51ÁÔÆæ

? titre pr¨¦liminaire, le Tribunal d'appel a rejet¨¦ les demandes d'audience des appelants au motif qu'une audience ne serait pas rapide et qu'¨¤ la lumi¨¨re des observations ¨¦crites d¨¦taill¨¦es, il n'y aurait rien ¨¤ gagner ¨¤ entendre les avocats des appelants en personne.

Le Tribunal d'appel a estim¨¦ qu'en l'absence d'une promesse expresse de renouvellement des engagements ¨¤ dur¨¦e d¨¦termin¨¦e des requ¨¦rants, ces derniers n'avaient pas d'esp¨¦rance l¨¦gitime de renouvellement de leurs contrats ¨¤ dur¨¦e d¨¦termin¨¦e. Les d¨¦clarations donnant des assurances aux membres du personnel de l'UNOPS n'ont pas ¨¦t¨¦...

As a preliminary matter, the Appeals Tribunal dismissed the Appellants' requests for an oral hearing on grounds that an oral hearing would not be expeditious and that in light of comprehensive written submissions nothing would be gained from hearing the Appellants¡¯ counsel in person.

The Appeals Tribunal found that in the absence of an express promise of renewal of the Appellants¡¯ fixed-term appointments, the Appellants did not have a legitimate expectation of renewal of their fixed-term contracts. The statements giving assurances to UNOPS staff members were not made by a UNOPS official with...

The UNAT held that the UNRWA DT rightly identified that the standard of proof for placing the staff member on ALWOP was whether there was reasonable suspicion or reasonable grounds to believe that the staff member had committed the alleged misconduct.

The UNAT rejected the staff member¡¯s argument that his ex-wife¡¯s withdrawal of the complaint against him in a national court should have stopped all investigations against him. The UNAT noted that the national court had provided the case records to the Agency, and the Agency, following its complete assessment of the situation, can proceed with...

The UNAT noted that the UNDT had not erred when it established that the staff member had improperly used his employer-issued laptop to access sexually-explicit websites and engaged in multiple instances of unauthorized outside activities. The UNAT held that he had not obtained approval to continue being the majority shareholder and director of a company.

The UNAT was of the view that the UNDT had not erred when it found that the staff member¡¯s activity constituted misconduct. The UNAT found that his contributions to the overall running of the business were material. The UNAT agreed with the...

The UNAT held that the applicant¡¯s reliance on Article 2 of the UNAT Statute for his application for revision was misguided and as such, was not receivable and lacked merit. The UNAT nonetheless reviewed his application for revision under the appropriate legal framework, which is in Article 11 of the UNAT Statute and Article 24 of the UNAT Rules of Procedure.

The UNAT held that other than the application being filed within one year of the UNAT Judgment at issue, the application for revision did not comply with any of the statutory requirements. There was no fact discovered after the issuance...

The UNAT upheld the UNRWA DT¡¯s determination of the former staff member¡¯s chances of selection for the position at one-fourth on alternative grounds. The UNAT held that the UNRWA DT appropriately considered the possibility that the Agency could have introduced additional candidates on an equivalency basis during a second review after the shortlisting phase. In particular, the UNRWA DT held that, since the sufficient number of candidates for a competitive exercise was normally between three to five candidates per vacancy, it was reasonable to expect that the Agency would have brought more...

The UNAT held that Mr. Almasri did not fulfil the requirements for revision of the prior UNAT Judgment. Mr. Almasri¡¯s primary complaint was that the remedy awarded to him failed to make him eligible for a better retirement pension based on a longer deemed service and contribution history.

The UNAT found that no new fact was advanced by Mr. Almasri that had been unknown either to him or the UNAT at the time of the prior Judgment, nor one that would have been decisive in reaching the decision had it been known. Instead, it was Mr. Almasri¡¯s negligence that brought about his factual ignorance...

