51ÁÔÆæ

En ce qui concerne la recevabilit¨¦ de la demande de r¨¦examen de Mme Janakiram, l¡¯UNAT a estim¨¦ que seule la d¨¦cision du 7 octobre 2024 rejetant sa demande constituait une d¨¦cision susceptible de
r¨¦examen, dans la mesure o¨´ elle s¡¯appliquait ¨¤ elle ¨¤ titre individuel et affectait directement ses droits en tant que b¨¦n¨¦ficiaire. En revanche, il a estim¨¦ que la lettre du Fonds dat¨¦e du 8 juillet 2010 n¡¯¨¦tait ni adress¨¦e ¨¤ Mme Janakiram ni relative au m¨ºme sujet : elle ¨¦tait adress¨¦e ¨¤ l¡¯affili¨¦ d¨¦c¨¦d¨¦ et l¡¯informait que le Fonds ne pouvait pas reconna?tre son deuxi¨¨me mariage aux fins des droits...

Le Tribunal d¡¯appel a estim¨¦ que le Tribunal administratif des Nations unies (UNTD) avait correctement conclu que le motif invoqu¨¦ par l¡¯Administration pour justifier le non-renouvellement ¨¦tait ¨¦tay¨¦ par les faits, ¨¤ savoir l¡¯expiration d¡¯une subvention qui finan?ait la nomination de M. Musambai. En outre, le TND a correctement estim¨¦ qu¡¯une fois que l¡¯Administration avait ¨¦tay¨¦ le motif invoqu¨¦ pour exercer son pouvoir discr¨¦tionnaire, il incombait ¨¤ M. Musambai de d¨¦montrer que la d¨¦cision ¨¦tait
d¨¦raisonnable, in¨¦quitable, entach¨¦e d¡¯irr¨¦gularit¨¦s de proc¨¦dure ou motiv¨¦e par des...

L¡¯UNAT a estim¨¦ que l¡¯UNDT n¡¯avait commis aucune erreur dans la conduite de l¡¯audience. ? cet ¨¦gard, l¡¯UNAT a fait remarquer qu¡¯il avait ¨¦t¨¦ demand¨¦ ¨¤ l¡¯UNICEF Ouganda de fournir un lieu appropri¨¦ d¡¯o¨´ la juge de l¡¯UNDT pourrait pr¨¦sider l¡¯audience, et ce uniquement pour des raisons de connectivit¨¦, et que l¡¯avocat du Secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral participait depuis le Royaume-Uni et ne se trouvait donc pas,
contrairement ¨¤ ce que soutenait l¡¯ancien membre du personnel, ¨¤ proximit¨¦ de la juge. Elle a en outre estim¨¦ que le fait que la juge n¡¯ait pas laiss¨¦ sa cam¨¦ra allum¨¦e en permanence pendant l...

Le Tribunal d¡¯appel a estim¨¦ que l¡¯indemnit¨¦ de mobilit¨¦ servait d¡¯incitation ¨¤ encourager la mobilit¨¦ des membres du personnel vers des lieux d¡¯affectation sur le terrain, conform¨¦ment aux besoins de
l¡¯Organisation, et qu¡¯elle n¡¯¨¦tait pas, contrairement ¨¤ ce qu¡¯avait conclu le Tribunal administratif des
Nations Unies, destin¨¦e ¨¤ couvrir les frais r¨¦els de d¨¦m¨¦nagement et de s¨¦jour dans un lieu d¡¯affectation donn¨¦. Toutefois, la FORUS a bien men¨¦, conform¨¦ment aux instructions re?ues, une nouvelle proc¨¦dure de recrutement qui a permis ¨¤ M. Oppal de se pr¨¦senter ¨¤ nouveau. Le Tribunal d¡¯appel a...

The Appeals Tribunal found that the UNDT correctly concluded that the Administration¡¯s stated reason for the non-renewal was supported by the facts, i.e. the expiration of a grant that funded Mr. Musambai's appointment. Furthermore, the UNDT correctly held that, once the Administration substantiated the reason it gave for the exercise of its discretion, the burden shifted to Mr. Musambai to demonstrate that the decision was unreasonable, unfair, procedurally irregular, or tainted by improper motive.

Turning to Mr. Musambai¡¯s argument that other staff members continued receiving salaries...

Concerning the receivability of Ms. Janakiram¡¯s request for review, the UNATheld that only the 7 October 2024 decision rejecting her claim constituted a reviewable decision, as it applied to her individually and directly affected her rights as a beneficiary. By contrast, it found that the Fund¡¯s 8 July 2010 letter was neither addressed to Ms. Janakiram nor concerned the same subject: it was addressed to the late participant and informed him that the Fund could not recognize his second marriage for the purpose of pension entitlements. The UNAT held that the letter therefore had no direct legal...

The Appeals Tribunal found that the mobility allowance serves as an incentive to encourage movement of staff members to field duty stations in accordance with the Organization¡¯s needs and it is not, as the UNDT found, designed to cover the actual costs of relocation and living in a particular duty station. However, UNISFA, did conduct, as instructed, a new recruitment exercise which allowed Mr. Oppal to compete again. The Appeals Tribunal concluded that since Mr. Oppal did not apply for the re-advertised position thereby choosing to give up the opportunity to receive the mobility incentive...

