51ÁÔÆæ

The UNAT considered whether the interlocutory appeal was receivable because ABA had not been given an opportunity to be heard on the issue of the protective measures for V01 at the proposed hearing at the time the UNDT issued the first Order. The UNAT held that this was not grounds to grant the interlocutory appeal, because ABA¡¯s arguments were heard by the UNDT when he filed his motion for reconsideration.

The UNAT held that the UNDT did not exceed its competence or jurisdiction when it issued these case management orders. The UNAT was also not persuaded by ABA¡¯s argument that the violation...

The UNAT held that the administrative decision concerning reimbursements to the staff member took effect in law on 7 May 2019, when he received the wire transfer from the Organization. The reasons for this reimbursement amount were discussed with him shortly before the wire transfer was made. Although explanations of the underlying calculations were repeated in subsequent email exchanges with the staff member, those repetitions were not additional or new administrative decisions that were open to challenge by the staff member, thereby resetting the statute of limitations.

The UNAT found that...

The UNAT held that the staff member¡¯s application was not receivable, as he did not file a timely request for management evaluation of the contested decision.

The UNAT observed that the staff member was notified of the contested decision on 9 November 2023. Accordingly, he had until 8 January 2024 to file his request for management evaluation, but instead filed it on 12 August 2024, more than 270 days after being notified of the contested decision. It further found that, even assuming that he was notified of the contested decision in February 2024, his request was still submitted well...

L'UNAT a estim¨¦ que M. Slayyeh n'avait pas form¨¦ de recours en bonne et due forme contre le jugement contest¨¦, mais qu'il avait plut?t introduit une nouvelle demande d'indemnisation qui n'avait pas ¨¦t¨¦ soumise au Tribunal du contentieux. L'UNAT a jug¨¦ qu'il ne pouvait pas soulever en appel une question qui n'avait pas ¨¦t¨¦ pr¨¦sent¨¦e au tribunal de premi¨¨re instance, car cela constituait une violation des droits de l'autre partie ¨¤ une proc¨¦dure r¨¦guli¨¨re et n'¨¦tait pas conforme au syst¨¨me ¨¤ deux niveaux d'administration de la justice.

Le TUNU a estim¨¦ que les recours disponibles en vertu de l...

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 UNDT did not err in concluding that the former staff member¡¯s application was not receivable because most of the contested decisions were either time-barred, res judicata, or did not constitute appealable administrative decisions. The UNAT found that the Advisory Board on Compensation Claims (ABCC) correctly determined that the claim for compensation under Appendix D remained time-barred under Article 2.1(b) and that the requirements for waiver under Article 2.1(e) were not met, as there was no evidence of incapacity preventing timely filing. The UNAT further held that...

The UNAT held that the UNDT erred in concluding that the staff member¡¯s actions did not constitute misconduct. The UNAT found that it had been established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the staff member had failed to cooperate with an investigation conducted by the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS), which concerned another staff member under investigation for misrepresenting his place of accommodation.

It found that the staff member had deliberately withheld information and provided generic, vague, and misleading responses during his initial OIOS interview regarding the...

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 staff member¡¯s application was not receivable, as his placement on the overtime Priority Two List, rather than the Priority One List, and the consequent non-assignment of overtime to him on 10 April 2023, did not violate any regulations, rules or administrative issuances. The UNAT found that the staff member had no contractual right, nor ¡°de facto entitlement¡± to perform overtime work or to select his own overtime schedule. On the contrary, it recalled that the allocation of overtime is discretionary with management. Furthermore, the UNAT observed that the...

The UNAT held that the UNDT correctly found that the contested decision was lawful. It concluded that the preliminary assessment of the former staff member¡¯s complaint revealed no sufficient grounds to indicate that his FRO¡¯s alleged unsatisfactory conduct could amount to misconduct, and, as a result, there was no likelihood that an investigation would reveal sufficient evidence to further pursue the matter as a disciplinary case.

The UNAT also found that the UNDT correctly identified the decision subject to judicial review and properly considered and rejected, as a preliminary matter, Mr...

The UNAT found that Mr. Slayyeh did not file a proper appeal of the impugned Judgment but rather was bringing a new claim for compensation that had not been submitted to the Dispute Tribunal. The UNAT held that he could not introduce on appeal an issue not previously presented to the first instance tribunal as it is a violation of the due process rights of the other party and does not comply with the two-tier system of administration of justice.

The UNAT found that the remedies available under Article 10(5) of the UNRWA DT Statute allow the UNRWA DT to rescind the contested decision or order...

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 le DT de l'UNRWA avait commis une erreur en jugeant recevable la demande de Mme Fakhouri.

L'UNAT a estim¨¦ que, bien qu'elle f?t membre du personnel, la d¨¦cision contest¨¦e par Mme Fakhouri concernait les conditions d'un contrat potentiel non pas en tant que membre du personnel, mais en tant que contractante ind¨¦pendante, et que, par cons¨¦quent, la d¨¦cision contest¨¦e n'¨¦tait pas susceptible de recours. Le TUNU a soulign¨¦ que l'article 2(1)(a) du Statut du DT de l'UNRWA stipule clairement que les recours peuvent ¨ºtre form¨¦s contre les d¨¦cisions administratives lorsque ces...

Le TUNAT a not¨¦ que la fonctionnaire avait d¨¦pos¨¦ de nombreuses plaintes et demandes confuses qui avaient fait l'objet de divers examens par l'Unit¨¦ d'¨¦valuation de la gestion, le TFP et le TUNAT, qui visaient tous essentiellement ¨¤ garantir que l'Administration continue de lui verser des prestations pour raisons m¨¦dicales apr¨¨s l'expiration de son engagement ¨¤ dur¨¦e d¨¦termin¨¦e.

Le TUNAT a estim¨¦ que ses observations ne permettaient pas d'identifier avec pr¨¦cision une d¨¦cision administrative sp¨¦cifique susceptible d'¨ºtre r¨¦examin¨¦e. Le TUNI a estim¨¦ que les pr¨¦tendues non-d¨¦cisions ou d¨¦cisions...

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 conclu que l'UNDT n'avait pas commis d'erreur en estimant que les deux retards dans le traitement des plaintes de l'ancienne fonctionnaire ne constituaient pas une preuve de partialit¨¦ ¨¤ son ¨¦gard. L'UNAT a estim¨¦ que le retard seul n'¨¦tait pas r¨¦v¨¦lateur d'une partialit¨¦.

L'UNAT a en outre estim¨¦ que les all¨¦gations de l'ancienne fonctionnaire relatives ¨¤ un certain communiqu¨¦ de presse avaient d¨¦j¨¤ fait l'objet de d¨¦cisions rendues par le Tribunal et ne pouvaient faire l'objet d'un nouveau litige.

Le TUNI a ¨¦galement estim¨¦ que le TND avait correctement confirm¨¦ que la cr¨¦ation du...

L'UNAT a estim¨¦ que l'UNDT avait commis une erreur en concluant que l'administration n'avait pas prouv¨¦ de mani¨¨re claire et convaincante que M. Ammar avait publi¨¦ le message sur Facebook, car le bureau de l'inspecteur g¨¦n¨¦ral (IGO) avait ¨¦cart¨¦ de mani¨¨re inappropri¨¦e la possibilit¨¦ que le compte Facebook de M. Ammar ait ¨¦t¨¦ pirat¨¦. L'UNAT a estim¨¦ que l'administration s'¨¦tait acquitt¨¦e de son obligation de prouver qu'il ¨¦tait hautement probable que M. Ammar ait publi¨¦ le commentaire et ait ainsi exprim¨¦ publiquement son soutien ¨¤ un crime d'honneur. L'administration a produit des preuves non...

L'UNAT a not¨¦ que, conform¨¦ment au r¨¨glement du personnel de l'ISA, l'UNAT a la comp¨¦tence d'? ordonner une mesure provisoire afin d'apporter une aide temporaire ¨¤ l'une ou l'autre des parties afin d'¨¦viter un pr¨¦judice irr¨¦parable et de maintenir la coh¨¦rence avec la d¨¦cision prise en premi¨¨re instance ?. L'UNAT a ¨¦galement comp¨¦tence pour ordonner des mesures provisoires dans les cas appropri¨¦s d¨¦coulant d'un litige relevant de l'ISA, comme c'est le cas dans la requ¨ºte de M. Hall.

Toutefois, l'UNAT a estim¨¦ que M. Hall n'avait pas d¨¦montr¨¦ que des mesures provisoires ¨¦taient n¨¦cessaires pour...

L'UNAT a not¨¦ que la fonctionnaire avait postul¨¦ ¨¤ diff¨¦rents postes vacants, ¨¤ diff¨¦rents moments, dans le cadre de diff¨¦rents processus de s¨¦lection, et qu'elle n'avait pas ¨¦t¨¦ retenue pour diff¨¦rentes raisons. L'UNAT a estim¨¦ que l'UNDT avait correctement d¨¦cid¨¦ que chacune de ces d¨¦cisions ¨¦tait distincte et qu'il n'y avait aucune preuve qu'elles ¨¦taient li¨¦es. L'UNAT a estim¨¦ qu'elle ne s'¨¦tait pas acquitt¨¦e de la charge qui lui incombait de d¨¦montrer que le jugement contest¨¦ ¨¦tait erron¨¦.

Le TUNAT a estim¨¦ que la candidature au poste ¨¤ Pretoria ¨¦tait manifestement hors d¨¦lai et que celle...