±¬ÁÏÍø

L'±¬ÁÏÍøAT a estim¨¦ que l'±¬ÁÏÍøDT n'avait pas commis d'erreur en concluant que la demande de l'ancien fonctionnaire n'¨¦tait pas recevable, car la plupart des d¨¦cisions contest¨¦es ¨¦taient soit prescrites, soit frapp¨¦es de l'autorit¨¦ de la chose jug¨¦e, soit ne constituaient pas des d¨¦cisions administratives susceptibles de recours. Le T±¬ÁÏÍøU a estim¨¦ que la Commission consultative sur les demandes d'indemnisation (ABCC) avait correctement d¨¦termin¨¦ que la demande d'indemnisation au titre de l'annexe D restait prescrite en vertu de l'article 2.1(b) et que les conditions requises pour une d¨¦rogation en...

L'±¬ÁÏÍøAT a estim¨¦ que la demande du fonctionnaire n'¨¦tait pas recevable, car son inscription sur la liste des priorit¨¦s n¡ã 2 pour les heures suppl¨¦mentaires, plut?t que sur la liste des priorit¨¦s n¡ã 1, et le fait qu'aucune heure suppl¨¦mentaire ne lui ait ¨¦t¨¦ attribu¨¦e le 10 avril 2023, ne constituaient pas une violation des r¨¨glements, r¨¨gles ou dispositions administratives. Le T±¬ÁÏÍøU a estim¨¦ que le fonctionnaire n'avait aucun droit contractuel, ni aucun ? droit de facto ? ¨¤ effectuer des heures suppl¨¦mentaires ou ¨¤ choisir son propre horaire de travail suppl¨¦mentaire. Au contraire, il a rappel¨¦...

L'±¬ÁÏÍøAT a estim¨¦ que l'ancien fonctionnaire avait d¨¦pos¨¦ son recours dans les d¨¦lais l¨¦gaux. Il a not¨¦ que, puisqu'il avait d¨¦pos¨¦ sa requ¨ºte devant le TFP en fran?ais, le d¨¦lai de 60 jours pour former son recours courait ¨¤ compter de la date de r¨¦ception du jugement du TFP dans cette m¨ºme langue. Comme il avait re?u le jugement du TFP en fran?ais le 15 janvier 2025 et d¨¦pos¨¦ son recours le 20 f¨¦vrier 2025, le TAT a estim¨¦ que celui-ci avait ¨¦t¨¦ d¨¦pos¨¦ dans les d¨¦lais.

N¨¦anmoins, le TAT a jug¨¦ que la requ¨ºte de l'ancien fonctionnaire devant le TFP n'¨¦tait pas recevable ratione temporis. Le T±¬ÁÏÍøU...

Le T±¬ÁÏÍøAT a estim¨¦ que le TUDN avait commis une erreur en concluant que les actes du fonctionnaire ne constituaient pas une faute professionnelle. Le T±¬ÁÏÍøAT a conclu qu'il avait ¨¦t¨¦ ¨¦tabli, ¨¤ la lumi¨¨re des preuves, que le fonctionnaire avait refus¨¦ de coop¨¦rer ¨¤ une enqu¨ºte men¨¦e par le Bureau des services de contr?le interne (BSCI) concernant un autre fonctionnaire faisant l'objet d'une enqu¨ºte pour avoir fourni de fausses informations sur son lieu de r¨¦sidence.

Il a estim¨¦ que le fonctionnaire avait d¨¦lib¨¦r¨¦ment dissimul¨¦ des informations et fourni des r¨¦ponses g¨¦n¨¦riques, vagues et trompeuses...

L'±¬ÁÏÍøAT a estim¨¦ que l'±¬ÁÏÍøDT avait correctement conclu que la d¨¦cision contest¨¦e ¨¦tait l¨¦gale. Il a conclu que l'¨¦valuation pr¨¦liminaire de la plainte de l'ancien membre du personnel ne r¨¦v¨¦lait aucun motif suffisant pour indiquer que la conduite pr¨¦tendument insatisfaisante de son FRO pouvait constituer une faute professionnelle et que, par cons¨¦quent, il ¨¦tait peu probable qu'une enqu¨ºte r¨¦v¨¨le des preuves suffisantes pour poursuivre l'affaire en tant que cas disciplinaire.

