51ÁÔÆæ

The UNAT observed that two e-mail exchanges between Ms. Nimusiima and a former UNHCR staff member (AM) were the only documentary evidence offered to establish Ms. Nimusiima¡¯s culpability in issuing a fraudulent resettlement letter in exchange for a bribe.

The UNDT had concluded that these e-mail exchanges showed that Ms. Nimusiima acted in concert with AM, but that they were nonetheless ¡°equivocal¡± (unclear/vague), ¡°purely circumstantial¡± and did not prove with high probability that AM had sent the fraudulent resettlement letter to the Complainant (the alleged refugee).

With regard to...

The UNAT held that with no evidence of a manifest abuse of proceedings by the Commissioner-General before the UNRWA DT, nor any finding by the UNRWA DT of such an abuse of proceedings, the legal cost orders made by the Dispute Tribunal did not accord with the terms of Article 10 of the UNRWA DT Statute and were therefore unjustified and could not be sustained. Moreover, if the UNAT considered that the legal costs were awarded by the UNRWA DT under Article 10(5)(b) (which was not apparent from the Judgment), there existed no basis to justify such an order given the evidence before the Dispute...

The UNAT noted that the staff member had telecommuted from his home country for the entire academic year. The UNAT found that payment of the educational grant required the physical presence of the staff member at their official duty station, with such payment to be suspended or adjusted for the period that they were telecommuting from outside the official duty station.

The UNAT held that it was not open to the staff member to rely on a defence that the Administration be estopped from relying on the applicable provisions in its interpretation of the circumstances under which the education...

The UNAT 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 UNAT 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 UNAT found that the reference reinforced a conclusion that it had been the consistent decision conveyed to him over several months...

The UNAT 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 UNAT 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 UNAT...

The UNAT noted the staff member had not requested a review of the decision by the United Nations Staff Pension Committee or filed an appeal to the Standing Committee, but rather had filed a request for management evaluation and then had applied to the UNDT. The UNAT found that, as such, he had not followed proper procedure. The UNAT held that there was no authority for receiving an application by the Dispute Tribunal with regards to a pension decision. The UNAT concluded that the UNDT had not erred when it held that it did not have jurisdiction to undertake a judicial review of the contested...

The UNAT held that the UNDT Judge was not obligated to indicate their inclination on the evidence, especially since all evidence had not yet been presented.

Considering various elements, including the Investigation Report, the WhatsApp message exchanges, and the former staff member¡¯s admissions, the UNAT found the Complainant¡¯s account of events credible. It concluded that the former staff member¡¯s alleged conduct of calling the Complainant to his room on 1 August 2020 and asking her to come to his bed was established by clear and convincing evidence and amounted to sexual harassment. It...

Le TANU a estim¨¦ que l'agent ne remplissait pas les conditions requises pour la r¨¦vision de l'arr¨ºt ant¨¦rieur du TANU. Le TANU a constat¨¦ que l'agent n'avait avanc¨¦ aucun fait nouveau qui aurait ¨¦t¨¦ inconnu de lui ou du TANU au moment de l'arr¨ºt pr¨¦c¨¦dent, ni aucun fait qui aurait ¨¦t¨¦ d¨¦cisif pour la prise de d¨¦cision s'il avait ¨¦t¨¦ connu. Le TANU a estim¨¦ que la demande de r¨¦vision de l'agent se r¨¦sumait ¨¤ une reformulation des ¨¦l¨¦ments d¨¦j¨¤ pr¨¦sent¨¦s au TANU, qui avaient ¨¦t¨¦ examin¨¦s et rejet¨¦s, et qu'elle constituait une tentative de faire r¨¦examiner de novo le recours qui avait ¨¦t¨¦ tranch¨¦...

The UNAT held that the staff member did not fulfil the requirements for revision of the prior UNAT Judgment. The UNAT found that no new fact was advanced by the staff member that had been unknown either to him or the UNAT at the time of the prior Judgment, nor one that would have been decisive in reaching the decision had it been known. The UNAT was of the view that his application for revision amounted to a restatement of the material already placed before the UNAT, which had been considered and rejected, and constituted an attempt to have the appeal, which had been disposed of, re-heard de...

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 la demande de r¨¦vision de l'agent ne r¨¦pondait pas aux exigences statutaires ¨¦nonc¨¦es ¨¤ l'article 11, paragraphe 1, du statut du TANU. Le TANU a conclu que les arguments de l'agent reprenaient essentiellement ceux qu'il avait d¨¦j¨¤ avanc¨¦s devant le TANU et le TNDU. Par cons¨¦quent, le TANU a estim¨¦ que sa demande de r¨¦vision ¨¦quivalait ¨¤ une demande de r¨¦examen par le TANU de son pr¨¦c¨¦dent recours infructueux. En outre, le TANU a observ¨¦ que les observations du requ¨¦rant contenaient un certain nombre d'accusations injustes et inappropri¨¦es ¨¤ l'encontre des personnes qui...

