51ÁÔÆæ

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 11 July 2025 and filed his appeal on 13 August 2025, the UNAT held that it was filed in a timely manner.

Nevertheless, the UNAT found that the former staff member¡¯s application before the UNDT was not receivable.In this regard, the UNAT first rejected his contention...

The UNAT held that the issues on appeal were whether the UNDT erred in finding that the staff member received full and fair consideration for the Temporary Job Opening, whether it erred in concluding that the non?selection decision was untainted by bias, discrimination, or other extraneous considerations, and whether it erred in declaring certain claims not receivable for failure to request management evaluation. It recalled that its role on appeal is not to conduct a de novo review, but to determine whether the UNDT committed an error of law, fact, or procedure resulting in an unreasonable...

The UNAT first held that the contested decision of 17 April 2011 did not constitute an appealable administrative decision and was not receivable ratione materiae, insofar as it merely advised the former staff member to go to the nearest UNHCR office and seek asylum or resettlement as a refugee.

Subsidiarily, even assuming that the e-mail of 17 April 2011 could have constituted a valid appealable administrative decision, the UNAT found that the former staff member¡¯s application would nonetheless remain not receivable on two grounds. First, he did not request management evaluation of the...

The UNAT held that the issues on appeal were whether the UNDT erred in finding that the Secretary-General lawfully exercised his discretion in cancelling the Recruit from Roster Job Opening, whether the decision was supported by a rational and reasonable basis, and whether the UNDT erred in rejecting the staff member¡¯s allegations of discrimination, improper motive, or procedural irregularity.

The UNAT found that the UNDT correctly applied established jurisprudence on staff selection, including the principle that the Administration is not obliged to complete a recruitment exercise once...

The UNAT found that Ms. George submitted her request to revert to the US dollar track system on 4 August 2015 and the Administration rejected it on 10 November 2015.Despite that clear communication, the former staff member continued to exchange correspondence with the Administration seeking reconsideration of the decision for almost nine years.She waited until 9 April 2024 before submitting her request for review to the Standing Committee.As it was filed beyond the statutory time limit of ninety days of receipt of notification of the contested decision, the UNAT held that her request was...

The UNAT held that the UNDT did not err in finding that the former staff member¡¯s application was not receivable.

Regarding the former staff member¡¯s claims concerning the alleged theft of her wages, the alleged lack of a legal basis for the recovery of her final pay, and the alleged illegal withholding of her final pay, the UNAT found that these claims were not receivable ratione materiae, because she failed to request management evaluation of the contested decisions within the statutory time limit.In this regard, the UNAT further held that her ignorance or misunderstanding of the law...

The UNAT held that the issues on appeal were whether the UNRWA Dispute Tribunal erred in finding that the facts of misconduct were established to the clear and convincing evidence standard, whether it erred in concluding that the conduct constituted serious misconduct, and whether it erred in affirming the proportionality of the disciplinary sanction of separation from service without termination indemnity. It recalled that its role is not to conduct a de novo review, but to determine whether the first?instance tribunal committed an error of law, fact, or procedure resulting in an unreasonable...

The UNAT held that the issues on appeal were whether the UNDT erred in finding the application not receivable for failure to request management evaluation within the mandatory 60?day time limit, whether it erred in identifying the date of notification of the contested administrative decision, and whether any findings on mootness or alleged due process violations affected the outcome. It recalled that its role on appeal is limited to determining whether the UNDT committed an error of law, fact, or procedure resulting in an unreasonable decision.

The UNAT held that the UNDT correctly identified...

The UNAT held that the issues on appeal were whether the UNDT erred in refusing to grant anonymity to the staff member in proceedings challenging a written reprimand, whether it misapplied the jurisprudence governing anonymization, and whether such an error justified interlocutory review. It recalled that interlocutory appeals are receivable only in rare and exceptional circumstances, including where an error is irremediable by a final judgment and it would be manifestly unreasonable for the impugned order to remain in effect.

The UNAT found that the UNDT committed an error of law by...

