51ÁÔÆæ

Le TANU a estim¨¦ que la demande de r¨¦vision de l'agent ne r¨¦pondait pas aux exigences statutaires ¨¦nonc¨¦es ¨¤ l'article 11, paragraphe 1, du statut du TANU. Il a estim¨¦ que les faits soulev¨¦s par l'agent ne lui ¨¦taient pas inconnus avant le prononc¨¦ de l'arr¨ºt du TANU et qu'en tout ¨¦tat de cause, ils n'auraient pas modifi¨¦ l'issue de l'affaire, qui a ¨¦t¨¦ jug¨¦e irrecevable. Le TANU a ¨¦galement estim¨¦ que les arguments de l'agent n'¨¦taient pas pertinents et a r¨¦it¨¦r¨¦ ceux qu'il avait d¨¦j¨¤ avanc¨¦s devant le TANU.

Le TANU a rejet¨¦ la demande de r¨¦vision.

Renvoi en mati¨¨re de responsabilit¨¦...

Le TANU a estim¨¦ que M. Kankwenda, qui a particip¨¦ tardivement ¨¤ la Caisse commune des pensions du personnel des Nations unies, a ¨¦pous¨¦ une autre personne, Mme M.T., en R¨¦publique d¨¦mocratique du Congo (RDC) en 1971. Ce fait, que Mme Isasi elle-m¨ºme n'a pas contest¨¦, ¨¦tait ¨¦tay¨¦ par un certificat de mariage et concordait avec les informations relatives aux dates de naissance des enfants de M. Kankwenda et ¨¤ l'identit¨¦ de leurs m¨¨res. Le TANU a soulign¨¦ que Mme Isasi avait admis que les deux certificats de mariage qu'elle avait pr¨¦sent¨¦s apr¨¨s le d¨¦c¨¨s de M. Kankwenda, cens¨¦s attester de...

The UNAT held that Mr. Kankwenda, a late participant in the UNJSPF, married another individual, Ms. M.T., in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) in 1971. This fact, which Ms. Isasi herself did not contest, was supported by a marriage certificate and was consistent with the information regarding the dates of birth of Mr. Kankwenda¡¯s children and the identities of their mothers. The UNAT highlighted that Ms. Isasi admitted that the two marriage certificates she submitted after Mr. Kankwenda¡¯s death, purportedly showing their marriage on 17 January 1971, were falsified, undermining her...

The UNAT held that the staff member¡¯s application for revision failed to meet the statutory requirements outlined in Article 11(1) of the UNAT Statute. It found that the facts raised by the staff member were not unknown to him before the issuance of the UNAT Judgment and, in any event, would not have changed the outcome of the case, which was found to be not receivable. The UNAT further held that the staff member¡¯s arguments were irrelevant and reiterated those he previously advanced before the UNAT.

The UNAT dismissed the application for revision.

Accountability Referral: The UNAT noted...

Le TANU a estim¨¦ que l'ancien membre du personnel n'avait pas fourni d'¨¦l¨¦ments prouvant qu'il avait droit ¨¤ une indemnisation pour le pr¨¦judice subi. En particulier, le TANU a estim¨¦ qu'aucune preuve n'avait ¨¦t¨¦ fournie pour ¨¦tablir un lien entre l'ill¨¦galit¨¦ commise et le pr¨¦judice subi par l'ancienne employ¨¦e en cons¨¦quence. Le TANU a soulign¨¦ que le rapport m¨¦dical pr¨¦sent¨¦ par l'ancienne employ¨¦e indiquait qu'elle se plaignait d'un manque de sommeil et de maux de t¨ºte "depuis plusieurs ann¨¦es" et que ces sympt?mes correspondaient ¨¤ un ¨¦tat pathologique diagnostiqu¨¦ ant¨¦rieurement.

En...

Le TANU a not¨¦ que l'agent avait demand¨¦ ¨¤ ¨ºtre reclass¨¦ au grade HL7 dans son courriel du 2 janvier 2017 et que ses communications ult¨¦rieures avaient ¨¦t¨¦ des r¨¦it¨¦rations de cette demande.

Le TANU a estim¨¦ que l'administration devait compenser la perte r¨¦elle de revenus subie par l'agent ¨¤ partir du moment o¨´ son reclassement aurait d? ¨ºtre mis en ?uvre. Le TANU a estim¨¦ que le DT de l'UNWRA avait consid¨¦r¨¦ ¨¤ juste titre que le d¨¦lai de six mois ¨¦tait raisonnable. Le TANU a conclu que le DT de l'UNRWA n'avait pas commis d'erreur de droit ou de fait en d¨¦cidant que la diff¨¦rence de salaire...