The UNAT held that the staff member's application for revision failed to meet the statutory requirements outlined in Article 11(1) of the UNAT Statute. The UNAT concluded that the staff member's arguments essentially reiterated those he previously advanced before the UNAT and the UNDT. As a result, the UNAT held that his application for revision amounted to a request for the UNAT to reconsider his previous unsuccessful appeal. Moreover, the UNAT observed that the applicant's submissions contained a number of unfair and inappropriate accusations against persons who had dealt with his case, and...

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

However, the UNAT 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 UNAT agreed with the UNDT¡¯s conclusion on the receivability of the application but suggested that the UNDT should have applied a different methodology for determining it.

The UNAT held that the staff member did not have standing before the UNDT 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...

L¡¯UNAT a estim¨¦ que le Tribunal avait eu raison de consid¨¦rer qu¡¯il existait clairement des ¨¦l¨¦ments de preuve suffisants pour ¨¦tayer la conclusion de l¡¯Administration selon laquelle les performances du fonctionnaire ne r¨¦pondaient que partiellement aux attentes et que cette pr¨¦occupation lui avait ¨¦t¨¦ communiqu¨¦e. Bien que la confirmation de la notation par le Comit¨¦ de r¨¦futation et la pr¨¦paration d'une deuxi¨¨me ¨¦valuation des performances ¨¤ court terme aient eu lieu apr¨¨s le non-renouvellement, l'UNAT a conclu que ces examens confirmaient n¨¦anmoins que l'¨¦valuation informelle pr¨¦alable de...

L¡¯UNAT a rejet¨¦ la demande d¡¯anonymat de l¡¯appelant car la question soulev¨¦e dans son appel ¨¦tait purement proc¨¦durale et juridictionnelle et ne concernait aucune donn¨¦e personnelle devant ¨ºtre prot¨¦g¨¦e.

L¡¯UNAT a ¨¦galement rejet¨¦ la demande d¡¯audience de l¡¯appelant, estimant que cela n¡¯aiderait pas le Tribunal d¡¯appel ¨¤ r¨¦gler l¡¯affaire de mani¨¨re rapide et ¨¦quitable.

L'UNAT a estim¨¦ que le requ¨¦rant ayant d¨¦pos¨¦ sa requ¨ºte 93 jours apr¨¨s la r¨¦ception de la d¨¦cision administrative contest¨¦e, celle-ci n'¨¦tait pas recevable, sauf renonciation au d¨¦lai par le Tribunal. L¡¯UNAT a observ¨¦ qu¡¯¨¦tant...

The UNAT denied the Appellant¡¯s request for anonymity as the issue presented in his appeal was purely procedural and jurisdictional and did not involve any personal data which had to be protected.

The UNAT also denied the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing, finding that that it would not assist the Appeals Tribunal in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case.

The UNAT held that because the Appellant filed his application 93 days after the receipt of the contested administrative decision, it was not receivable, absent waiver of the deadline of the UNDT. The UNAT observed that given...

L'UNAT a examin¨¦ un appel interjet¨¦ par le fonctionnaire.

L'UNAT a estim¨¦ que le raisonnement suivi par le DT de l'UNRWA pour refuser une audience parce que le fonctionnaire n'avait pas ¨¦tabli que son recours ¨¦tait recevable ¨¦tait ex post facto et, par cons¨¦quent, erron¨¦.

L'UNAT a constat¨¦ qu'il y avait une erreur dans le calcul de l'indemnit¨¦ par le DT de l'UNRWA en remplacement de l'annulation de la d¨¦cision de non-s¨¦lection, car il n'y avait aucune preuve pour ¨¦tayer la conclusion selon laquelle l'UNRWA l'aurait jug¨¦ inapte ¨¤ occuper ce poste ¨¤ la fin de la p¨¦riode. p¨¦riode de probation.

L¡¯UNAT a estim¨¦ que le Tribunal a commis plusieurs erreurs de droit et de fait, conduisant ¨¤ un r¨¦sultat manifestement d¨¦raisonnable.

En particulier, l¡¯UNAT a estim¨¦ que le Tribunal a commis une erreur en refusant de tenir une audition des preuves que M. Nkoyock cherchait ¨¤ appeler pour ¨¦tablir sa d¨¦fense face aux all¨¦gations port¨¦es contre lui et pour mettre en accusation les t¨¦moins du Secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral. Le Tribunal a ¨¦galement commis une erreur en ne parvenant pas ¨¤ tirer ses propres conclusions sur les faits contest¨¦s et en s¡¯appuyant de mani¨¨re excessive sur les conclusions de l¡¯enqu¨ºte...