51ÁÔÆæ

The former staff member was placed on Administrative Leave Without Pay (ALWOP) pending the conclusion of an investigation into him for misconduct. At the time that the decision-maker considered extending the ALWOP period, only a Draft Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) Report was available.

The UNAT held that the UNDT erroneously and definitively substituted its own determination of the facts for that of the Administration. It erroneously admitted after-the-fact independent forensic reports as relevant to the reliability of the evidence cited by OIOS, when these reports were not...

On 19 May 2024, the staff member returned to his duty station from Rest and Recuperation (R&R). The period of qualifying service for the R&R entitlement was 28 days and he was eligible for another R&R from 16 June 2024. He left the duty station on 13 June 2024. He requested R&R for 23-27 June 2024.

The UNAT noted that the staff member had left the duty station with the expectation that the following days of 14-22 June 2024, which constituted a combination of non-working days, United Nations Official holidays, and annual leave, would not interrupt or suspend, but contribute to his qualifying...

L'UNAT a estim¨¦ que le fonctionnaire n'avait fourni aucun motif ¨¤ l'appui de son recours, dans la mesure o¨´ il n'avait pas r¨¦pondu aux conclusions de la Commission de recours concernant l'irrecevabilit¨¦ de sa demande devant celle-ci, et qu'il n'avait donc pas
satisfait ¨¤ l'obligation qui lui incombait de pr¨¦senter des arguments en faveur de son recours. Aucun argument n'a ¨¦t¨¦ avanc¨¦ qui
aurait permis ¨¤ l'UNAT d'examiner si la d¨¦cision de la Commission de recours ¨¦tait entach¨¦e d'un vice de forme.

Le Tribunal a rejet¨¦ le recours et a confirm¨¦ la d¨¦cision de la Commission de recours.

The UNAT found that the staff member failed to provide any grounds for his appeal as he did not address the findings of the Appeals Board regarding the non-receivability of his application before the Board, and thereby failed to meet the burden of making a case on appeal. No arguments were made that would have permitted the UNAT to review whether the Appeals Board decision was defective.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Appeals Board decision.

The UNAT held that the issues on appeal were whether it had jurisdiction to entertain appeals against interlocutory orders of the UNRWA Dispute Tribunal, whether the impugned orders fell within the narrow exceptional category of appealable interlocutory decisions, and whether the UNRWA Dispute Tribunal acted without jurisdiction or in excess of its powers in issuing the contested directions. The UNAT recalled that its role is not to intervene in case?management matters, but to determine whether an interlocutory order is exceptionally appealable because it is ultra vires, dispositive of an...

L¡¯UNAT a estim¨¦ que le recours form¨¦ par le fonctionnaire contre la r¨¨gle 3.3 du R¨¨glement du personnel (b) ¨C en l¡¯occurrence, la distinction ¨¦tablie entre les candidats internes et externes en mati¨¨re de d¨¦termination de l¡¯¨¦chelon ¨C en vigueur au moment de sa s¨¦lection et dont le r¨¦tablissement avait ¨¦t¨¦ ordonn¨¦ par l¡¯Assembl¨¦e g¨¦n¨¦rale, ne pouvait faire l¡¯objet d¡¯un contr?le juridictionnel, car cela reviendrait ¨¤ ¨¦valuer le contenu de fond d¡¯une r¨¦solution ¨¤ l¡¯aune de valeurs normatives sup¨¦rieures, question qui ne
relevait ni de la comp¨¦tence de l¡¯UNAT ni de celle du UNDT.

Le TNA a en outre...

The UNAT held that the staff member¡¯s challenge to Staff Rule 3.3(b) ¨Cspecifically, the distinction drawn between internal and external candidates with respect to step determination ¨C in force at the time of his selection and whose reestablishment was ordered by the General Assembly, could not be subject to judicial review, as it would be tantamount to testing the substantive content of a resolution against higher normative values, a question that fell outside the remit of the UNAT or the UNDT.

The UNAT further found that, since the staff member was selected for the position on 17 May 2024, af...

L¡¯UNAT a estim¨¦ que la proc¨¦dure neutre de premi¨¨re instance mise en place par l¡¯OMI, ¨¤ savoir le SAB, ¨¦tait correctement
constitu¨¦e et r¨¦pondait aux exigences de l¡¯article 2, paragraphe 10, du Statut de l¡¯UNAT. L¡¯UNAT a rejet¨¦ l¡¯argument selon lequel le SAB manquait de neutralit¨¦. L¡¯UNAT a ¨¦galement estim¨¦ que le SAB avait ¨¦tabli un compte rendu ¨¦crit suffisant de sa d¨¦cision.

L¡¯UNAT a estim¨¦ que le SAB avait agi dans les limites de sa juridiction et de sa comp¨¦tence lorsqu¡¯il avait r¨¦examin¨¦ la d¨¦cision du Secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral sur recommandation de l¡¯ABCC. Le SAB avait tenu d?ment compte du...

The UNAT found that the neutral first instance process established by the IMO, i.e., the SAB, was properly constituted and met the requirements of Article 2(10) of the UNAT Statute. The UNAT rejected the argument that the SAB lacked neutrality. The UNAT also found that the SAB produced a sufficient written record of its Decision.

The UNAT found that the SAB acted within the bounds of its jurisdiction and competence when it reviewed the decision of the Secretary-General on the recommendation of the ABCC. The SAB had close regard to the fact that the ABCC reached its determination on the medical...

