51ÁÔÆæ

The UNAT held that the appeal was timely, as Article 11(5) of the UNRWA DT Statute provides that the filing period begins upon receipt of the Arabic translation of the judgment when the application was originally submitted in Arabic. Since Ms. Al Dawoud received the Arabic version on 9 January 2025 and filed her appeal on 10 March 2025, the appeal was timely.

On the merits, the UNAT found that the UNRWA DT correctly identified the Agency¡¯s error in treating an email shared by Ms. Al Dawoud as confidential and acknowledged the harm caused by the erroneous disciplinary measure. However, the UNAT...

L'UNAT a estim¨¦ que l'ancien fonctionnaire avait d¨¦pos¨¦ son recours dans les d¨¦lais l¨¦gaux. Il a not¨¦ que, puisqu'il avait d¨¦pos¨¦ sa requ¨ºte devant le TFP en fran?ais, le d¨¦lai de 60 jours pour former son recours courait ¨¤ compter de la date de r¨¦ception du jugement du TFP dans cette m¨ºme langue. Comme il avait re?u le jugement du TFP en fran?ais le 15 janvier 2025 et d¨¦pos¨¦ son recours le 20 f¨¦vrier 2025, le TAT a estim¨¦ que celui-ci avait ¨¦t¨¦ d¨¦pos¨¦ dans les d¨¦lais.

N¨¦anmoins, le TAT a jug¨¦ que la requ¨ºte de l'ancien fonctionnaire devant le TFP n'¨¦tait pas recevable ratione temporis. Le TUNU...

L'UNAT a estim¨¦ que l'UNDT n'avait pas commis d'erreur en concluant que la demande d'indemnisation d'ATR en tant que victime de harc¨¨lement sexuel n'¨¦tait pas recevable, car la d¨¦cision administrative contest¨¦e ne concernait pas l'indemnisation et le cadre juridique applicable ne pr¨¦voyait pas un tel droit. Le TUNU a not¨¦ que, bien que l'article 10(5)(b) du Statut du TUDN autorise l'indemnisation du pr¨¦judice, ce recours doit ¨ºtre li¨¦ ¨¤ la d¨¦cision administrative faisant l'objet du recours, qui dans le cas pr¨¦sent concernait la divulgation de mesures disciplinaires et non une indemnisation.

Le...

L'UNAT a estim¨¦ que l'UNDT avait correctement appliqu¨¦ les crit¨¨res de contr?le juridictionnel pr¨¦vus ¨¤ l'article 2(1)(b) de son statut. Il a estim¨¦ que les faits constitutifs de la faute avaient ¨¦t¨¦ ¨¦tablis par des preuves claires et convaincantes, notamment des t¨¦moignages directs de r¨¦fugi¨¦s, des preuves documentaires corroborantes et des ou?-dire, et que l'ancien membre du personnel avait sollicit¨¦ ¨¤ plusieurs reprises entre 2010 et 2019 des pots-de-vin aupr¨¨s de r¨¦fugi¨¦s en ¨¦change d'une aide ¨¤ la r¨¦installation et d'autres services du HCR. Il a estim¨¦ que les faits ¨¦tablis constituaient...

L'UNAT a estim¨¦ que l'UNDT n'avait pas commis d'erreur en concluant que l'Administration avait l¨¦galement impos¨¦ la mesure disciplinaire consistant en un d¨¦classement d'un ¨¦chelon avec report de trois ans de l'¨¦ligibilit¨¦ ¨¤ la promotion et une formation ¨¤ la sensibilit¨¦ au genre. Le TUNAT a estim¨¦ que le TUD avait correctement appliqu¨¦ le cadre juridique applicable, notamment l'article 1.2 f) du R¨¨glement du personnel et la circulaire ST/SGB/2008/5, en concluant que le comportement du fonctionnaire, ¨¤ savoir une remarque inappropri¨¦e faisant r¨¦f¨¦rence ¨¤ la nudit¨¦ et un geste de caresse, l...

L'UNAT a estim¨¦ que la contestation par l'ancienne fonctionnaire de la d¨¦cision de l'ALWP et de la d¨¦cision de New York n'¨¦tait pas recevable, car elle n'avait pas demand¨¦ ¨¤ la direction d'¨¦valuer ces d¨¦cisions.

