±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT denied the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing and held that it would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case, as required by Article 18(1) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Rules of Procedure. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in striking the evidence filed with the Appellant¡¯s closing submissions or in refusing to hear the Appellant¡¯s supervisors as witnesses. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was clear and convincing evidence that the Appellant used the ±¬ÁÏÍøHCR VAT exemption card and credit card for his personal use and that the disciplinary measure was proportionate to the nature and gravity of...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the contested Memorandum was not an administrative decision as the Appellant failed to identify how it was affecting her terms or conditions of appointment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the contested Memorandum concerned a general delegation of authority and, therefore, was a decision of general application.

The Appeals Tribunal found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in law by applying the improper legal framework, the relevant legal framework not being ST/SGB/2008/5, but the ±¬ÁÏÍøFPA Disciplinary Framework and the ±¬ÁÏÍøFPA Harassment Policy. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT explained that ±¬ÁÏÍøFPA, being one of the separately administered funds of the Organization, has its own legal framework and is not regulated by the Secretariat¡¯s general administrative issuances such as ST/SGB/2008/5, unless otherwise stated or unless it has expressly accepted their applicability. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred when it found that Mr. Toson¡¯s request...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the complaint of sexual harassment filed by the staff member against her former supervisors (FRO and SRO) led to investigations whose reports were the basis for disciplinary processes and sanctions against both persons, as well as an additional administrative measure against her former SRO. The Administration acted promptly, when unofficially informed of the wrongdoing, by placing the staff member on certified sick leave for approximately two months, before reassigning her at her request to a new workplace. The letter informing her of the action taken also contained the...

M. Farhadi a fait appel. L'±¬ÁÏÍøAT a rejet¨¦ l'appel.

L'±¬ÁÏÍøAT a rejet¨¦ l'affirmation de M. Farhadi selon laquelle le candidat retenu n'avait pas ¨¦t¨¦ soumis ¨¤ la proc¨¦dure de v¨¦rification obligatoire. La simple indication par le gestionnaire d'embauche du fait que ? [l]es deux candidats ont d¨¦j¨¤ travaill¨¦ avec des femmes et des m¨¦tiers ? sous la rubrique ? V¨¦rification des r¨¦f¨¦rences ? n'¨¦tait pas suffisant pour conclure qu'il n'y avait pas eu de v¨¦ritable v¨¦rification des r¨¦f¨¦rences. L'±¬ÁÏÍøAT a soutenu que, plus important encore, les v¨¦rifications des r¨¦f¨¦rences n'ont normalement lieu qu'une fois la...

Mr. Farhadi appealed. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed Mr. Farhadi's contention that the successful candidate had not been subject to the mandatory vetting procedure. The mere indication by the Hiring Manager of the fact that ¡°[b]oth candidates have worked with women and trade previously¡± under the rubric ¡°Reference check¡± was not sufficient to conclude that there were no actual reference checks. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that more importantly, reference checks normally take place only once the selection has been concluded, and in the present case, Mr. Farhadi was not selected. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that in...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT a rejet¨¦ l'appel. En tant que question pr¨¦liminaire, Unat a refus¨¦ la demande d'AAB pour une audience orale au motif qu'il n'avait pas besoin de clarification suppl¨¦mentaire, car les questions factuelles et juridiques r¨¦sultant de l'appel avaient d¨¦j¨¤ ¨¦t¨¦ clairement d¨¦finies par les parties, et une audience orale ne contribuerait pas ¨¤ L'¨¦limination rapide et ¨¦quitable de l'affaire. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT a rejet¨¦ l'AAB affirmer que son droit ¨¤ un proc¨¨s ¨¦quitable avant que l'±¬ÁÏÍøDT avait ¨¦t¨¦ viol¨¦ parce que, car la demande a ¨¦t¨¦ jug¨¦e ¨¤ recevoir, et elle s'est vu refuser la possibilit¨¦ de d¨¦poser une...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal. As a preliminary matter, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT denied AAB's request for an oral hearing on grounds that there was no need for further clarification since the factual and legal issues arising from the appeal had already been clearly defined by the parties, and an oral hearing would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed AAB's claim that her right to a fair trial before the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had been violated because, since the application was found not to be receivable, and she was denied the opportunity to file a rejoinder. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that there is no...

