±¬ÁÏÍø

Le TANU a estim¨¦ qu'un vice de proc¨¦dure s'¨¦tait produit au cours de la proc¨¦dure de recrutement en raison d'une v¨¦rification inappropri¨¦e des exigences en mati¨¨re d'¨¦ducation. Plus pr¨¦cis¨¦ment, le TANU a soulign¨¦ que le responsable du recrutement n'avait pas v¨¦rifi¨¦ si les dipl?mes des candidats portaient sur des domaines li¨¦s ¨¤ la gestion de la cha?ne d'approvisionnement, ¨¤ l'administration des affaires ou ¨¤ la gestion, et qu'il les avait tous consid¨¦r¨¦s comme admissibles au regard des exigences en mati¨¨re d'¨¦ducation. N¨¦anmoins, soulignant que l'ancien membre du personnel n'¨¦tait...

Le TANU a estim¨¦ qu'une lecture objective de la demande de r¨¦vision de la d¨¦cision pr¨¦sent¨¦e par l'agent montrait clairement qu'elle n'avait contest¨¦ que le deuxi¨¨me et non le premier bl?me, tous deux prononc¨¦s pour ne pas avoir ex¨¦cut¨¦ les t?ches d'enseignement qui lui avaient ¨¦t¨¦ confi¨¦es. Le TANU a consid¨¦r¨¦ que les r¨¦f¨¦rences au fonctionnaire ayant ¨¦mis le bl?me, ¨¤ sa date et ¨¤ la mesure corrective demand¨¦e ¨¦taient indiqu¨¦es dans la demande. Le TANU a donc estim¨¦ que le DT de l'±¬ÁÏÍøRWA n'avait commis aucune erreur de fait ou de droit en consid¨¦rant que l'agent n'avait pas introduit de...

Le TANU a estim¨¦ que les termes de l'arr¨ºt contest¨¦ ¨¦taient suffisamment clairs et non ambigus pour ¨ºtre ex¨¦cutoires et que, par cons¨¦quent, la requ¨ºte de l'ancien agent n'¨¦tait pas recevable. En particulier, le TANU a constat¨¦ qu'il n'y avait aucune ambigu?t¨¦ quant ¨¤ la justesse des motifs et ¨¤ la nature de la mesure disciplinaire prise par l'administration ¨¤ l'encontre de l'ancien agent.

De m¨ºme, le TANU a estim¨¦ que le raisonnement concernant le renvoi de l'affaire au Haut Commissaire en vue d'une ¨¦ventuelle action visant ¨¤ faire respecter l'obligation de rendre des comptes ¨¦tait clair...

Le TANU a estim¨¦ que le Bureau de l'inspecteur g¨¦n¨¦ral (IGO) et l'administration n'avaient pas correctement pris en compte les facteurs pertinents port¨¦s ¨¤ leur attention au cours de l'enqu¨ºte sur les fautes commises par l'agent. En particulier, ils n'ont pas pris en compte le contexte m¨¦dical dans lequel la faute a ¨¦t¨¦ commise, qui aurait pu ¨ºtre disculpatoire pour l'agent. Le TANU a constat¨¦ qu'ils n'avaient pas examin¨¦ et appr¨¦ci¨¦ les effets potentiels de la tumeur c¨¦r¨¦brale et/ou du traitement de l'agent sur certains aspects de ses relations interpersonnelles avec d'autres membres du...

Le Tribunal d'appel a rejet¨¦ l'appel, estimant qu'il ¨¦tait ¨¦vident, ¨¤ la lecture du m¨¦moire d'appel, que M. Hammad ne soutenait pas que le tribunal de l'±¬ÁÏÍøRWA avait commis une erreur de fait ou de droit. Il s'est content¨¦ de pr¨¦senter les m¨ºmes arguments que ceux qu'il avait d¨¦j¨¤ avanc¨¦s dans sa demande de r¨¦vision devant le tribunal de l'±¬ÁÏÍøRWA et n'a pas d¨¦montr¨¦ en quoi le tribunal de l'±¬ÁÏÍøRWA avait commis une erreur.

The Appeals Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that it was evident from a perusal of the appeal brief that Mr. Hammad did not argue that the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT committed any error of fact or law. He merely presented the same arguments that he had already made in his application for revision before the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT and failed to demonstrate how the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT erred.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the essence of the administrative decision had been that the staff member was not entitled to cashed-up unused annual leave from a second appointment taken up within 12 months of relinquishing a first appointment after which such leave had been commutated.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT observed that the staff member¡¯s request for management evaluation referred to the Administration¡¯s alleged ¡°continued failure¡± to compensate him the commutation of annual leave. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the reference reinforced a conclusion that it had been the consistent decision conveyed to him over several months...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Inspector General¡¯s Office (IGO) and the Administration failed to properly consider relevant factors brought to their attention during the investigation into the staff member's misconduct. Specifically, they did not considerate the medical context in which the established misconduct occurred, which could have been exculpatory for the staff member. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that they failed to investigate and appreciate the potential effects of the staff member's brain tumour and/or treatment on certain aspects of his interpersonal relations with other staff members.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the terms of the impugned Judgment were sufficiently clear and unambiguous to be enforceable, and consequently, the former staff member¡¯s application was not receivable. In particular, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that there was no ambiguity concerning the correctness of the grounds for and the nature of the disciplinary measure taken by the Administration against the former staff member.