En ce qui concerne la mesure disciplinaire, le TUNI a d¨¦termin¨¦ que ses d¨¦clarations et ses publications sur les r¨¦seaux sociaux constituaient des activit¨¦s ext¨¦rieures non autoris¨¦es ¨¦quivalant ¨¤ une faute professionnelle. Il a not¨¦ qu'elle avait publi¨¦ des d¨¦clarations, des articles et donn¨¦ des interviews sans autorisation pr¨¦alable, malgr¨¦ des avertissements r¨¦p¨¦t¨¦s. Il a estim¨¦ que...

The UNAT held that the UNDT did not err in finding the extensions of administrative leave with pay lawful, as the Administration reasonably assessed the risk to workplace harmony given the appellant¡¯s senior role.

The UNAT agreed that the refusals to complete ePAS evaluations and to approve a subordinate¡¯s workplan and telecommuting request constituted insubordination under Staff Rule 1.2(a), which requires compliance with instructions properly issued by supervisors. It clarified that staff must follow instructions even if they believe them unlawful, unless criminal, and that ¡°properly issued¡±...

The UNAT first considered the staff member¡¯s request for an oral hearing, and decided it was not necessary for the expeditious and fair disposal of his case.

The UNAT observed that when the only persons present in a physical assault are the perpetrator and the victim, an oral hearing may be useful for reaching credibility findings. However, in this case, the UNAT noted that the staff member and his counsel agreed that they had no witnesses to present at an oral hearing and preferred to rely on the investigation report. In these circumstances, the UNDT did not err in not holding an oral hearing...

L'UNAT a estim¨¦ qu'aucune des raisons invoqu¨¦es par M. Hejab, consid¨¦r¨¦es individuellement ou collectivement, n'¨¦tait suffisamment convaincante pour consid¨¦rer son cas comme exceptionnel, de mani¨¨re ¨¤ justifier l'octroi d'une indemnisation sup¨¦rieure ¨¤ celle pr¨¦vue ¨¤ l'article 10(5) du Statut du personnel temporaire de l'UNRWA.

Le TUNU a estim¨¦ qu'il n'¨¦tait pas inhabituel pour un membre du personnel plus ?g¨¦, en particulier celui qui est proche de la retraite, d'avoir des difficult¨¦s ¨¤ trouver un autre emploi. De m¨ºme, bien que les conditions ¨¦conomiques soient difficiles l¨¤ o¨´ il vit, ce n...

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 held...

The UNAT held that the UNDT did not err in finding that ATR¡¯s claim for compensation as a victim of sexual harassment was not receivable because the contested administrative decision did not concern compensation and the applicable legal framework does not provide for such entitlement. The UNAT noted that while Article 10(5)(b) of the UNDT Statute allows for compensation for harm, this remedy must relate to the administrative decision under review, which in this case concerned disclosure of disciplinary measures, not compensation.

The UNAT further held that the UNDT exceeded its jurisdiction in...

The UNAT held that the former staff member filed his appeal within the statutory deadline.It noted that since he filed his application before the UNDT in French, the 60-day time limit for filing his appeal ran from the date of receipt of the UNDT Judgment in that same language.As he received the UNDT Judgment in French on 15 January 2025 and filed his appeal on 20 February 2025, the UNAT held that it was filed timely.

Nevertheless, the UNAT found that the former staff member¡¯s application before the UNDT was not receivable ratione temporis.The UNAT observed that the former staff member...

The UNAT held that the UNDT did not err in concluding that the Administration lawfully imposed the disciplinary measure of demotion by one grade with deferment for three years of promotion eligibility and gender?sensitivity training. The UNAT found that the UNDT correctly applied the governing legal framework, including Staff Rule 1.2(f) and ST/SGB/2008/5, in determining that the staff member¡¯s conduct, an inappropriate remark referencing nudity and a stroking gesture, physical intimidation of a colleague, and leering at female staff, constituted sexual harassment and workplace harassment.

The...

The UNAT held that the UNDT correctly applied the judicial review tests under Article 2(1)(b) of its Statute. It found that the facts of misconduct were established by clear and convincing evidence, including direct testimony from refugees, corroborating documentary evidence, and hearsay, and that the former staff member had solicited bribes from refugees on multiple occasions between 2010 and 2019 in exchange for assistance with resettlement and other UNHCR services. It held that the established facts legally amounted to serious misconduct and that the sanction of dismissal was proportionate...