L¡¯UNAT a estim¨¦ que toute contestation quant ¨¤ la port¨¦e d¡¯un jugement devait ¨ºtre soulev¨¦e dans le cadre d¡¯un recours form¨¦ contre le jugement au fond. M. Odat n¡¯a pas interjet¨¦ appel contre le jugement de premi¨¨re instance, ¨¤ savoir le jugement n¡ã UNRWA/DT/2025/001.

L¡¯UNAT a estim¨¦ que le jugement rendu ult¨¦rieurement par le Tribunal disciplinaire de l¡¯UNRWA concernant sa demande
d¡¯interpr¨¦tation ne constituait pas un nouveau jugement au sens de l¡¯article 2 du Statut du Tribunal d¡¯appel, et que, par cons¨¦quent, l¡¯appel de M. Odat n¡¯¨¦tait pas recevable.

The UNAT held that any dissatisfaction with the meaning of a judgment should be raised in an appeal of the substantive judgment. Mr. Odat did not appeal the underlying judgment, Judgment No. UNRWA/DT/2025/001.

The UNAT found that the UNRWA DT¡¯s subsequent judgment on his application for interpretation was not a fresh judgment within the scope of Article 2 of the Appeals Tribunal Statute, and thus Mr. Odat¡¯s appeal was not receivable.

L¡¯UNAT a estim¨¦ que les questions soulev¨¦es en appel portaient sur le point de savoir si l¡¯UNDT avait manifestement outrepass¨¦ sa juridiction ou sa comp¨¦tence en rendant les ordonnances interlocutoires contest¨¦es relatives ¨¤ la gestion de l¡¯instance, et si les
erreurs de proc¨¦dure all¨¦gu¨¦es ¨¦taient effectivement irr¨¦m¨¦diables par un jugement d¨¦finitif ou manifestement d¨¦raisonnables au point de justifier un r¨¦examen interlocutoire. Elle a rappel¨¦ que les recours contre des ordonnances interlocutoires ne sont
recevables que dans des circonstances rares et exceptionnelles, et que les questions...

L¡¯UNAT a estim¨¦ que les questions soulev¨¦es en appel portaient sur le point de savoir si l¡¯UNDT avait commis une erreur en
refusant d¡¯accorder l¡¯anonymat au membre du personnel dans le cadre d¡¯une proc¨¦dure contestant une r¨¦primande ¨¦crite, s¡¯il avait mal appliqu¨¦ la jurisprudence r¨¦gissant l¡¯anonymisation, et si une telle erreur justifiait un r¨¦examen interlocutoire. Elle a rappel¨¦ que les recours interlocutoires ne sont recevables que dans des circonstances rares et exceptionnelles, notamment lorsqu¡¯une erreur ne peut ¨ºtre corrig¨¦e par un jugement d¨¦finitif et qu¡¯il serait manifestement...

L¡¯UNAT a estim¨¦ que les questions soulev¨¦es en appel portaient sur les points suivants : le TND avait-il commis une erreur en
d¨¦clarant la requ¨ºte irrecevable au motif que la demande d¡¯¨¦valuation de la direction n¡¯avait pas ¨¦t¨¦ formul¨¦e dans le d¨¦lai
obligatoire de 60 jours ? Avait-il commis une erreur en d¨¦terminant la date de notification de la d¨¦cision administrative contest¨¦e? Et les conclusions relatives ¨¤ la perte d¡¯objet ou aux violations all¨¦gu¨¦es des garanties proc¨¦durales avaient-elles une incidence sur l¡¯issue de l¡¯affaire ? Elle a rappel¨¦ que son r?le en appel se limite ¨¤...

L¡¯UNAT a estim¨¦ que les questions soulev¨¦es en appel portaient sur les points suivants : le TND avait-il commis une erreur en concluant que le fonctionnaire avait b¨¦n¨¦fici¨¦ d¡¯un examen complet et ¨¦quitable de sa candidature au poste temporaire vacant ? Avait-il commis une erreur en concluant que la d¨¦cision de non-s¨¦lection n¡¯¨¦tait entach¨¦e d¡¯aucun parti pris, d¡¯aucune discrimination ni d¡¯aucune autre consid¨¦ration ¨¦trang¨¨re ¨¤ l¡¯affaire ? Et avait-il commis une erreur en d¨¦clarant certains griefs irrecevables au motif que le fonctionnaire n¡¯avait pas demand¨¦ d¡¯¨¦valuation de la direction ? Elle...

L¡¯UNAT a estim¨¦ que l¡¯UNDT n¡¯avait pas commis d¡¯erreur en concluant que la requ¨ºte de l¡¯ancienne employ¨¦e n¡¯¨¦tait pas recevable.

En ce qui concerne les griefs de l¡¯ancienne fonctionnaire relatifs au vol pr¨¦sum¨¦ de son salaire, ¨¤ l¡¯absence pr¨¦sum¨¦e de fondement juridique pour le recouvrement de son indemnit¨¦ de fin de service et ¨¤ la retenue ill¨¦gale pr¨¦sum¨¦e de cette indemnit¨¦, l¡¯UNAT a
estim¨¦ que ces griefs n¡¯¨¦taient pas recevables ratione materiae, car elle n¡¯avait pas demand¨¦ l¡¯¨¦valuation par la direction des
d¨¦cisions contest¨¦es dans le d¨¦lai r¨¦glementaire. ? cet ¨¦gard, l¡¯UNAT a en outre...

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 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 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...