The UNAT held that the issues on appeal were whether the UNDT had clearly exceeded its jurisdiction or competence in issuing the impugned interlocutory case?management orders, and whether any alleged procedural errors were effectively irremediable by a final judgment or manifestly unreasonable so as to justify interlocutory review. It recalled that appeals against interlocutory orders are receivable only in rare and exceptional circumstances, and that matters relating to evidence, procedure, and trial conduct fall within the UNDT¡¯s broad case?management discretion.

The UNAT found that the UNDT...

The UNAT held that the former staff member committed sexual harassment towards the Complainant by: i) entering her accommodation without invitation, hugging, kissing, and licking her forehead without her consent, reclining her on her bed to lie next to him, and refusing to leave when asked; and ii) telling her the following day that she had been unable to sleep because she had been thinking of him.

The UNAT found that the UNDT had provided a clear and reasoned analysis of the witnesses¡¯ credibility.It concluded that the UNDT¡¯s determination that certain discrepancies in the Complainant¡¯s...

Le TFP a estim¨¦ que la requ¨ºte introduite par l'ancien agent devant le TFP n'¨¦tait pas recevable ratione temporis. Le TFP a observ¨¦ que l'ancien agent avait ¨¦t¨¦ inform¨¦ de la d¨¦cision contest¨¦e le 30 mai 2024 ou, selon sa propre d¨¦claration, au plus tard le 5 juin 2024. En cons¨¦quence, dans le premier sc¨¦nario, la requ¨ºte aurait d? ¨ºtre d¨¦pos¨¦e avant le 28 ao?t 2024, et dans le second sc¨¦nario, avant le 3 septembre 2024. Comme sa requ¨ºte n'a ¨¦t¨¦ d¨¦pos¨¦e que le 4 septembre 2024, le TFP a conclu qu'il avait ¨¦t¨¦ correctement jug¨¦ qu'elle avait ¨¦t¨¦ pr¨¦sent¨¦e bien au-del¨¤ du d¨¦lai l¨¦gal de 90 jours...

L'UNAT a estim¨¦ que l'UNDT n'avait pas commis d'erreur en jugeant l¨¦gales les prolongations du cong¨¦ administratif r¨¦mun¨¦r¨¦, car l'administration avait raisonnablement ¨¦valu¨¦ le risque pour l'harmonie sur le lieu de travail compte tenu du poste ¨¦lev¨¦ occup¨¦ par l'appelant.

L'UNAT a convenu que le refus de remplir les ¨¦valuations ePAS et d'approuver le plan de travail et la demande de t¨¦l¨¦travail d'un subordonn¨¦ constituait une insubordination au sens de la r¨¨gle 1.2(a) du R¨¨glement du personnel, qui exige le respect des instructions d?ment donn¨¦es par les sup¨¦rieurs hi¨¦rarchiques. Il a pr¨¦cis¨¦...

L'UNAT a estim¨¦ que l'UNDT n'avait pas commis d'erreur en concluant que la d¨¦cision contest¨¦e de classer la plainte du fonctionnaire sans enqu¨ºte ¨¦tait l¨¦gale et raisonnable. L'UNAT a estim¨¦ que l'OIAI avait correctement ¨¦valu¨¦ les all¨¦gations et d¨¦termin¨¦ qu'elles ne reposaient pas sur des preuves ou des indices suffisants de faute professionnelle, et que les incidents d¨¦crits relevaient d'une gestion normale des performances plut?t que d'un harc¨¨lement ou d'un abus d'autorit¨¦.

Le TUNAT a en outre estim¨¦ que le TUD avait correctement conclu que les d¨¦saccords concernant les ¨¦valuations de...

L'UNAT a estim¨¦ que la seule question en appel ¨¦tait de savoir si le TUDN avait commis une erreur en jugeant la sanction disciplinaire suppl¨¦mentaire disproportionn¨¦e et en l'annulant. Il a soulign¨¦ qu'en vertu de l'article 10.3 b) du R¨¨glement du personnel, les sanctions doivent ¨ºtre proportionn¨¦es, mais que l'Administration jouit d'un large pouvoir discr¨¦tionnaire en mati¨¨re disciplinaire, sous r¨¦serve d'un contr?le judiciaire quant ¨¤ la l¨¦galit¨¦, la rationalit¨¦ et la proportionnalit¨¦.

Le TUNAT a estim¨¦ que le TUDN avait outrepass¨¦ ses pouvoirs en substituant son propre avis ¨¤ celui du...