Similarly, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the reasoning regarding the referral of the case to the High Commissioner for possible action to enforce accountability was clear and unambiguous. However, even if the...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that in light of multiple competing requests for lateral transfer, the staff member had not been one of the candidates who was recommended and selected for the position because her responsibilities had been different from the duties of the requested position, and the Agency sought candidates more familiar with those duties.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that under the relevant legal provisions governing lateral transfers, read together and not in isolation, the Agency had been authorized to base its assessment on the candidates¡¯ suitability for the post instead of seniority, compelling reasons...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that a procedural flaw occurred during the recruitment process due to the inappropriate screening of educational requirements. Specifically, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT highlighted that the Hiring Manager failed to verify if the candidates¡¯ degrees were in fields related to Supply Chain Management, business administration/management, instead considering all of them eligible in respect of educational requirements. Nevertheless, highlighting that the former staff member was, unlike 16 other candidates, neither recommended for the position, nor rostered for future similar vacancies, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that an objective reading of the staff member¡¯s request for decision review showed clearly that she had only contested the second and not the first reprimand, both issued for not performing assigned teaching tasks. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered references to the official having issued it, its date and the remedy sought indicated in the request. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT therefore held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT had not erred in fact or in law when it considered that the staff member had not submitted a request for decision review in respect of the first reprimand and found the application in the respective part...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT acted within its discretion by issuing the impugned Judgment without holding an oral hearing, especially as the issue for consideration was one of receivability. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in failing to give the staff member an opportunity to comment on the Secretary-General¡¯s reply as he did not file a motion for additional pleadings.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly identified that the contested decision was the Administration¡¯s decision not to reclassify his position.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the staff member should have appealed the...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the staff member had requested to be reclassified at Grade HL7 in her e-mail dated 2 January 2017 and her subsequent communications had been reiterations of that request.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Administration should compensate the actual loss of income the staff member incurred from the moment her reclassification should have been implemented. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøWRA DT had appropriately considered the time limit of six months reasonable. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT concluded that the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT had not erred in law or fact in holding that she should be paid the difference in salary and...

Le TANU a estim¨¦ que les faits sur lesquels l'agent s'appuyait dans sa demande de r¨¦vision ¨¦taient tous post¨¦rieurs ¨¤ l'arr¨ºt du TANU et ne pouvaient donc pas servir de base ¨¤ la r¨¦vision ou au r¨¦examen des conclusions ant¨¦rieures du TANU. En particulier, le TANU a estim¨¦ que le dossier m¨¦dical de l'agent, indiquant un changement de son ¨¦tat de sant¨¦ apr¨¨s le prononc¨¦ de l'arr¨ºt du TANU, ne constituait pas un motif de r¨¦vision.

Toutefois, le TANU a acc¨¦d¨¦ ¨¤ la demande d'anonymat de l'agent pour le pr¨¦sent arr¨ºt uniquement, compte tenu de la port¨¦e limit¨¦e des questions soulev¨¦es et des...

Le TANU a estim¨¦ que les tentatives de l'agent pour plaider ¨¤ nouveau sa cause n'avaient pas permis d'identifier une quelconque erreur susceptible d'¨ºtre examin¨¦e dans le jugement du TNDU, ce qui justifiait ¨¤ lui seul le rejet de son recours. En tout ¨¦tat de cause, ind¨¦pendamment du bien-fond¨¦ de sa demande, le TANU a estim¨¦ que sa requ¨ºte ¨¦tait prescrite en vertu de l'article 8, paragraphe 4, du statut du TANU, puisqu'elle l'avait introduite 27 ans apr¨¨s avoir re?u la d¨¦cision contest¨¦e. Rappelant qu'aucun des deux tribunaux n'est habilit¨¦ ¨¤ prolonger les d¨¦lais dans ces circonstances, le...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the staff member¡¯s attempts to reargue her case failed to identify any reviewable error in the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Judgment, warranting alone dismissal of her appeal. In any event, regardless of the merits of her claim, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that her application was time-barred under Article 8(4) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute since she filed it 27 years after her receipt of the contested decision. Recalling that there is no authority given to either tribunal to extend time limits in these circumstances, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT concluded that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was correct to conclude that her application was not receivable.

The...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the facts upon which the staff member relied in his application for revision all post-dated the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Judgment and therefore could not serve as a basis for revising or reconsidering the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT¡¯s prior conclusions. In particular, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the staff member¡¯s medical record, indicating a change in his condition after the issuance of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Judgment, did not constitute grounds for revising it.

However, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT granted the staff member¡¯s request for anonymity for the present Judgment only, given the limited scope of the issues raised and the specific facts...

Le Tribunal a souscrit ¨¤ la conclusion du Tribunal sur la recevabilit¨¦ de la demande, mais a sugg¨¦r¨¦ que le Tribunal aurait d? appliquer une m¨¦thode diff¨¦rente pour statuer sur la demande.

Le Tribunal a estim¨¦ que le fonctionnaire n¡¯avait pas qualit¨¦ pour agir devant le Tribunal en ce qui concerne les r¨¦clamations formul¨¦es en sa qualit¨¦ d¡¯entrepreneur individuel, de sorte que cette demande a ¨¦t¨¦ rejet¨¦e pour des motifs ratione personae. Les autres demandes formul¨¦es en sa qualit¨¦ d¡¯ancien fonctionnaire ont ¨¦t¨¦ rejet¨¦es pour des raisons ratione materiae. Il n¡¯a pas r¨¦ussi ¨¤ le prouver qu¡¯une...

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...