Le T±¬ÁÏÍøAT a ¨¦galement estim¨¦ que le TUD avait correctement identifi¨¦ la d¨¦cision faisant l'objet du contr?le...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in concluding that the contested decision by the OAI to close the staff member¡¯s complaint was lawful. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the Administration acted reasonably in determining that the allegations lacked sufficient evidence to warrant an investigation and that the assessment process complied with ±¬ÁÏÍøDP¡¯s legal framework.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly rejected the staff member¡¯s procedural arguments, including claims of bias and denial of witness testimony. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT emphasized that the proposed witnesses could not have altered the established...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the only issue on appeal was whether the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in finding the additional disciplinary sanction disproportionate and rescinding it. It emphasized that under Staff Rule 10.3(b), sanctions must be proportionate, but the Administration enjoys broad discretion in disciplinary matters, subject to judicial review for lawfulness, rationality, and proportionality.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT exceeded its authority by substituting its own opinion for that of the Secretary-General. It noted that the Administration had considered all relevant factors, including the seriousness of...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in finding the extensions of administrative leave with pay lawful, as the Administration reasonably assessed the risk to workplace harmony given the appellant¡¯s senior role.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed that the refusals to complete ePAS evaluations and to approve a subordinate¡¯s workplan and telecommuting request constituted insubordination under Staff Rule 1.2(a), which requires compliance with instructions properly issued by supervisors. It clarified that staff must follow instructions even if they believe them unlawful, unless criminal, and that ¡°properly issued¡±...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT had appropriately concluded that Mr. Issa failed to submit a timely Request for Decision Review regarding the first of three months¡¯ non-payment of his salary. However, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, since each non-payment constitutes a separate administrative decision, Mr. Issa's Request for Decision Review regarding the second- and third-months¡¯ non-payment was timely, rendering his application partially receivable.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further concluded however, that since Mr. Issa disregarded a directive circulated before his annual leave (when he was able to check his e-mail)...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in finding that the former staff member¡¯s change of title following a reclassification did not amount to an abolition or discontinuance of her post, rendering her termination of appointment unlawful.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also determined that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in awarding the former staff member compensation in lieu of two years¡¯ net base salary. In this regard, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT emphasized that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly considered the fact that the former staff member¡¯s permanent appointment included a specific undertaking stating that she could only be terminated due to an...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered whether the interlocutory appeal was receivable because ABA had not been given an opportunity to be heard on the issue of the protective measures for V01 at the proposed hearing at the time the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT issued the first Order. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that this was not grounds to grant the interlocutory appeal, because ABA¡¯s arguments were heard by the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT when he filed his motion for reconsideration.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not exceed its competence or jurisdiction when it issued these case management orders. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT was also not persuaded by ABA¡¯s argument that the violation...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the administrative decision concerning reimbursements to the staff member took effect in law on 7 May 2019, when he received the wire transfer from the Organization. The reasons for this reimbursement amount were discussed with him shortly before the wire transfer was made. Although explanations of the underlying calculations were repeated in subsequent email exchanges with the staff member, those repetitions were not additional or new administrative decisions that were open to challenge by the staff member, thereby resetting the statute of limitations.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the staff member¡¯s application was not receivable, as he did not file a timely request for management evaluation of the contested decision.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT observed that the staff member was notified of the contested decision on 9 November 2023. Accordingly, he had until 8 January 2024 to file his request for management evaluation, but instead filed it on 12 August 2024, more than 270 days after being notified of the contested decision. It further found that, even assuming that he was notified of the contested decision in February 2024, his request was still submitted well...

L'±¬ÁÏÍøAT a estim¨¦ que M. Slayyeh n'avait pas form¨¦ de recours en bonne et due forme contre le jugement contest¨¦, mais qu'il avait plut?t introduit une nouvelle demande d'indemnisation qui n'avait pas ¨¦t¨¦ soumise au Tribunal du contentieux. L'±¬ÁÏÍøAT a jug¨¦ qu'il ne pouvait pas soulever en appel une question qui n'avait pas ¨¦t¨¦ pr¨¦sent¨¦e au tribunal de premi¨¨re instance, car cela constituait une violation des droits de l'autre partie ¨¤ une proc¨¦dure r¨¦guli¨¨re et n'¨¦tait pas conforme au syst¨¨me ¨¤ deux niveaux d'administration de la justice.

Le T±¬ÁÏÍøU a estim¨¦ que les recours disponibles en vertu de l...

L'±¬ÁÏÍøAT a estim¨¦ qu'aucune des raisons invoqu¨¦es par M. Hejab, consid¨¦r¨¦es individuellement ou collectivement, n'¨¦tait suffisamment convaincante pour consid¨¦rer son cas comme exceptionnel, de mani¨¨re ¨¤ justifier l'octroi d'une indemnisation sup¨¦rieure ¨¤ celle pr¨¦vue ¨¤ l'article 10(5) du Statut du personnel temporaire de l'±¬ÁÏÍøRWA.

Le T±¬ÁÏÍøU a estim¨¦ qu'il n'¨¦tait pas inhabituel pour un membre du personnel plus ?g¨¦, en particulier celui qui est proche de la retraite, d'avoir des difficult¨¦s ¨¤ trouver un autre emploi. De m¨ºme, bien que les conditions ¨¦conomiques soient difficiles l¨¤ o¨´ il vit, ce n...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in concluding that the former staff member¡¯s application was not receivable because most of the contested decisions were either time-barred, res judicata, or did not constitute appealable administrative decisions. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the Advisory Board on Compensation Claims (ABCC) correctly determined that the claim for compensation under Appendix D remained time-barred under Article 2.1(b) and that the requirements for waiver under Article 2.1(e) were not met, as there was no evidence of incapacity preventing timely filing. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further held that...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in concluding that the staff member¡¯s actions did not constitute misconduct. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that it had been established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the staff member had failed to cooperate with an investigation conducted by the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS), which concerned another staff member under investigation for misrepresenting his place of accommodation.

It found that the staff member had deliberately withheld information and provided generic, vague, and misleading responses during his initial OIOS interview regarding the...

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 15 January 2025 and filed his appeal on 20 February 2025, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was filed timely.

Nevertheless, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the former staff member¡¯s application before the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was not receivable ratione temporis.The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT observed that the former staff member...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the staff member¡¯s application was not receivable, as his placement on the overtime Priority Two List, rather than the Priority One List, and the consequent non-assignment of overtime to him on 10 April 2023, did not violate any regulations, rules or administrative issuances. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the staff member had no contractual right, nor ¡°de facto entitlement¡± to perform overtime work or to select his own overtime schedule. On the contrary, it recalled that the allocation of overtime is discretionary with management. Furthermore, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT observed that the...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly found that the contested decision was lawful. It concluded that the preliminary assessment of the former staff member¡¯s complaint revealed no sufficient grounds to indicate that his FRO¡¯s alleged unsatisfactory conduct could amount to misconduct, and, as a result, there was no likelihood that an investigation would reveal sufficient evidence to further pursue the matter as a disciplinary case.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly identified the decision subject to judicial review and properly considered and rejected, as a preliminary matter, Mr...