The UNAT held that the UNDT committed no error in its conduct of the hearing.In this regard, the UNAT observed that UNICEF Uganda was requested to provide a suitable venue from which the UNDT Judge could conduct the hearing solely for connectivity reasons, and that the Secretary-General¡¯s counsel participated from the United Kingdom and was therefore, contrary to the former staff member¡¯s contention, not in proximity to the Judge.It further found that the fact that the Judge did not keep her camera on at all times during the hearing did not demonstrate that she was not appropriately...

L¡¯UNAT a estim¨¦ que l¡¯UNDT n¡¯avait pas commis d¡¯erreur en refusant de faire compara?tre un t¨¦moin expert afin de d¨¦montrer que les informations personnelles de l¡¯ancien membre du personnel avaient ¨¦t¨¦ divulgu¨¦es de mani¨¨re abusive par d¡¯autres membres du personnel de l¡¯UNICEF ayant acc¨¨s ¨¤ ? Vision ?, un syst¨¨me qui stocke les informations relatives au personnel de l¡¯UNICEF.

L¡¯UNAT a jug¨¦ que la conclusion des enqu¨ºteurs selon laquelle il n¡¯¨¦tait pas possible d¡¯identifier le membre du personnel, s¡¯il y en avait un, qui avait divulgu¨¦ les informations personnelles de l¡¯ancien membre du personnel...

L¡¯UNAT a estim¨¦ que l¡¯UNDT n¡¯avait pas commis d¡¯erreur de droit dans son interpr¨¦tation de l¡¯article 10.1(b) du R¨¨glement du
personnel et avait ¨¤ juste titre jug¨¦ que la notion de ? perte financi¨¨re ? exigeait un pr¨¦judice p¨¦cuniaire d¨¦montrable et quantifiable pour l¡¯Organisation, directement caus¨¦ par une faute intentionnelle, imprudente ou gravement n¨¦gligente de la part du fonctionnaire, et non compens¨¦ par une contrepartie de valeur ¨¦quivalente ou sup¨¦rieure.

Le Tribunal administratif des Nations unies a rejet¨¦ l¡¯argument du Secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral selon lequel toute utilisation non autoris¨¦e...

The UNAT held that the UNDT did not err in refusing to call an expert witness to demonstrate that the former staff member¡¯s personal information had been improperly leaked by other UNICEF staff members with access to Vision, a system that stores UNICEF staff information.The UNAT found that the investigators¡¯ conclusion that it was not possible to identify the staff member, if any, who had leaked the former staff member¡¯s personal information to a third party stood unrefuted. It further found that it had not been shown that, had the investigators sought third-party expert assistance, they...

The UNAT held that the UNDT did not err in law in its interpretation of Staff Rule 10.1(b) and properly held that ¡°financial loss¡± requires a demonstrable and quantifiable monetary detriment to the Organization, directly caused by the staff member¡¯s wilful, reckless, or grossly negligent misconduct, and not offset by equivalent or greater value received.

The UNAT rejected the Secretary-General¡¯s argument that any unauthorized use of funds constitutes ¡°financial loss¡±, holding that this conflates misconduct with loss.Accordingly, it held that the failure to follow procurement procedures...

The staff member, who was serving in Khartoum, was evacuated when civil war erupted in Sudan. She submitted a claim for compensation for loss of personal effects attributable to service.

The UNAT held that the UNDT had not erred, such as to affect the decision of the case, when it rejected the parties¡¯ joint motion to refer their case to mediation.

The UNAT found that the UNDT had not erred when it identified the staff member¡¯s argument as a challenge to the policy of the Organization but had erred when it held that it did not have jurisdiction to incidentally examine the consistency of...

The staff member who was on a roster of suitable candidates for the Senior Service Desk Officer (SSDO) post was informed that the SSDO post was reclassified to the IT Service Delivery Officer (ISDO) post and the job description had changed to the degree that his membership in the SSDO roster was not applicable to the ISDO post. He expressed interest in applying for the ISDO post but did not apply.

The UNAT noted that the staff member was not the incumbent of the SSDO post at the time of reclassification. The UNAT held that the reclassification of the SSDO post to the ISDO post had not...

The UNAT noted that in its prior Judgment the UNAT had found that the staff member knew or reasonably should have known of the contested decisions from the date he was notified by email of the reclassification of his post, or at the very latest on the date the initial job opening was advertised on Inspira.

The UNAT held that the alleged new fact that the vacancy for the post was filled 13 months after the staff member left the Organization would not have materially impacted the outcome of its prior Judgment. The UNAT accordingly found the application for revision not receivable ratione...

The UNAT noted that the revision procedure assumes the existence of a prior judgment and governs only the reopening of that judgment upon discovery of qualifying facts. It does not create a mechanism to revive an expired right to challenge an administrative decision. The UNDT did not err in dismissing the application for revision of judgment as not receivable ratione materiae.

The UNAT held that exceptional circumstances for waiver of the applicable time limits exist only where there is an ¡°absolute impossibility¡± to act within the prescribed period, and such impossibility is not demonstrated...