2025-UNAT-1575, Ivan Aguilar Valle
L'UNAT a estim¨¦ que l'article 9(4) du Statut du TUDN concernant la nature du contr?le juridictionnel exerc¨¦ par le TUDN dans les affaires disciplinaires ne s'appliquait pas ¨¤ l'affaire en question, car il avait ¨¦t¨¦ adopt¨¦ apr¨¨s la tenue de l'audience. Les parties ont pr¨¦sent¨¦ leurs preuves, y compris une chronologie des faits convenus ainsi que des t¨¦moignages en direct, et ont pr¨¦sent¨¦ leurs conclusions respectives apr¨¨s l'audience, dans un cadre juridique o¨´ l'article 9(4) n'¨¦tait pas applicable et o¨´ il serait inappropri¨¦, et constituerait un d¨¦ni de proc¨¦dure r¨¦guli¨¨re, d'appliquer un...
2025-UNAT-1573, Ghislain Robyn
L'UNAT a estim¨¦ que le Fonds avait raisonnablement choisi une p¨¦riode de 30 ans pour son analyse statistique afin de d¨¦terminer s'il y avait des ? r¨¦sultats aberrants ? en termes de pensions per?ues par les b¨¦n¨¦ficiaires qui avaient choisi la Slovaquie comme pays de r¨¦sidence. De m¨ºme, le TFP a estim¨¦ que les conclusions tir¨¦es par la Caisse ¨¤ partir de cette analyse ¨¦taient correctes, soulignant que le graphique montrait une grande disparit¨¦ entre les b¨¦n¨¦ficiaires r¨¦sidents ayant pris leur retraite entre 1993 et 2007 et ceux ayant pris leur retraite apr¨¨s cette p¨¦riode, disparit¨¦ due...
2025-UNAT-1571, Costas Argyrou
L'UNAT a not¨¦ que le fonctionnaire avait ¨¦t¨¦ inform¨¦ par courrier ¨¦lectronique du reclassement du poste qu'il occupait, sans commentaires sur les motifs de cette d¨¦cision. L'UNAT a ¨¦galement not¨¦ qu'il n'avait pas ¨¦t¨¦ promu au poste reclass¨¦ avant de quitter le service.
Le TUNAT a estim¨¦ que le TUD avait correctement d¨¦termin¨¦ que le fonctionnaire savait ou aurait d? raisonnablement savoir, ¨¤ la date ¨¤ laquelle il avait re?u la notification du reclassement ou, au plus tard, ¨¤ la date ¨¤ laquelle le poste reclass¨¦ avait ¨¦t¨¦ publi¨¦ dans Inspira, que son poste avait ¨¦t¨¦ reclass¨¦ et qu'il n'avait...
2025-UNAT-1578, Zekriat Swaidan
The UNAT noted that the staff member had applied for vacancies of different posts, at different times, with different selection processes, and had not been selected for different reasons. The UNAT found that the UNDT had correctly decided that each of these decisions was separate and there was no evidence that they were related. The UNAT held that she had not met her burden of showing that the impugned Judgment was defective.
The UNAT held that the application in respect of the post in Pretoria was clearly out of time and in respect of the post in Nairobi premature and, as such, not receivable...
2025-UNAT-1559, Emma Reilly
The UNAT held that the Secretary-General had not implicitly withdrawn delegated authority to the Under-Secretary-General for Management Strategy, Policy and Compliance (USG/DMSPC) when the Chef de Cabinet sought advice from the USG/DMSPC.
The UNAT held that the UNDT did not err in concluding that the USG/DMSPC reasonably rejected the report of the March 2020 Alternate Chair. The UNAT affirmed that the Administration was empowered impliedly to decline to act on a report that it considered as having exceeded its authorized parameters. Moreover, the UNAT concluded that the USG/DMSPC had the...
2025-UNAT-1546, Emma Reilly
The UNAT concluded that the UNDT did not err in finding that two periods of delay in addressing the former staff member¡¯s complaints was not evidence of bias against her. The UNAT held that delay alone is not indicative of bias.
The UNAT further held that the former staff member¡¯s claims related to a certain press release had been decided by prior Tribunal judgments and could not be relitigated.
The UNAT also found that the UNDT correctly confirmed that the establishment of the fact-finding Panel, its process of fact-finding and reporting, and its interactions with the former staff member as...
2025-UNAT-1577, Samaher Fakhouri
The UNAT found that the UNRWA DT erred when it found Ms. Fakhouri¡¯s application was receivable.
