±¬ÁÏÍø

L¡¯±¬ÁÏÍøAT a tout d¡¯abord estim¨¦ que la d¨¦cision contest¨¦e du 17 avril 2011 ne constituait pas une d¨¦cision administrative susceptible de recours et n¡¯¨¦tait pas recevable ratione materiae, dans la mesure o¨´ elle se contentait de conseiller ¨¤ l¡¯ancien membre du personnel de se rendre au bureau du HCR le plus proche et d¡¯y demander l¡¯asile ou la r¨¦installation en tant que r¨¦fugi¨¦.

? titre subsidiaire, m¨ºme en supposant que le courriel du 17 avril 2011 ait pu constituer une d¨¦cision administrative valable et susceptible de recours, l¡¯±¬ÁÏÍøAT a estim¨¦ que la demande de l¡¯ancien fonctionnaire resterait...

L¡¯±¬ÁÏÍøAT a constat¨¦ que Mme George avait d¨¦pos¨¦ sa demande de retour au syst¨¨me de r¨¦mun¨¦ration en dollars am¨¦ricains le 4 ao?t 2015 et que l¡¯Administration l¡¯avait rejet¨¦e le 10 novembre 2015. Malgr¨¦ cette communication claire, l¡¯ancienne fonctionnaire a continu¨¦ ¨¤ ¨¦changer des courriers avec l¡¯Administration afin d¡¯obtenir un r¨¦examen de la d¨¦cision pendant pr¨¨s de neuf ans. Elle a attendu le 9 avril 2024 pour d¨¦poser sa demande de r¨¦examen aupr¨¨s du Comit¨¦ permanent. Comme celle-ci avait ¨¦t¨¦ d¨¦pos¨¦e au-del¨¤ du d¨¦lai l¨¦gal de quatre-vingt-dix jours ¨¤ compter de la r¨¦ception de la notification...

L¡¯±¬ÁÏÍøAT a estim¨¦ que l¡¯ancien agent avait form¨¦ son recours dans le d¨¦lai l¨¦gal. Elle a relev¨¦ que, puisqu¡¯il avait d¨¦pos¨¦ sa requ¨ºte devant le TNDU en fran?ais, le d¨¦lai de 60 jours pour former son recours courait ¨¤ compter de la date de r¨¦ception de l¡¯arr¨ºt du TNDU dans cette m¨ºme langue. Comme il avait re?u l¡¯arr¨ºt du TDN en fran?ais le 11 juillet 2025 et avait form¨¦ son pourvoi le 13 ao?t 2025, l¡¯±¬ÁÏÍøAT a estim¨¦ que celui-ci avait ¨¦t¨¦ form¨¦ dans les d¨¦lais.

N¨¦anmoins, l¡¯±¬ÁÏÍøAT a jug¨¦ que la requ¨ºte de l¡¯ancien fonctionnaire devant le TDN n¡¯¨¦tait pas recevable. ? cet ¨¦gard, l¡¯±¬ÁÏÍøAT a tout d...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the former staff member filed his appeal within the statutory deadline. It noted that since he filed his application before the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT in French, the 60-day time limit for filing his appeal ran from the date of receipt of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Judgment in that same language. As he received the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Judgment in French on 11 July 2025 and filed his appeal on 13 August 2025, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was filed in a timely manner.

Nevertheless, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the former staff member¡¯s application before the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was not receivable. In this regard, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT first rejected his contention...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that Ms. George submitted her request to revert to the US dollar track system on 4 August 2015 and the Administration rejected it on 10 November 2015.Despite that clear communication, the former staff member continued to exchange correspondence with the Administration seeking reconsideration of the decision for almost nine years.She waited until 9 April 2024 before submitting her request for review to the Standing Committee.As it was filed beyond the statutory time limit of ninety days of receipt of notification of the contested decision, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that her request was...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT first held that the contested decision of 17 April 2011 did not constitute an appealable administrative decision and was not receivable ratione materiae, insofar as it merely advised the former staff member to go to the nearest ±¬ÁÏÍøHCR office and seek asylum or resettlement as a refugee.

Subsidiarily, even assuming that the e-mail of 17 April 2011 could have constituted a valid appealable administrative decision, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the former staff member¡¯s application would nonetheless remain not receivable on two grounds. First, he did not request management evaluation of the...