The UNAT held that the former staff member¡¯s challenge to the ALWP decision and the New York position decision was not receivable, as she had not sought management evaluation of those decisions.

Regarding the disciplinary measure, the UNAT determined that her statements and social media posts constituted unauthorized outside activities amounting to misconduct. It noted that she issued statements, posted articles, and gave interviews without prior authorization, despite repeated warnings. It held that her social media engagements referenced international humanitarian assistance, humanitarian...

The UNAT held that none of the reasons provided by Mr. Hejab, considered individually or collectively, were convincing enough to consider his case exceptional, so as to warrant the award of higher compensation than set by Article 10(5) of the UNRWA DT Statute.

The UNAT held that it is not unusual for an older staff member, particularly one who is close to retirement, to have difficulty in finding another job. Likewise, although there are difficult economic conditions where he lives, this is also not the type of factor that warrants compensation in excess of the statutory norm.

The UNAT held...

L'UNAT a estim¨¦ que l'analyse faite par le TUDT du cadre juridique applicable r¨¦gissant l'allocation d'¨¦tudes, en particulier les frais admissibles au remboursement, ¨¦tait erron¨¦e et que le TUDT avait outrepass¨¦ sa comp¨¦tence en jugeant ill¨¦gale la promulgation de l'instruction administrative modifi¨¦e. L'UNAT a estim¨¦ que le TUDT n'avait pas fourni les motifs, les faits et les dispositions juridiques sur lesquels il avait fond¨¦ son jugement.

L'UNAT a estim¨¦ que les frais qui ¨¦taient clairement destin¨¦s ¨¤ couvrir des activit¨¦s extrascolaires ou des services g¨¦n¨¦raux non acad¨¦miques, et qui n...

L'UNAT a estim¨¦ que la contestation de l'ancien fonctionnaire portait sur une recommandation du pr¨¦sident suppl¨¦ant du comit¨¦ d'¨¦thique et qu'en tant que recommandation ¨¦thique, il ne s'agissait pas d'une d¨¦cision administrative susceptible de faire l'objet d'un contr?le juridictionnel. L'UNDT a donc rejet¨¦ ¨¤ juste titre cette partie de la requ¨ºte comme irrecevable.

Le TUNAT a en outre estim¨¦ que le rejet par l'Administration du rapport et de la recommandation du pr¨¦sident suppl¨¦ant de mars 2020 ne pouvait ¨ºtre interpr¨¦t¨¦ par le Bureau de la d¨¦ontologie comme une demande de proc¨¦der ¨¤ un...

L'UNAT a estim¨¦ que le Secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral n'avait pas implicitement retir¨¦ les pouvoirs d¨¦l¨¦gu¨¦s au Secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral adjoint charg¨¦ de la strat¨¦gie, des politiques et de la conformit¨¦ en mati¨¨re de gestion (USG/DMSPC) lorsque le chef de cabinet a sollicit¨¦ l'avis de l'USG/DMSPC.

L'UNAT a estim¨¦ que l'UNDT n'avait pas commis d'erreur en concluant que l'USG/DMSPC avait raisonnablement rejet¨¦ le rapport du pr¨¦sident suppl¨¦ant de mars 2020. L'UNAT a confirm¨¦ que l'administration ¨¦tait implicitement habilit¨¦e ¨¤ refuser de donner suite ¨¤ un rapport qu'elle consid¨¦rait comme d¨¦passant les param¨¨tres...

L'UNAT a estim¨¦ que les faits avaient ¨¦t¨¦ ¨¦tablis par des preuves claires et convaincantes. Il a estim¨¦ que le t¨¦moignage de la plaignante ¨¦tait coh¨¦rent avec ses d¨¦clarations ant¨¦rieures, ¨¤ l'exception de la date de l'incident. Toutefois, la correction de la date qu'elle a apport¨¦e lors de l'audience a ¨¦t¨¦ jug¨¦e de bonne foi et n'a pas nui ¨¤ sa cr¨¦dibilit¨¦. Son r¨¦cit a ¨¦t¨¦ corrobor¨¦ par deux autres membres du personnel, M.V. et M.M., qui ont tous deux t¨¦moign¨¦ devant le TDPI. Le TNP a ¨¦galement estim¨¦ que l'ancien membre du personnel n'avait pas d¨¦montr¨¦ que ces t¨¦moins avaient un motif...