The UNAT held that despite being a staff member, the decision with which Ms. Fakhouri took issue was one which related to the terms of a potential contract not as a staff member but as an independent contractor and therefore the contested decision was not one that was appealable. The UNAT emphasized that Article 2(1)(a) of the UNRWA DT Statute makes clear that appeals can be brought against administrative decisions where such decisions relate to the staff member¡¯s terms of appointment. But the...
2025-UNAT-1580, Jonathan Hall
The UNAT noted that as per ISA¡¯s Staff Rule the UNAT has the competence to ¡°order an interim measure to provide temporary relief to either party to prevent irreparable harm and to maintain consistency with the decision taken at the first instance level¡±. The UNAT also has jurisdiction to order interim measures in appropriate cases arising out of an ISA dispute as is the case in Mr. Hall¡¯s Motion.
However, the UNAT found that Mr. Hall had failed to demonstrate that relief by way of interim measures was necessary to prevent irreparable harm and to maintain consistency with the JAB¡¯s decision. Mr...
2025-UNAT-1581, Waleed Ammar
The UNAT held that the UNDT erred in finding that the Administration had not proven by clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Ammar made the Facebook post because the Inspector General¡¯s Office (IGO) inappropriately discounted the possibility that Mr. Ammar¡¯s Facebook account had been hacked. The UNAT found that the Administration met its burden of establishing that it was highly probable that Mr. Ammar posted the Comment and thus publicly expressed support for an honour killing. The Administration produced uncontradicted evidence that the comment came from Mr. Ammar¡¯s Facebook account and he...
2025-UNAT-1575, Ivan Aguilar Valle
The UNAT found that Article 9(4) of the UNDT Statute regarding the nature of the judicial review that the UNDT conducts in disciplinary cases did not apply to the instant case as it was adopted after the hearing was held. The parties presented their evidence, including a chronology of agreed facts as well as live testimony, and made their respective post-hearing submissions, under a legal framework where Article 9(4) was not operative and it would be inappropriate, and a denial of due process, to apply a new evidentiary framework at the point of decision, ex post facto.
The UNAT found that...
2025-UNAT-1576, Ann-Christin Raschdorf
The UNAT noted that the staff member had filed numerous and confusing claims and applications that had been the subject of various reviews by the Management Evaluation Unit, the UNDT and the UNAT, all of which essentially attempted to ensure that the Administration continued to pay her benefits for medical reasons after expiration of her fixed-term appointment.
The UNAT held that her submissions failed to identify in precise terms a specific administrative decision capable of being reviewed. The UNAT found that the so-called non-decisions or incomplete decisions identified by her were not...
2025-UNAT-1571, Costas Argyrou
The UNAT noted that the staff member had been notified of the reclassification of the post he encumbered by e-mail without comments on the basis for the decision. The UNAT also noted that he had not been promoted to the reclassified post before separation from service.
The UNAT found that the UNDT had correctly determined that the staff member knew or reasonably should have known by the date he received notification of the reclassification or, at the very latest, by the date the vacancy of the reclassified post was advertised in Inspira, that his post had been reclassified and that he had not...
2025-UNAT-1560, Emma Reilly
The UNAT held that the former staff member¡¯s challenge was to a recommendation of the Alternate Chair of the Ethics Panel, and as an ethics recommendation, it was not an administrative decision subject to judicial review. Thus, the UNDT correctly dismissed this part of the application as not receivable.
The UNAT further found that the Administration¡¯s rejection of the March 2020 Alternate Chair¡¯s report and recommendation could not have been understood by the Ethics Office to be a request to conduct a new review. The UNAT observed that the evidence before the UNDT was that the decision was...
2025-UNAT-1574, Johnstone Summit Oketch
L'UNAT a estim¨¦ que les proc¨¦dures appliqu¨¦es pour pourvoir le poste sollicit¨¦ par le fonctionnaire ¨¦taient conformes aux r¨¨gles applicables. Bien que l'OCHA ait publi¨¦ l'offre d'emploi sans restriction pr¨¦alable aux candidats inscrits sur la liste et ait re?u quelque 151 candidatures, il a finalement d¨¦cid¨¦ de s¨¦lectionner un candidat inscrit sur la liste, excluant ainsi le fonctionnaire et de nombreux autres candidats. L'UNAT a estim¨¦ que l'Administration ¨¦tait tout ¨¤ fait en droit de proc¨¦der ainsi, car la lecture litt¨¦rale de la section 9.5 de l'instruction administrative ST/AI/2010/3/Rev...