Le Tribunal a estim¨¦ que la demande de M. Issa ne remplissait pas les conditions strictes de recevabilit¨¦ pr¨¦vues par le Statut de l'±¬ÁÏÍøAT, ¨¤ savoir que le fait d¨¦terminant sur lequel il s'appuie aujourd'hui, ¨¤ savoir la fermeture compl¨¨te de tous les bureaux de l'±¬ÁÏÍøRWA en Cisjordanie, ¨¦tait inconnu du Tribunal d'appel et de lui-m¨ºme avant le jugement. Ce fait ¨¦tait clairement connu de M. Issa, ce qui rendait sa demande irrecevable pour ce seul motif.

Le T±¬ÁÏÍøC a not¨¦ que M. Issa ne pr¨¦sente pas, ni ne pr¨¦tend m¨ºme poss¨¦der, de preuve qu'il s'est effectivement conform¨¦ aux directives de l'±¬ÁÏÍøRWA...

Le Tribunal d'appel a estim¨¦ que l'ajustement proportionnel des normes de charge de travail pour les services d'auto-r¨¦vision relevait clairement du pouvoir discr¨¦tionnaire de l'Administration. Le Tribunal d'appel s'est d¨¦clar¨¦ satisfait du fait que l'Administration avait suivi toutes les proc¨¦dures appropri¨¦es lors de la prise et de la mise en ?uvre de la d¨¦cision contest¨¦e, et que le TND avait correctement d¨¦termin¨¦ qu'il n'¨¦tait pas n¨¦cessaire de consulter la direction du personnel au niveau du d¨¦partement ou du bureau concernant une d¨¦cision administrative sp¨¦cifique susceptible d'appel.

Le...

The Tribunal found that Mr. Issa¡¯s application does not satisfy the stringent prerequisites for receivability under the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute, namely, that the decisive fact he now relies upon, that all ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA offices in the West Bank field were closed completely, was unknown to the Appeals Tribunal and to himself, prior to the Judgment. This was plainly known to Mr. Issa, rendering his application non-receivable on this ground alone.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that Mr. Issa does not present, or even purport to possess, evidence that he in fact had complied with ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA¡¯s directives to advise the Agency of his...

The Appeals Tribunal found that the proportional adjustment of workload standards for self-revision services was a matter that fell squarely within the Administration¡¯s discretionary authority. The Appeals Tribunal was satisfied that the Administration followed all proper procedures when taking and implementing the contested decision, and the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT properly determined that there was no requirement for staff management consultations at the departmental or office level in relation to a specific appealable administrative decision.

The Appeals Tribunal dismissed the appeal and affirmed Judgment No...

Le Tribunal d'appel a estim¨¦ que l'ajustement proportionnel des normes de charge de travail pour les services d'auto-r¨¦vision relevait clairement du pouvoir discr¨¦tionnaire de l'Administration. Le Tribunal d'appel s'est d¨¦clar¨¦ satisfait que l'Administration ait suivi toutes les proc¨¦dures appropri¨¦es lors de la prise et de la mise en ?uvre de la d¨¦cision contest¨¦e, et que le TNDH ait correctement d¨¦termin¨¦ qu'il n'¨¦tait pas n¨¦cessaire de consulter la direction du personnel au niveau du d¨¦partement ou du bureau concernant une d¨¦cision administrative sp¨¦cifique susceptible d'appel.

Le Tribunal d...

The Appeals Tribunal found that the proportional adjustment of workload standards for self-revision services was a matter that fell squarely within the Administration¡¯s discretionary authority. The Appeals Tribunal was satisfied that the Administration followed all proper procedures when taking and implementing the contested decision, and the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT properly determined that there was no requirement for staff management consultations at the departmental or office level in relation to a specific appealable administrative decision.

The Appeals Tribunal dismissed the appeal and affirmed Judgment No...

L'±¬ÁÏÍøAT a estim¨¦ que l'±¬ÁÏÍøDT n'avait pas commis d'erreur en concluant que la d¨¦cision contest¨¦e de classer la plainte du fonctionnaire sans enqu¨ºte ¨¦tait l¨¦gale et raisonnable. L'±¬ÁÏÍøAT a estim¨¦ que l'OIAI avait correctement ¨¦valu¨¦ les all¨¦gations et d¨¦termin¨¦ qu'elles ne reposaient pas sur des preuves ou des indices suffisants de faute professionnelle, et que les incidents d¨¦crits relevaient d'une gestion normale des performances plut?t que d'un harc¨¨lement ou d'un abus d'autorit¨¦.