Le TANU a estim¨¦ que le DT de l'UNRWA avait commis une erreur de droit en estimant que le cadre juridique applicable permettait au jury d'entretien de proc¨¦der ¨¤ des ¨¦valuations techniques des candidats.Toutefois, le TANU a estim¨¦ que l'irr¨¦gularit¨¦ proc¨¦durale du jury, qui a organis¨¦ une deuxi¨¨me s¨¦rie d'entretiens de nature purement technique, n'¨¦tait pas suffisante pour faire droit au recours, car l'issue du processus de recrutement aurait ¨¦t¨¦ la m¨ºme.
Le TANU a estim¨¦ que le DT de l'UNRWA n'avait pas commis d'erreur en ce qui concerne l'incapacit¨¦ de l'Office ¨¤ appliquer correctement les...

The UNAT found that the UNRWA DT had erred in law when it found that the applicable legal framework allowed the interview panel to conduct technical assessments of the candidates. However, the UNAT held that the procedural irregularity of the panel having held a second round of interviews of a purely technical nature, would not suffice to grant the appeal because the outcome of the recruitment process would have been the same.

The UNAT held that the UNRWA DT had not erred with regards to the Agency¡¯s failure to correctly apply gender parity rules. The UNAT found that gender parity had not...

The UNAT rejected the new evidence submitted for the first time on appeal, which sought to justify the late filing of the case by attributing it to the appellant¡¯s attorney¡¯s personal circumstances.

The UNAT was of the opinion that staff members must generally adhere to the specified time limits. However, in this case, the UNAT found that the UNDT had erred in fact and law in dismissing Mr. Khan¡¯s application as not receivable ratione temporis. It concluded that Mr. Khan¡¯s exceptional circumstances¡ªincluding severe flooding disrupting internet service and affecting his ability to access e...

Le TANU a estim¨¦ que le Tribunal n'avait pas commis d'erreur en concluant que la demande de l'agent n'¨¦tait pas recevable parce qu'il n'avait pas demand¨¦ l'¨¦valuation de la d¨¦cision contest¨¦e par l'encadrement dans le d¨¦lai l¨¦gal de 60 jours. Le TANU a d¨¦termin¨¦ que, puisque l'agent avait ¨¦t¨¦ inform¨¦ les 27 et 28 avril 2022 du rejet de sa demande d'¨¦valuation m¨¦dicale, il disposait d'un d¨¦lai de 60 jours ¨¤ compter de cette date pour introduire sa demande d'¨¦valuation par l'encadrement. Cependant, il n'a soumis sa demande au Groupe du contr?le hi¨¦rarchique que le 3 novembre 2022, puis au...

The UNAT held that the UNDT did not err in finding that the staff member¡¯s application was not receivable because he failed to request management evaluation of the contested decision within the 60-day statutory time limit. The UNAT determined that, since the staff member was notified on 27 and 28 April 2022 of the rejection of his request for medical evaluation, he had 60 days from that date to submit his request for management evaluation. However, he only submitted his request to the Management Evaluation Unit on 3 November 2022, and later to the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) on...

Le TANU a estim¨¦ que le TNDU n'avait pas commis d'erreur en concluant que la mesure disciplinaire impos¨¦e ¨¦tait l¨¦gale.
Le TANU a rejet¨¦ l'argument de l'ancien membre du personnel selon lequel la d¨¦cision de M¨¦decins sans fronti¨¨res (MSF) lui interdisant de collaborer avec l'association ¨¤ l'avenir ne pouvait ¨ºtre qualifi¨¦e de mesure disciplinaire, puisqu'elle lui avait ¨¦t¨¦ communiqu¨¦e alors qu'il n'¨¦tait plus employ¨¦ par l'association. Le TANU a estim¨¦ que cet argument n'¨¦tait pas recevable, car il avait d¨¦j¨¤ ¨¦t¨¦ pr¨¦sent¨¦ devant le TNDU.
En tout ¨¦tat de cause, le TANU a d¨¦termin¨¦ que la...