Unat a rejet¨¦ l'affirmation de M. Valme selon laquelle l'all¨¦gation d'exploitation sexuelle et d'abus n'avait pas ¨¦t¨¦ ¨¦tablie contre lui, au motif que toute consid¨¦ration concernant la plainte d'abus sexuelle ¨¦tait au-del¨¤ de la port¨¦e de l'affaire, parce que sa demande concernait d'autres conducteurs interdits qui sont venus ¨¤ lumi¨¨re pendant l'enqu¨ºte. Unat n'a trouv¨¦ aucun m¨¦rite dans l'affirmation de M. Valme selon laquelle le ±¬ÁÏÍøDT n'a pas examin¨¦ la totalit¨¦ des preuves et l'a fait r¨¦f¨¦rence de mani¨¨re s¨¦lective, affichant ainsi les biais. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT a constat¨¦ qu'il ¨¦tait inh¨¦rent au principe...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected Mr. Valme¡¯s claim that the allegation of sexual exploitation and abuse had not been established against him, on grounds that any consideration about the complaint of sexual abuse was beyond the scope of the case, because his application concerned other prohibited conduct that came to light during the investigation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found no merit in Mr. Valme¡¯s contention that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT failed to consider the totality of the evidence and referred to it in a selective way, thereby displaying bias. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that it was inherent to the principle of judicial persuasion that courts and...

Unat a consid¨¦r¨¦ un appel de M. Ramos. Unat a jug¨¦ que pour que la conduite constituait du harc¨¨lement sexuel, en dehors d'une ?avance sexuelle ind¨¦sirable?, il est n¨¦cessaire que le comportement en question ?puisse raisonnablement ¨ºtre attendu ou ¨ºtre per?u comme provoquant une infraction ou une humiliation ¨¤ un autre, lorsque une telle conduite interf¨¨re avec travailler, [¡­] ou cr¨¦e un environnement de travail intimidant, hostile ou offensant ?et que? [[nous] impliquant g¨¦n¨¦ralement un mod¨¨le de comportement, il peut prendre la forme d'un seul incident ?. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT ¨¦tait convaincu qu'il y avait...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by Mr. Ramos. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that in order for conduct to constitute sexual harassment, apart from an ¡°unwelcome sexual advance¡±, it is required that the behavior in question ¡°might reasonably be expected or be perceived to cause offence or humiliation to another, when such conduct interferes with work, [¡­] or creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment¡± and that ¡°[w]hile typically involving a pattern of behaviour, it can take the form of a single incident¡±. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT was satisfied that there was clear and convincing evidence that the Mr. Ramos¡¯ conduct as...

Unat a consid¨¦r¨¦ un appel de M. Zaqqout. En ce qui concerne une audience orale, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT a constat¨¦ que, puisque la demande avait ¨¦t¨¦ rejet¨¦e pour des motifs de cr¨¦ance, les arguments de M. Zaqqout n'¨¦taient pas suffisamment convaincants afin de justifier une audience orale ¨¤ ce stade. Certaines des questions soulev¨¦es dans l¡¯appel ont ¨¦t¨¦ li¨¦es au fond de la demande de M. Zaqqout et n¡¯ont pas atteint le seuil de l¡¯¨¦valuation de la cr¨¦ation. ?tant donn¨¦ que M. Zaqout a ¨¦t¨¦ inform¨¦ au stade tr¨¨s pr¨¦coce de la proc¨¦dure de l'all¨¦gation de l'±¬ÁÏÍøRWA selon laquelle il avait ¨¦t¨¦ inform¨¦ de la d¨¦cision...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by Mr. Zaqqout. As regards an oral hearing, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that since the application was dismissed on grounds of receivability, Mr. Zaqqout¡¯s arguments were not persuasive enough so as to justify an oral hearing at this stage. Some of the issues raised in the appeal were connected to the merits of Mr. Zaqqout¡¯s application and did not meet the threshold of the receivability assessment. Since Mr. Zaqqout was made aware at the very early stage of the proceedings of the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA¡¯s allegation that he had been notified of the impugned decision on 30 December 2018, he should have...