Le T±¬ÁÏÍøAT a en outre estim¨¦ que le TUD avait correctement conclu que les d¨¦saccords concernant les ¨¦valuations de...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in concluding that the contested decision to close the staff member¡¯s complaint without investigation was lawful and reasonable. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that OIAI properly assessed the allegations and determined they lacked sufficient evidence or indicia of misconduct, and that the incidents described fell within normal performance management rather than harassment or abuse of authority.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly found that disagreements over performance ratings and the implementation of a Performance Improvement Plan do not constitute...

L'±¬ÁÏÍøAT a not¨¦ que l'IA Mobilit¨¦ n'¨¦tait pas une d¨¦cision ? d'application individuelle ?, mais une instruction g¨¦n¨¦rale applicable ¨¤ tous les membres du personnel entr¨¦s en fonction le 1er octobre 2023 ou apr¨¨s cette date, comme Mme Stepanova.

Mme Stepanova tentait de modifier les conditions de nomination ou le contrat de travail en se soustrayant ¨¤ l'application de l'AI Mobilit¨¦ et ne contestait donc pas le ? non-respect ? des ? conditions de nomination ou du contrat de travail ?, comme l'exige l'article 2(1) du Statut du TSD. En cons¨¦quence, le T±¬ÁÏÍøAT a estim¨¦ que sa demande d¨¦passait la...

L'±¬ÁÏÍøAT a not¨¦ que la JAB est sp¨¦cifiquement habilit¨¦e ¨¤ statuer sur une demande de suspension d'une action relevant de sa juridiction et de sa comp¨¦tence, de sorte que l'±¬ÁÏÍøAT n'avait aucun motif d'examiner les recours tant qu'il n'y avait pas eu de demande en temps utile concernant une d¨¦cision sur le fond. ? ce moment-l¨¤, l'±¬ÁÏÍøAT pourra examiner, le cas ¨¦ch¨¦ant, les questions relatives au respect des proc¨¦dures r¨¦guli¨¨res soulev¨¦es dans le recours actuellement form¨¦ par les anciens membres du personnel de l'ISA.

Le T±¬ÁÏÍøU a not¨¦ que les audiences orales n'aideraient pas le Tribunal ¨¤ statuer de...

Le TFP a estim¨¦ que la requ¨ºte introduite par l'ancien agent devant le TFP n'¨¦tait pas recevable ratione temporis. Le TFP a observ¨¦ que l'ancien agent avait ¨¦t¨¦ inform¨¦ de la d¨¦cision contest¨¦e le 30 mai 2024 ou, selon sa propre d¨¦claration, au plus tard le 5 juin 2024. En cons¨¦quence, dans le premier sc¨¦nario, la requ¨ºte aurait d? ¨ºtre d¨¦pos¨¦e avant le 28 ao?t 2024, et dans le second sc¨¦nario, avant le 3 septembre 2024. Comme sa requ¨ºte n'a ¨¦t¨¦ d¨¦pos¨¦e que le 4 septembre 2024, le TFP a conclu qu'il avait ¨¦t¨¦ correctement jug¨¦ qu'elle avait ¨¦t¨¦ pr¨¦sent¨¦e bien au-del¨¤ du d¨¦lai l¨¦gal de 90 jours...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the former staff member¡¯s application before the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was not receivable ratione temporis. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT observed that the former staff member was notified of the contested decision on 30 May 2024 or, according to his own statement, no later than 5 June 2024. Accordingly, in the first scenario, the application should have been filed by 28 August 2024, and in the second scenario, by 3 September 2024. As his application was filed only on 4 September 2024, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT concluded that it had been correctly found to have been submitted well outside the statutory 90-day time limit.

The...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the JAB is specifically empowered to rule on a request for suspension of action which is within its jurisdiction and competence, so there was no basis for the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT to consider the appeals unless and until there is a timely application from a decision on the merits. At such time, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT may consider, if appropriate, the due process issues raised in the currently appeal by the former ISA staff members.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that oral hearings would not assist the Tribunal with the fair and expeditious disposition of the case as there is no justification to hold oral hearings when...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the Mobility AI was not a decision of ¡°individual application¡± but a general instruction applicable to all staff members who entered on duty on or after 1 October 2023, as Ms. Stepanova did.

Ms. Stepanova was attempting to modify the terms of appointment or the contract of employment, by exempting herself from the application of the Mobility AI and she was therefore not challenging ¡°non-compliance¡± with ¡°the terms of appointment or the contract of employment¡±, which is what is required under Article 2(1) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute. Accordingly, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that her claim was...