±¬ÁÏÍø

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the factual and legal issues arising from this appeal have already been clearly defined by the parties and there is no need for further clarification through an oral hearing.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not commit any errors when it found that the staff member¡¯s application was irreceivable ratione materiae.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had correctly held that the staff member had knowledge of the alleged constructive dismissal on either the date that he reiterated his resignation, or at the latest when ±¬ÁÏÍøICEF accepted his resignation. His request for management...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Administration¡¯s decision to suspend the consideration of initiating a disciplinary process and instead resume it should the Appellant become reemployed by the Organization in the future, did not constitute an appealable administrative decision for the purpose of Article 2(1)(a) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute, as it did not produce a present and direct adverse impact on Ms. Mugo¡¯s terms or conditions of appointment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that all the Administration did was inquire if the Appellant was prepared to cooperate in a disciplinary process. Therefore, as no written allegations were ever...

? titre pr¨¦liminaire, Unat a rejet¨¦ les appels de deux membres du personnel qui n'¨¦taient pas partie ¨¤ la proc¨¦dure devant l'±¬ÁÏÍøDT et n'avaient pas de position. Sur le fond, Unat a jug¨¦ qu'il y avait une d¨¦cision administrative r¨¦visable au sens de l'article 2, paragraphe 1, a) de la loi ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. Unat a jug¨¦ que l'±¬ÁÏÍøDT avait commis une erreur en concluant que l'annonce par l'USG / DGACM dat¨¦e du 8 avril 2021 que la charge de travail quotidienne des traducteurs serait pass¨¦e ¨¤ 5,8 pages et de l'auto-retour ¨¤ 6,4 pages, n'¨¦tait pas une d¨¦cision administrative appelable aux fins des fins de Article 2...

As a preliminary matter, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeals of two staff members who were not a party to the proceedings before the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT and had no standing. On the merits, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was a reviewable administrative decision within the meaning of Article 2(1)(a) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred finding that the announcement by the USG/DGACM dated 8 April 2021 that the daily workload of translators would be increased to 5.8 pages and of self-revisers to 6.4 pages, was not an appealable administrative decision for the purpose of Article 2(1) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held...

M. Lucchini et le Secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral ¨¦taient en d¨¦saccord sur le fait que Unat a confirm¨¦ l'attribution de l'indemnisation de l'±¬ÁÏÍøDT pour dommages moraux, en plus d'augmenter le montant de la r¨¦mun¨¦ration en place de 10 mois ¨¤ 24 mois, ou d'ordonner le paiement de l'augmentation du montant de l'indemnisation en Location (de deux ans de salaire de base nette) mais n'a pas inclus l'attribution initiale de compensation pour pr¨¦judice moral qui avait ¨¦t¨¦ command¨¦e par l'±¬ÁÏÍøDT. M. Lucchini a d¨¦pos¨¦ une demande d'interpr¨¦tation pour confirmer la confirmation de son avis selon laquelle la d¨¦cision d...

Mr. Lucchini and the Secretary-General disagreed on whether ±¬ÁÏÍøAT confirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s award of compensation for moral damages, in addition to increasing the amount of in lieu compensation from 10 months to 24 months, or ordered payment of the increased amount of compensation in lieu (of two years¡¯ net base salary) but did not include the original award of compensation for moral harm that had been ordered by the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. Mr. Lucchini filed an application for interpretation seeking confirmation of his view that ±¬ÁÏÍøAT¡¯s ruling increased the amount of in lieu compensation from 10 to 24 months¡¯ net...

Le Secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral a demand¨¦ l'interpr¨¦tation, la r¨¦vision et l'ex¨¦cution du jugement n ¡ã 2021-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-1118, au motif qu'il n'a pas ¨¦t¨¦ en mesure d'effectuer la r¨¦mun¨¦ration accord¨¦ dans le jugement de l'±¬ÁÏÍøD parce que M. Diend a refus¨¦ de fournir ses coordonn¨¦es bancaires. Unat a jug¨¦ que le jugement ¨¦tait clair, ¨¦crit dans un langage clair et sans ambigu?t¨¦, et il n'a laiss¨¦ aucun doute raisonnable quant ¨¤ ce qu'il signifiait. Ainsi, il n'y avait pas besoin de clarification. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT a en outre constat¨¦ que le Secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral n'avait pas fait valoir qu'il avait d¨¦couvert un fait d¨¦cisif qui...