L'UNAT a estim¨¦ que la demande du fonctionnaire n'¨¦tait pas recevable, car il n'avait pas d¨¦pos¨¦ en temps utile une demande d'¨¦valuation de la d¨¦cision contest¨¦e par la direction.

L'UNAT a observ¨¦ que le fonctionnaire avait ¨¦t¨¦ inform¨¦ de la d¨¦cision contest¨¦e le 9 novembre 2023. Il avait donc jusqu'au 8 janvier 2024 pour d¨¦poser sa demande d'¨¦valuation par la direction, mais il l'a d¨¦pos¨¦e le 12 ao?t 2024, soit plus de 270 jours apr¨¨s avoir ¨¦t¨¦ inform¨¦ de la d¨¦cision contest¨¦e. Il a en outre estim¨¦ que, m¨ºme en supposant qu'il ait ¨¦t¨¦ inform¨¦ de la d¨¦cision contest¨¦e en f¨¦vrier 2024, sa...

Le TUNAT a estim¨¦ que le TUDN n'avait pas commis d'erreur en concluant que la d¨¦cision contest¨¦e de l'OAI de classer la plainte du fonctionnaire ¨¦tait l¨¦gale. Le TUNAT a estim¨¦ que l'administration avait agi de mani¨¨re raisonnable en d¨¦terminant que les all¨¦gations ne reposaient pas sur des preuves suffisantes pour justifier une enqu¨ºte et que le processus d'¨¦valuation ¨¦tait conforme au cadre juridique du PNUD.

Le TUNAT a en outre estim¨¦ que le TUDN avait correctement rejet¨¦ les arguments proc¨¦duraux du fonctionnaire, notamment les all¨¦gations de partialit¨¦ et de refus d'entendre des t¨¦moins...

L'UNAT a not¨¦ que la JAB est sp¨¦cifiquement habilit¨¦e ¨¤ statuer sur une demande de suspension d'une action relevant de sa juridiction et de sa comp¨¦tence, de sorte que l'UNAT n'avait aucun motif d'examiner les recours tant qu'il n'y avait pas eu de demande en temps utile concernant une d¨¦cision sur le fond. ? ce moment-l¨¤, l'UNAT pourra examiner, le cas ¨¦ch¨¦ant, les questions relatives au respect des proc¨¦dures r¨¦guli¨¨res soulev¨¦es dans le recours actuellement form¨¦ par les anciens membres du personnel de l'ISA.

Le TUNU a not¨¦ que les audiences orales n'aideraient pas le Tribunal ¨¤ statuer de...

L'UNAT a estim¨¦ que l'UNDT avait correctement conclu que la d¨¦cision contest¨¦e ¨¦tait l¨¦gale. Il a conclu que l'¨¦valuation pr¨¦liminaire de la plainte de l'ancien membre du personnel ne r¨¦v¨¦lait aucun motif suffisant pour indiquer que la conduite pr¨¦tendument insatisfaisante de son FRO pouvait constituer une faute professionnelle et que, par cons¨¦quent, il ¨¦tait peu probable qu'une enqu¨ºte r¨¦v¨¨le des preuves suffisantes pour poursuivre l'affaire en tant que cas disciplinaire.

Le TUNAT a ¨¦galement estim¨¦ que le TUD avait correctement identifi¨¦ la d¨¦cision faisant l'objet du contr?le...

L'UNAT a estim¨¦ que la demande du fonctionnaire n'¨¦tait pas recevable, car son inscription sur la liste des priorit¨¦s n¡ã 2 pour les heures suppl¨¦mentaires, plut?t que sur la liste des priorit¨¦s n¡ã 1, et le fait qu'aucune heure suppl¨¦mentaire ne lui ait ¨¦t¨¦ attribu¨¦e le 10 avril 2023, ne constituaient pas une violation des r¨¨glements, r¨¨gles ou dispositions administratives. Le TUNU a estim¨¦ que le fonctionnaire n'avait aucun droit contractuel, ni aucun ? droit de facto ? ¨¤ effectuer des heures suppl¨¦mentaires ou ¨¤ choisir son propre horaire de travail suppl¨¦mentaire. Au contraire, il a rappel¨¦...