2025-UNAT-1573, Ghislain Robyn
The UNAT held that the Fund reasonably chose a 30-year timeframe for its statistical analysis to determine whether there were ¡°aberrant results¡± in terms of pensions received by beneficiaries who had chosen Slovakia as their country of residence. Similarly, the UNAT held that the conclusions drawn by the Fund from the analysis were properly reached, highlighting that the graph showed a wide disparity between resident beneficiaries who separated from 1993 to 2007 and those who separated afterwards, a disparity solely due to differences in separation dates.
The UNAT found that the suspension...
2025-UNAT-1574, Johnstone Summit Oketch
The UNAT found that the procedures applied to fill the Position sought by the staff member were consistent with the applicable rules. Although the OCHA advertised the Position without any pre-determined restriction to rostered candidates, and received some 151 applications, it ultimately decided to select a rostered candidate, thereby excluding the staff member and many others from consideration. The UNAT held that the Administration was well within its prerogative to do so, as the plain reading of Section 9.5 of Administrative Instruction ST/AI/2010/3/Rev.1 (Staff selection system) grants...
2025-UNAT-1536, Milunka Tadic
L'UNAT a estim¨¦ que la restructuration de la fonction financi¨¨re par l'Administration ¨¦tait une mesure l¨¦gitime et un usage appropri¨¦ du pouvoir discr¨¦tionnaire de l'Administration pour r¨¦pondre ¨¤ l'¨¦volution des besoins. L'UNAT n'a pas consid¨¦r¨¦ que l'Administration avait agi de mani¨¨re injuste ou in¨¦quitable en supprimant le poste de l'ancienne fonctionnaire. L'UNAT a en outre estim¨¦ qu'il n'¨¦tait pas n¨¦cessaire de consulter l'ancienne fonctionnaire avant la suppression de son poste.
Le TUNAT a estim¨¦ que le m¨¦contentement de l'ancienne fonctionnaire ¨¤ l'¨¦gard de l'¨¦valuation par le TUDT des...
2025-UNAT-1536, Milunka Tadic
The UNAT held that the Administration¡¯s restructuring of the finance function was a genuine exercise and a proper use of the Administration¡¯s discretion in responding to evolving needs. The UNAT did not agree that the Administration acted unfairly or unjustly in abolishing the former staff member¡¯s post. The UNAT further held that consultation with the former staff member was not required prior to the abolition of her post.
The UNAT found that the former staff member¡¯s dissatisfaction with the UNDT¡¯s assessment of the evidence of workplace issues between her and her supervisor does not...
2025-UNAT-1554, ABD
L'UNAT a not¨¦ que l'appel de l'ABD avait ¨¦t¨¦ d¨¦pos¨¦ dans les 60 jours suivant la d¨¦livrance de l'ordonnance, mais plus de 30 jours apr¨¨s cet ¨¦v¨¦nement. ?tant donn¨¦ qu'en vertu de l'article 7(1)(c) du statut de l'UNAT, une partie dispose de 30 jours pour faire appel d'une ordonnance, l'ABD avait d¨¦pass¨¦ le d¨¦lai pour faire appel de l'ordonnance contest¨¦e de l'UNDT.
L'UNAT a rejet¨¦ l'appel comme irrecevable.
2025-UNAT-1544, Antonio Ponce Gonzalez
L'UNAT a observ¨¦ que M. Ponce-Gonzalez tentait de persuader le Tribunal d'appel qu'un fonctionnaire qui pr¨¦tendait avoir d¨¦l¨¦gu¨¦ le pouvoir de prendre des d¨¦cisions en mati¨¨re d'embauche n'avait en fait pas ce pouvoir. M. Ponce-Gonzalez a affirm¨¦ disposer de nouveaux documents ¨¤ l'appui de son argumentation.
L'UNAT a estim¨¦ que les nouveaux faits d¨¦couverts ne r¨¦pondaient pas ¨¤ l'exigence l¨¦gale d'avoir une incidence d¨¦cisive sur l'issue du pr¨¦c¨¦dent recours et que, par cons¨¦quent, la demande de r¨¦vision ne satisfaisait pas au crit¨¨re l¨¦gal strict pr¨¦vu ¨¤ l'article 11(1) du Statut de l'UNAT...