Le TANU a estim¨¦ que le Tribunal avait agi dans le cadre de son pouvoir discr¨¦tionnaire en rendant l'arr¨ºt contest¨¦ sans tenir d'audience, d'autant plus que la question ¨¤ examiner ¨¦tait celle de la recevabilit¨¦. Le TANU a ¨¦galement estim¨¦ que le TANU n'avait pas commis d'erreur en ne donnant pas ¨¤ l'agent la possibilit¨¦ de commenter la r¨¦ponse du Secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral, ¨¦tant donn¨¦ qu'il n'avait pas d¨¦pos¨¦ de requ¨ºte en vue d'obtenir des conclusions suppl¨¦mentaires.

Le TANU a estim¨¦ que le TANU avait correctement identifi¨¦ que la d¨¦cision contest¨¦e ¨¦tait la d¨¦cision de l'administration de ne pas...

Le TANU a not¨¦ que le Tribunal du contentieux administratif avait rendu l'ordonnance contest¨¦e faisant droit ¨¤ la demande de prorogation du d¨¦lai de d¨¦p?t de la requ¨ºte sans que la partie l¨¦s¨¦e ait ¨¦t¨¦ entendue et sans ¨ºtre habilit¨¦ ¨¤ le faire. Le TANU a estim¨¦ que le Tribunal du contentieux administratif ne s'¨¦tait pas techniquement conform¨¦ ¨¤ ses propres instructions pratiques en rendant l'ordonnance et qu'il avait peut-¨ºtre strictement viol¨¦ les principes de justice naturelle et de proc¨¦dure r¨¦guli¨¨re en ne donnant pas au Secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral un pr¨¦avis suffisant de la requ¨ºte et la...

Le TANU a estim¨¦ qu'en demandant ¨¤ la direction d'¨¦valuer le r¨¦sultat n¨¦gatif de la proc¨¦dure de reclassement, l'agent n'avait pas respect¨¦ les r¨¨gles de proc¨¦dure. Il aurait d? faire appel de la d¨¦cision contest¨¦e, comme le pr¨¦voient les sections 5 et 6 de l'instruction administrative ST/AI/1998/9 (Syst¨¨me de classement des postes). La demande de l'agent n'¨¦tant pas recevable, le TANU a estim¨¦ qu'il ne pouvait pas examiner ses observations et ses preuves suppl¨¦mentaires concernant le fond de l'affaire. Le TANU a rejet¨¦ la demande d'indemnisation de l'agent ¨¤ la lumi¨¨re de sa d¨¦cision de...

Le TANU a estim¨¦ que l'UNDT avait correctement appliqu¨¦ le cadre juridique r¨¦gissant la r¨¦siliation d'un engagement pour performances insatisfaisantes. Le TANU a constat¨¦ que l'agent connaissait le niveau de performance requis pour son poste et qu'il avait b¨¦n¨¦fici¨¦ d'une possibilit¨¦ ¨¦quitable de satisfaire ¨¤ ce niveau. Le TANU a observ¨¦ qu'il avait re?u la mention "r¨¦pond partiellement aux attentes" pour deux cycles de performance, et la mention "ne r¨¦pond pas aux attentes" pour le cycle de performance le plus r¨¦cent. Il avait ¨¦galement fait l'objet d'un plan d'am¨¦lioration des...

Le TANU a estim¨¦ qu'en l'absence de preuve d'un abus manifeste de proc¨¦dure par le Commissaire g¨¦n¨¦ral devant le Tribunal du contentieux administratif de l'UNRWA, ou de constatation par le Tribunal du contentieux administratif de l'UNRWA d'un tel abus de proc¨¦dure, les ordonnances relatives aux frais de justice rendues par le Tribunal du contentieux administratif n'¨¦taient pas conformes aux dispositions de l'article 10 du statut du Tribunal du contentieux administratif de l'UNRWA et ¨¦taient donc injustifi¨¦es et ne pouvaient pas ¨ºtre maintenues. De plus, si le TANU a consid¨¦r¨¦ que les frais de...

