dispute concerned with the initial appointment process was moot in the sense that there was no live issue in dispute which required determination by the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly dismissed AAP¡¯s...

L'±¬ÁÏÍøAT a estim¨¦ que l'±¬ÁÏÍøDT avait commis une erreur en estimant que l'administration avait mal interpr¨¦t¨¦ l'une des exigences pour le poste annonc¨¦ dans le JO 127555, ¨¤ savoir ? l'exp¨¦rience dans la direction de grandes ¨¦quipes ?, comme exigeant une exp¨¦rience de la supervision directe de 10 personnes ou plus. L¡¯±¬ÁÏÍøAT a en outre estim¨¦ que l¡¯avis de vacance permettait une interpr¨¦tation contextuelle dans la mesure o¨´ le sens litt¨¦ral du terme ? diriger ? est tr¨¨s g¨¦n¨¦ral et ne permet pas, en soi, de comprendre exactement le sens voulu. Par cons¨¦quent, l¡¯±¬ÁÏÍøAT a estim¨¦ qu¡¯il ¨¦tait raisonnable pour...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in holding that the Administration misinterpreted one of the requirements for the position advertised in JO 127555, namely ¡°experience in leading large teams¡±, as requiring experience of direct supervision of 10 people or more. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further found that the vacancy announcement allowed for a such contextual interpretation as the literal meaning of ¡°lead¡± is very general and does not, by itself, allow for an exact comprehension of the intended meaning. Therefore, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was reasonable for the Administration to interpret the requirement of...

L'±¬ÁÏÍøAT a estim¨¦ que l'appel contre les deux ordonnances interlocutoires ¨¦tait devenu sans objet apr¨¨s le prononc¨¦ du jugement n¡ã ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2022/124 et que l'±¬ÁÏÍøDT n'avait pas commis d'erreur en rendant son jugement pendant la dur¨¦e de cet appel. L'±¬ÁÏÍøAT a n¨¦anmoins observ¨¦ que l'±¬ÁÏÍøDT avait commis une erreur de droit en imposant un d¨¦lai d¨¦raisonnablement court pour se conformer ¨¤ l'ordonnance n¡ã 157 (NBI/2022). Malgr¨¦ cela, l'±¬ÁÏÍøAT a conclu que, la proc¨¦dure ¨¦tant irrecevable, cette conclusion n'¨¦tait pas d'une grande aide pour l'appelant dans sa cause. Concernant l'ordonnance n¡ã 158 (NBI/2022), l...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal against the two interlocutory Orders became moot following the issuance of Judgment No. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2022/124 and that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in delivering its Judgment during the pendency of that appeal. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT nevertheless observed that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in law by imposing an unreasonably short period for compliance with Order No. 157 (NBI/2022). Despite this, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT concluded that, as the proceeding was unreceivable, this finding did not assist the Appellant in his case. With regard to Order No. 158 (NBI/2022), the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT rightfully refused to...