Unat a jug¨¦ que Undt a conclu correctement que, ¨¤ la lumi¨¨re des circonstances de l'affaire, le panel [nomm¨¦ pour entreprendre une enqu¨ºte d'enqu¨ºte sur la plainte de Duparc et al. respect¨¦. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT a rejet¨¦ l'argument du Secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral selon lequel ±¬ÁÏÍøDT a men¨¦ une enqu¨ºte de Novo et a donc d¨¦pass¨¦ son autorit¨¦ et a usurp¨¦ l'autorit¨¦ unique et exclusive du Secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral en mati¨¨re disciplinaire. Unat a observ¨¦ que lorsque ±¬ÁÏÍøT a annul¨¦ la d¨¦cision sur la base du rapport du comit¨¦ d'enqu¨ºte, elle n'a tir¨¦ aucune conclusion, mais a plut?t ordonn¨¦ une performance sp¨¦cifique comme autoris¨¦e...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly found that, in light of the circumstances of the case, the Panel [appointed to undertake a fact-finding investigation into Duparc et al.¡¯s complaint], had failed to consider whether the limits of the managerial discretion were respected. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the Secretary-General¡¯s argument that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT conducted an investigation de novo and thus exceeded its authority and usurped the Secretary-General¡¯s sole and exclusive authority in disciplinary matters. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT observed that when ±¬ÁÏÍøDT rescinded the decision based on the investigatory Panel¡¯s report, it did not draw any...

M. Zeid a fait appel. En tant que question pr¨¦liminaire, Unat a rejet¨¦ la demande de M. Zeid pour une audience orale concluant que les questions factuelles et juridiques r¨¦sultant de l'appel avaient d¨¦j¨¤ ¨¦t¨¦ clairement d¨¦finies par les parties; et qu'une audience orale n'aiderait pas ¨¤ l'¨¦limination rapide et ¨¦quitable de l'affaire ". Unat a jug¨¦ que l'±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT a conclu correctement qu'il n'y avait aucune preuve d'une demande d'examen de la d¨¦cision, que les ¨¦changes par e-mail o¨´ M. Zeid avait fait des enqu¨ºtes concernant les raisons de la d¨¦cision contest¨¦e n'¨¦taient pas une demande de...

Mr. Zeid appealed. As a preliminary matter, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed Mr. Zeid's request for an oral hearing finding that the factual and legal issues arising from the appeal had already been clearly defined by the parties; and that an oral hearing would not ¡°assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case¡±. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT correctly found that there was no evidence of a request for decision review, that the e-mail exchanges whereby Mr. Zeid had made inquiries regarding the reasons for the contested decision were not a request for decision review, but rather were informal attempts to...

M. Branglidor a fait appel. Unat a constat¨¦ que la totalit¨¦ des preuves a confirm¨¦ la conclusion de l'±¬ÁÏÍøDT selon laquelle M. Branglidor ¨¦tait bien conscient de la mensonge des formulaires lorsqu'il a soumis la deuxi¨¨me r¨¦clamation pour le d¨¦caissement r¨¦gulier de la subvention de l'¨¦ducation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT a ¨¦t¨¦ satisfait que l'±¬ÁÏÍøDT avait raison lorsqu'il a jug¨¦ que l'acte d'inconduite ¨¦tait commis avec connaissance et intention. M¨ºme si l'inconduite n'a conduit ¨¤ aucun pr¨¦judice r¨¦el, puisque l'administration a r¨¦cup¨¦r¨¦ le paiement effectu¨¦ ¨¤ l'avance et n'a pay¨¦ aucune subvention d'enseignement...

Mr. Branglidor appealed. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the totality of the evidence confirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s conclusion that Mr. Branglidor was well aware of the untruthfulness of the forms when he submitted the second claim for the regular disbursement of the education grant. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT was satisifed that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was correct when it held that the act of misconduct was committed with knowledge and intent. Even though the misconduct did not lead to any actual prejudice, since the Administration recovered the payment made in advance and did not pay any further education grant, Mr. Branglidor¡¯s endeavor could have...