Le TANU a rejet¨¦ la demande de r¨¦vision, estimant qu'aucun des faits nouveaux all¨¦gu¨¦s n'¨¦tait un "fait nouveau" au sens de l'article 11, paragraphe 1, du statut du TANU. Les faits nouveaux all¨¦gu¨¦s ¨¦taient soit survenus apr¨¨s le prononc¨¦ de l'arr¨ºt du TANU, soit connus du Tribunal d'appel, soit des questions de droit.

Le TANU a accueilli la demande de correction en partie, dans la mesure o¨´ il a accept¨¦ l'argument de Mme Raschdorf selon lequel une erreur s'est produite au paragraphe 44 de l'arr¨ºt du TANU, o¨´ le TANU a fait r¨¦f¨¦rence ¨¤ tort au Comit¨¦ consultatif pour les demandes d...

The UNAT dismissed the application for revision, finding that none of the alleged new facts were ¡°new facts¡± for the purpose of Article 11(1) of the UNAT Statute. The alleged new facts either occurred after the issuance of the UNAT Judgment, were known to the Appeals Tribunal, or matters of law.

The UNAT granted the application for correction in part, to the extent that the UNAT agreed with Ms. Raschdorf's argument that an error arose in paragraph 44 of the UNAT Judgment where the UNAT wrongly referred to the Advisory Board on Compensation Claims instead of the Pension Fund.

Finally, the...

The UNAT held that with no evidence of a manifest abuse of proceedings by the Commissioner-General before the UNRWA DT, nor any finding by the UNRWA DT of such an abuse of proceedings, the legal cost orders made by the Dispute Tribunal did not accord with the terms of Article 10 of the UNRWA DT Statute and were therefore unjustified and could not be sustained. Moreover, if the UNAT considered that the legal costs were awarded by the UNRWA DT under Article 10(5)(b) (which was not apparent from the Judgment), there existed no basis to justify such an order given the evidence before the Dispute...

The UNAT held that the UNDT properly applied the legal framework governing the termination of appointments for unsatisfactory performance. The UNAT found that the staff member was aware of the required performance standard for his post and that he had been given a fair opportunity to meet this standard. The UNAT observed that he had received ¡°partially meets performance expectations¡± for two performance cycles, and ¡°does not meet expectations¡± for the most recent performance cycle. He had also been placed on a performance improvement plan, but failed to meet all of the objectives of the PIP...

The UNAT noted that in light of multiple competing requests for lateral transfer, the staff member had not been one of the candidates who was recommended and selected for the position because her responsibilities had been different from the duties of the requested position, and the Agency sought candidates more familiar with those duties.

The UNAT held that under the relevant legal provisions governing lateral transfers, read together and not in isolation, the Agency had been authorized to base its assessment on the candidates¡¯ suitability for the post instead of seniority, compelling reasons...

The UNAT held that by requesting management evaluation of the negative outcome of the reclassification process, the staff member breached procedural prerequisites. Instead, he should have appealed the contested decision as laid down in Sections 5 and 6 of ST/AI/1998/9 (System for the classification of posts). As the staff member¡¯s application was not receivable, the UNAT found that it could not consider his submissions and additional evidence concerning the merits of the case. The UNAT denied the staff member¡¯s request for compensation in light of its decision to affirm the impugned...

The UNAT held that the UNDT acted within its discretion by issuing the impugned Judgment without holding an oral hearing, especially as the issue for consideration was one of receivability. The UNAT also held that the UNDT did not err in failing to give the staff member an opportunity to comment on the Secretary-General¡¯s reply as he did not file a motion for additional pleadings.

The UNAT found that the UNDT correctly identified that the contested decision was the Administration¡¯s decision not to reclassify his position.

The UNAT held that the staff member should have appealed the...

The UNAT held that the former staff member failed to provide evidence to prove entitlement to compensation for harm suffered. In particular, the UNAT found that no evidence was submitted proving a nexus between the illegality committed and any harm suffered by the former staff member as a result. The UNAT highlighted that the medical report submitted by the former staff member recorded that she had complained of lack of sleep and headaches ¡°for several years¡± and that such symptoms were consistent with a previous diagnosed medical condition.

As to the costs of the appeal, since there was no...

The UNAT noted that the Dispute Tribunal had issued the impugned Order granting the request to extend the time limit for filing the application without the adversely-affected party being heard and without authority to do so. The UNAT found that the UNDT had not technically complied with its own Practice Direction in issuing the Order and may have strictly violated the principles of natural justice and due process by failing to give the Secretary-General adequate notice of the motion and an opportunity to reply.

The UNAT observed, however, that the UNDT had accepted the staff member¡¯s averment...