The Secretary-General sought interpretation, revision, and execution of Judgment No. 2021-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-1118, on grounds that he was unable to effectuate the compensation awarded in the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Judgment because Mr. Dieng refused to provide his banking details. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Judgment was clear, written in plain and unambiguous language, and it left no reasonable doubt as to what it meant. Thus, there was no need for clarification. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further found that the Secretary-General had failed to argue that he had discovered a decisive fact which was unknown to the Appeals Tribunal at the time the Judgment...

Unat a consid¨¦r¨¦ un appel de Mme Matahen. Unat a jug¨¦ que son appel ¨¦tait d¨¦fectueux en ce qu'il n'avait identifi¨¦ aucun des cinq motifs ¨¦nonc¨¦s ¨¤ l'article 2, paragraphe 1, du statut du tribunal d'appel comme formant la base juridique de son appel. En ce qui concerne la demande ¨¦crite de Mme Matahen pour une prolongation du d¨¦lai pour d¨¦poser une demande, Unat a jug¨¦ que l'±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT ne s'est pas tromp¨¦ en concluant que son all¨¦gation avait d¨¦couvert que le 17 ao?t 2020, une autre demande similaire de retraite volontaire pr¨¦coce avait ¨¦t¨¦ accord¨¦e par l'±¬ÁÏÍøRWA, ne constituait pas une...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by Ms. Matahen. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that her appeal was defective in that it failed to identify any of the five grounds set out in Article 2(1) of the Statute of the Appeals Tribunal as forming the legal basis of her appeal. With regard to Ms. Matahen¡¯s written request for an extension of time to file an application, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT did not err in finding that her allegation that she had only found out on 17 August 2020 that another similar request for Early Voluntary Retirement had been granted by ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA, did not constitute an exceptional circumstance, namely, a...

Unat a soutenu que l'appelant n'avait pas de position pour chercher ¨¤ consid¨¦rer un banc complet. Unat a soutenu que dans la mesure o¨´ ±¬ÁÏÍøT s'est engag¨¦ dans un exercice d'enqu¨ºte, ce n'¨¦tait pas un exercice l¨¦gitime de sa comp¨¦tence. L'±¬ÁÏÍøAT a jug¨¦ que le non-respect de l'administration ¨¤ fournir des raisons ad¨¦quates pour la d¨¦cision contest¨¦e a permis ¨¤ la d¨¦cision contest¨¦e d'¨ºtre ill¨¦gale. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT a jug¨¦ que l¡¯administration n¡¯exerce pas son pouvoir discr¨¦tionnaire en ce qui concerne la r¨¦alisation d¡¯une enqu¨ºte a ¨¦galement rendu la d¨¦cision contest¨¦e ill¨¦gale. Unat a autoris¨¦ l'appel en...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant had no standing to seek consideration by a full bench. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that to the extent ±¬ÁÏÍøDT engaged in a fact-finding exercise of its own, this was not a legitimate exercise of its competence. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Administration¡¯s failure to provide adequate reasons for the contested decision resulted in the contested decision being unlawful. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Administration¡¯s failure to exercise its discretion with regard to carrying out an investigation also rendered the contested decision unlawful. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT allowed the appeal in part. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT vacated the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Judgment by...

Mme Koduru a fait appel. Unat a jug¨¦ que l'±¬ÁÏÍøDT ne s'est pas tromp¨¦ en droit ou en fait en concluant que le cas de Mme Koduru ¨¦tait pleinement et assez pris en consid¨¦ration. Plus pr¨¦cis¨¦ment, Unat n'a trouv¨¦ aucune erreur dans la conclusion de l'±¬ÁÏÍøDT selon laquelle Mme Koduru n'avait pas r¨¦pondu ¨¤ la charge de la preuve que la d¨¦cision ¨¦tait fond¨¦e sur des arri¨¨re-pens¨¦es et un sch¨¦ma de harc¨¨lement prolong¨¦, ainsi que d'¨¦tablir un lien causal entre les incidents pr¨¦sum¨¦s et les incidents pr¨¦sum¨¦s et La d¨¦cision administrative contest¨¦e de ne pas renouveler sa nomination ¨¤ dur¨¦e d¨¦termin¨¦e...