The UNAT held that the UNDT did not err in finding that the disciplinary measure imposed was lawful.

The UNAT rejected the former staff member¡¯s argument that the decision of Doctors Without Borders (DWB) prohibiting him from collaborating with the association in the future, could not be characterized as a disciplinary measure, since it was communicated to him after he was no longer employed by the association. The UNAT held that this argument was not admissible, as it had already been presented before the UNDT.

In any event, the UNAT determined that the decision from DWB constituted a...

The UNAT held that the former staff member had no legitimate expectation of renewal of her fixed-term appointment, as there was no evidence that the Administration had made any express promise that would have created such an expectation. On the contrary, the UNAT found that the Administration had properly informed all affected staff, including the former staff member, of the last date of the MADAD Project and advertised 15 clerical posts internally, inviting staff to apply for alternative positions. The UNAT further held that these actions should be viewed in light of the continuous efforts...

The UNAT held that the UNDT committed an error of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision, when it found that a termination decision was made on 1 April 2022. In this regard, the UNAT found that while a decision to place a note in the former staff member¡¯s Official Status File (OSF) was made on 1 April 2022, the termination decision was actually taken on 11 March 2022. Therefore, the UNDT should have identified either decision as the contested decision, but erred in following the former staff member¡¯s assertion that a termination decision was taken on 1 April 2022.

Nevertheless...

The UNAT noted that the staff member had been among the staff whose fixed-term appointments were not renewed due to the closure of the UNAMID mission.

With regard to his colleague who was laterally reassigned to the Headquarters and consequently remained in service, the UNAT found that the reassignment had been directly related to the undisputed fact that the colleague could not have been repatriated to Afghanistan for safety and security reasons. The UNAT was of the view that without the lawfulness of the reassignment decision having been placed before it for determination, it was unable to...

Le Tribunal d'appel a estim¨¦ que l'ajustement proportionnel des normes de charge de travail pour les services d'autor¨¦vision ¨¦tait une question qui relevait directement du pouvoir discr¨¦tionnaire de l'Administration. Le Tribunal d'appel s'est assur¨¦ que l'Administration avait suivi toutes les proc¨¦dures appropri¨¦es lors de l'adoption et de la mise en ?uvre de la d¨¦cision contest¨¦e, et le Tribunal a d¨¦termin¨¦ ¨¤ juste titre qu'il n'¨¦tait pas n¨¦cessaire de proc¨¦der ¨¤ des consultations avec la direction du personnel au niveau du d¨¦partement ou du bureau en ce qui concerne une d¨¦cision...

The Appeals Tribunal found that the proportional adjustment of workload standards for self-revision services was a matter that fell squarely within the Administration¡¯s discretionary authority. The Appeals Tribunal was satisfied that the Administration followed all proper procedures when taking and implementing the contested decision, and the UNDT properly determined that there was no requirement for staff management consultations at the departmental or office level in relation to a specific appealable administrative decision.

The Appeals Tribunal dismissed the appeal and affirmed Judgment...

? titre pr¨¦liminaire, le Tribunal d'appel a rejet¨¦ l'argument de M. Wan selon lequel le fait qu'il n'ait pas ¨¦t¨¦ repr¨¦sent¨¦ devant la commission de recours de l'OACI l'a consid¨¦rablement d¨¦savantag¨¦, ce qui a eu une incidence directe sur l'issue de l'affaire.

S'agissant du fond de l'affaire, le Tribunal d'appel a confirm¨¦ les conclusions de la Commission de recours selon lesquelles il avait ¨¦t¨¦ prouv¨¦ de mani¨¨re claire et convaincante que M. Wan avait commis deux fautes qui justifiaient l'imposition de la sanction de licenciement.Sur la base des documents pr¨¦sent¨¦s par le Secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral...