51ÁÔÆæ

L¡¯UNAT a constat¨¦ que le Tribunal disciplinaire des Nations Unies (UNDT) s¡¯¨¦tait appuy¨¦ de mani¨¨re tr¨¨s importante sur son ¨¦valuation de la cr¨¦dibilit¨¦ de l¡¯ancien membre du personnel lors de son t¨¦moignage oral devant lui, ne lui accordant pratiquement aucune cr¨¦dibilit¨¦. Toutefois, elle a estim¨¦ que cette
appr¨¦ciation n¡¯avait pas ¨¦t¨¦ contrebalanc¨¦e par une ¨¦valuation similaire de la cr¨¦dibilit¨¦ des plaignants, en particulier lorsque leurs versions des faits entraient en conflit avec celles de l¡¯ancien membre du
personnel. L¡¯UNAT a soulign¨¦ que les plaignants n¡¯avaient eu aucune occasion d...

Le Tribunal d¡¯appel a estim¨¦ que Mme Prodanovic remplissait les crit¨¨res requis pour b¨¦n¨¦ficier d¡¯un
engagement ¨¤ dur¨¦e ind¨¦termin¨¦e et que, en vertu du cadre juridique applicable, l¡¯octroi d¡¯un tel
engagement ne relevait pas du pouvoir discr¨¦tionnaire du Secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral. Le TND a donc jug¨¦ ¨¤ juste titre que la d¨¦cision de ne pas lui accorder d¡¯engagement ¨¤ dur¨¦e ind¨¦termin¨¦e ¨¦tait ill¨¦gale.
Le Tribunal d¡¯appel a toutefois estim¨¦ que l¡¯octroi d¡¯un engagement ¨¤ dur¨¦e ind¨¦termin¨¦e ne constituait pas une ? nomination ? au sens de l¡¯article 10, paragraphe 5, point a), du Statut du TNDU, et que...

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...

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...

The Appeals Tribunal found that Ms. Prodanovic had met the criteria for a continuing appointment and that under the applicable legal framework, the award of a continuing appointment was not subject to the Secretary-General's discretion. The UNDT therefore correctly held that the decision not to grant her a continuing appointment was unlawful.

The Appeals Tribunal however found that the granting of a continuing appointment was not an "appointment" for the purpose of Article 10(5)(a) of the UNDT Statute, and that the UNDT had erred in awarding in-lieu compensation.

The Appeals Tribunal...

The UNAT found that the UNDT relied very significantly on its assessment of the former staff member¡¯s credibility in giving his oral evidence before it, disbelieving him strongly and almost entirely.However, it held that this was not balanced against any similar assessment of the complainants¡¯ credibility, particularly where their accounts of the facts conflicted with those of the former staff member. The UNAT emphasized that there was no opportunity for the complainants to be questioned by either the former staff member¡¯s counsel or the UNDT Judge, which was particularly significant given...

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 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...

Le fonctionnaire en poste ¨¤ Gen¨¨ve a postul¨¦ au poste ¨¤ Suva, aux Fidji, et s¡¯est vu proposer un engagement temporaire ¨¤ la suite de cette candidature. Apr¨¨s de nombreux ¨¦changes concernant la date de prise de fonction, l¡¯Administration l¡¯a inform¨¦ que la date qu¡¯il avait propos¨¦e n¡¯¨¦tait pas acceptable et qu¡¯elle allait contacter le candidat suivant.

L¡¯UNAT a not¨¦ que l¡¯offre d¡¯engagement pr¨¦cisait qu¡¯elle portait ? sur une p¨¦riode initiale prenant effet d¨¨s que possible et allant
jusqu¡¯au 31 d¨¦cembre 2024 ?. L¡¯UNAT a estim¨¦ qu¡¯en acceptant sans condition l¡¯offre d¡¯engagement, le fonctionnaire...

L¡¯UNAT a estim¨¦ que l¡¯UNDT avait commis une erreur de droit en appliquant de mani¨¨re erron¨¦e la jurisprudence relative ¨¤
l¡¯anonymisation et, en particulier, en omettant de prendre en compte la nature de l¡¯affaire dont elle ¨¦tait saisie et son impact sur
l¡¯ancienne employ¨¦e, ainsi qu¡¯en ne faisant pas la distinction entre les diff¨¦rents crit¨¨res applicables ¨¤ l¡¯anonymisation de l¡¯identit¨¦ des auteurs d¡¯infractions, par opposition ¨¤ celle des plaignants ou des t¨¦moins.

L¡¯UNAT a observ¨¦ que l¡¯ancienne fonctionnaire ¨¦tait plaignante dans le cadre d¡¯all¨¦gations d¡¯inconduite sexuelle et que, par
cons...

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 le TDN avait commis une erreur en concluant que le renvoi vers le BSCI constituait une d¨¦cision administrative susceptible de recours. Il a jug¨¦ que, contrairement ¨¤ ce qu¡¯avait conclu le TDN, le fait d¡¯¨ºtre soumis ¨¤ une enqu¨ºte ne transformait pas, en soi, le renvoi en vue d¡¯une enqu¨ºte en une d¨¦cision administrative, en l¡¯absence de cons¨¦quences juridiques
suppl¨¦mentaires. Elle a en outre conclu que, dans la mesure o¨´ la demande de cong¨¦ parental du fonctionnaire avait finalement ¨¦t¨¦ accept¨¦e et o¨´ celui-ci n¡¯avait pas fait ¨¦tat d¡¯un pr¨¦judice r¨¦sultant du retard dans l...

D¡¯embl¨¦e, l¡¯UNAT a relev¨¦ que le seul grief soulev¨¦ par la fonctionnaire dans le cadre de son recours portait sur la l¨¦galit¨¦ de la sanction qui lui avait ¨¦t¨¦ inflig¨¦e, ce qui ne faisait que reprendre les arguments qu¡¯elle avait d¨¦j¨¤ avanc¨¦s devant le tribunal
disciplinaire de l¡¯UNRWA. Elle a notamment fait valoir que l¡¯imposition d¡¯amendes ¨¦tait contraire aux droits de l¡¯homme et aux
directives de l¡¯OIT relatives ¨¤ la r¨¦mun¨¦ration du travail effectu¨¦. L¡¯UNAT a estim¨¦ que, bien que le Tribunal disciplinaire de l¡¯UNRWA n¡¯ait pas express¨¦ment abord¨¦ cet argument, celui-ci n¡¯avait aucune chance d...

Le Tribunal d¡¯appel a estim¨¦ que M. Egenhoff avait omis de signaler son conflit d¡¯int¨¦r¨ºts, qu¡¯il ne s¡¯¨¦tait pas r¨¦cus¨¦ de la proc¨¦dure de passation de march¨¦ et qu¡¯il avait, ¨¤ plusieurs reprises, communiqu¨¦ des informations confidentielles ¨¤ AH. Ce comportement ¨¦tait intentionnel ; il s¡¯est ¨¦tendu sur une longue p¨¦riode et n¡¯¨¦tait pas dans l¡¯int¨¦r¨ºt des Nations Unies. De plus, M. Egenhoff
occupait un poste ¨¤ haute responsabilit¨¦ et, ¨¤ ce titre, ¨¦tait cens¨¦ servir de mod¨¨le aux membres du personnel plac¨¦s sous sa
supervision. Compte tenu d¡¯autres facteurs, M. Egenhoff n¡¯avait pas d¡¯ant¨¦c¨¦dents...

Le Tribunal d¡¯appel a estim¨¦ que le Tribunal administratif des Nations unies (UNTD) avait correctement conclu que la d¨¦cision de
recouvrer une partie de l¡¯indemnit¨¦ forfaitaire de cong¨¦ dans les foyers de M. Kulga ¨¦tait l¨¦gale.

En ce qui concerne les d¨¦pens mis ¨¤ la charge de M. Kulga, le Tribunal d¡¯appel a estim¨¦ que le TNDU avait commis une erreur en qualifiant la requ¨ºte de M. Kulga de frivole, car il n¡¯¨¦tait pas d¨¦raisonnable de la part de ce dernier de consid¨¦rer qu¡¯un nouveau
recours devant le TNDU pourrait lui ¨ºtre utile, d¡¯autant plus que son recours contre son ¨¦valuation de gestion...

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 Appeals Tribunal held that the UNDT correctly found that the decision to recover a portion of Mr. Kulga¡¯s Home Leave lump sum was lawful.

As to the costs awarded against Mr. Kulga, the Appeals Tribunal found that the UNDT erred in finding Mr. Kulga¡¯s application to be frivolous as it was not unreasonable for Mr. Kulga to consider that a further challenge to the UNDT could assist him, especially after his management evaluation challenge had been partially successful. In addition, the UNDT¡¯s finding that Mr. Kulga repeatedly lied to the Administration over six months in seeking to obtain...

The Appeals Tribunal considered that Mr. Egenhoff had failed to disclose his conflict of interest, he had failed to recuse himself from the procurement exercise, and he had repeatedly shared confidential information with AH. This conduct was intentional; it occurred over a prolonged period and was not in the interest of the United Nations. Moreover, Mr. Egenhoff was in a position of significant responsibility and as such, he was supposed to be a role model for the staff members he supervised. Considering other factors, Mr. Egenhoff had no prior disciplinary record, and there was no evidence of...

The UNAT held that the UNDT erred in finding that the referral to OIOS constituted a reviewable administrative decision.It found that, contrary to the UNDT¡¯s finding, being subject to an investigation did not, in itself, transform the referral for investigation into an administrative decision, in the absence of additional legal consequences.It further concluded that, as the staff member¡¯s request for parental leave was eventually granted, and he had not identified any harm resulting from the delay in granting it, the referral to OIOS did not have sufficient legal effect to constitute a...