Ms. Koduru appealed. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in law or fact in concluding that Ms. Koduru¡¯s case was fully and fairly considered. Specifically, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found no error in the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s finding that Ms. Koduru had failed to meet the burden of proof that the decision was based on ulterior motives and a protracted pattern of harassment, as well as to establish a causal link between the alleged incidents and the challenged administrative decision not to renew her fixed-term appointment. Rather, such a decision, as correctly determined by the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT, was a reasonable and proper exercise of the...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT a rejet¨¦ l'appel. L'±¬ÁÏÍøAT a jug¨¦ que le 25 juillet 2017 ¨¦tait la date pertinente d¨¦clenchant le d¨¦lai de d¨¦lai en vertu de la r¨¨gle 11.2 (c). ? cette date, Mme Wozniak a ¨¦t¨¦ inform¨¦e en termes sans ¨¦quivoque par l'administration que sa demande de report pour l'exercice de rotation de 2017 avait ¨¦t¨¦ approuv¨¦e sur le terrain de retraite, en pensant qu'elle prendrait sa retraite le 30 avril 2019. Ainsi, sa demande de gestion L'¨¦valuation dat¨¦e du 24 juillet 2019 a ¨¦t¨¦ d¨¦pos¨¦e en dehors du d¨¦lai l¨¦gal de 60 jours. Unat a constat¨¦ que dans tous les cas, l'±¬ÁÏÍøDT a ¨¦galement correctement estim¨¦...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that 25 July 2017 was the relevant date triggering the time limit under Staff Rule 11.2(c). On that date, Ms. Wozniak was informed in unequivocal terms by the Administration that her request for deferment for the 2017 Rotation Exercise had been approved on retirement ground, on the understanding that she would retire on 30 April 2019. Thus, her request for management evaluation dated 24 July 2019 was filed outside the 60-day statutory time limit. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that in any case the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT also correctly held that even if it were to entertain that the...

Mme Coleman a d¨¦pos¨¦ un appel contre le jugement de l'±¬ÁÏÍøT demandant ¨¤ l'inverse des conclusions ±¬ÁÏÍøDT selon lesquelles (i) le non-respect des demandes r¨¦p¨¦t¨¦es de Mme Coleman sur son cas ne constituait pas une violation de la proc¨¦dure; (ii) Mme Coleman n'avait pas fourni de preuve de biais ou de pr¨¦jug¨¦s; (iii) Elle n'avait pas droit ¨¤ des dommages moraux. Unat a constat¨¦ que les motifs sp¨¦cifiques de l'appel en vertu (i) et (ii) ¨¦taient d¨¦pourvus de pratique car, m¨ºme s'ils devaient ¨ºtre accept¨¦s par le Tribunal d'appel comme l¨¦galement et factuellement vrai, cela ne conduirait pas ¨¤ une...

Ms. Coleman filed an appeal against the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Judgment asking that ±¬ÁÏÍøAT reverse the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT findings that (i) the failure to answer Ms. Coleman¡¯s repeated requests for information about her case did not amount to a procedural violation; (ii) Ms. Coleman had failed to provide proof of bias or prejudice; (iii) she was not entitled to moral damages. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the specific grounds of appeal under (i) and (ii) were devoid of any practicality as, even if they were to be accepted by the Appeals Tribunal as legally and factually true, this would not lead to a different ruling having an actual, real...

Mme Coleman a fait appel. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT a rejet¨¦ l'appel et a confirm¨¦ le jugement de l'±¬ÁÏÍøD. Unat a not¨¦ qu'en atteignant sa conclusion qu'il ¨¦tait raisonnable pour l'administration de d¨¦cider qu'il n'¨¦tait pas dans l'int¨¦r¨ºt de l'organisation de maintenir Mme Coleman sur le statut de r¨¦mun¨¦ration sans effectuer de travail avant l'expiration de son rendez-vous ¨¤ terme, l'±¬ÁÏÍøDT consid¨¦r¨¦e, entre autres, que: i) elle s'¨¦tait plac¨¦e dans une situation dans laquelle elle ne pouvait plus exercer ses fonctions au Pakistan; ii) Elle avait rejet¨¦ la mission temporaire qui lui a ¨¦t¨¦ offerte ¨¤ South Soudan; et...

Ms. Coleman appealed. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Judgment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that in reaching its conclusion that it was reasonable for the Administration to decide that it was not in the interest of the Organization to keep Ms. Coleman on pay status whilst not performing work until the expiry of her fixed-term appointment, the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT considered, inter alia, that: i) she had placed herself in a situation in which she could no longer perform her duties in Pakistan; ii) she had rejected the temporary assignment offered to her in South Soudan; and iii) she was not interested in...