Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a rejet¨¦ l'appel, sans pr¨¦judice.

L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a not¨¦ que le recours de M. Radu concernait la d¨¦cision administrative du 8 novembre 2021 concernant sa cessation de service pendant un arr¨ºt de maladie certifi¨¦.

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a en outre not¨¦ qu'un recours distinct de M. Radu, d'abord devant la Commission de recours et maintenant devant l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, concernait cette m¨ºme d¨¦cision administrative du 8 novembre 2021 sur le fond, ¨¤ savoir la mesure disciplinaire de cessation de service pour la faute all¨¦gu¨¦e ( Cas Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT n¡ã 2023-1804).

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que la d¨¦cision attaqu¨¦e de la Commission de recours dans...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal, without prejudice.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that Mr. Radu¡¯s appeal concerned the administrative decision of 8 November 2021 in respect of his separation from service during certified sick leave.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further noted that a separate appeal by Mr. Radu, first before the Appeals Board and now before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, concerned that same administrative decision of 8 November 2021 on its merits, i.e. the disciplinary measure of separation from service for the alleged misconduct (Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Case No. 2023-1804).

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the impugned Appeals Board Decision in this case was not...

L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a observ¨¦ qu¡¯aucune des parties n¡¯avait demand¨¦ si la requ¨ºte d¡¯AAQ ¨¦tait recevable devant le Tribunal. L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a n¨¦anmoins estim¨¦ que, s'agissant d'une question de comp¨¦tence, elle ¨¦tait oblig¨¦e de la soulever elle-m¨ºme. L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a not¨¦ qu¡¯en vertu de l¡¯article 2(1)(a) du Statut du TDNU, le membre du personnel ¨¦tait tenu d¡¯identifier une d¨¦cision administrative qui serait pr¨¦sum¨¦e non conforme aux conditions d¡¯engagement ou au contrat de travail. En outre, selon une jurisprudence constante, la d¨¦cision administrative doit avoir un effet ¨¤ la fois direct et n¨¦gatif sur l'emploi du...

? titre pr¨¦liminaire, l¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a rejet¨¦ la demande d¡¯audience de M. Qassem. L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que les questions factuelles et juridiques soulev¨¦es par l'appel avaient ¨¦t¨¦ clairement d¨¦finies par les parties et qu'en outre, une audience orale ne ? contribuerait pas ¨¤ r¨¦gler l'affaire de mani¨¨re rapide et ¨¦quitable ?.

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que, puisque l'engagement de dur¨¦e d¨¦termin¨¦e de M. Qassem avait ¨¦t¨¦ prolong¨¦ au-del¨¤ du 31 mars 2020, sans effet donn¨¦ ¨¤ la d¨¦cision administrative initiale de ne pas renouveler son engagement au-del¨¤ de cette date, le Tribunal n'avait pas commis d'erreur en concluant...

As a preliminary matter, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed Mr. Qassem¡¯s request for an oral hearing. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the factual and legal issues arising from the appeal had been clearly defined by the parties and moreover, an oral hearing would not ¡°assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case¡±.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that since Mr. Qassem¡¯s fixed-term appointment was extended beyond 31 March 2020, with no effect given to the initial administrative decision not to renew his employment beyond this date, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in finding that the application was moot since the administrative decision...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that neither party had raised whether AAQ¡¯s application was receivable before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT nonetheless held that because this was a jurisdictional question, it was obliged to raise the issue itself. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that pursuant to Article 2(1)(a) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute, the staff member was obliged to identify an administrative decision that was alleged to be in non-compliance with the terms of appointment or contract of employment. Further, pursuant to established case law, the administrative decision must have both a direct and adverse effect on the employment of the...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct to find that there was clearly sufficient evidence to support the Administration¡¯s conclusion that the staff member¡¯s performance only partially met expectations, and that this concern was communicated to him. Although the Rebuttal Board¡¯s confirmation of the rating, and the preparation of a second short-term performance appraisal occurred after the non-renewal was taken, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that these reviews nonetheless confirmed that management¡¯s prior informal evaluation of the staff member¡¯s performance was not arbitrary but was instead well-based...

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que la r¨¦paration demand¨¦e dans la requ¨ºte concernait une question qui n'avait pas ¨¦t¨¦ soulev¨¦e auparavant devant l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT ou l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, ¨¤ savoir le recouvrement d'un montant d¨¦j¨¤ pay¨¦ ¨¤ titre de d¨¦pense admissible selon une ¨¦chelle mobile.

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ qu'il n'y avait rien de flou ou d'ambigu dans le sens ou la port¨¦e du jugement ant¨¦rieur, les termes de l'ordonnance ¨¦tant clairs. L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a not¨¦ qu¡¯il n¡¯¨¦tait pas n¨¦cessaire d¡¯interpr¨¦ter le jugement ant¨¦rieur pour en clarifier le sens, et qu¡¯il n¡¯existait pas non plus de doutes raisonnables sur ce qui constituait la d¨¦cision de...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the relief sought in the application concerned an issue not previously raised before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT or the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, being the recovery of an amount already paid as an admissible expense on a sliding scale.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was nothing in the meaning or scope of the prior Judgment that was unclear or ambiguous, the terms of the order were clear. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted there was no need to interpret the prior Judgment to clarify its meaning, nor were there reasonable doubts about what constituted the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT¡¯s decision or the reasons for it.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was of the view that there was also...

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a rejet¨¦ l'affirmation de M. Neupane selon laquelle l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT avait commis une erreur en estimant qu'il contestait la d¨¦cision de r¨¦affectation alors qu'en fait il contestait l'absence d'habilitation du Comit¨¦ central de contr?le des missions et d'inscription sur la liste pour le poste r¨¦affect¨¦. La requ¨ºte ¨¦tait assez floue et portait principalement sur la question de la r¨¦gularit¨¦ de la d¨¦cision de r¨¦affectation qui ¨¦tait conforme ¨¤ la demande de contr?le hi¨¦rarchique de M. Neupane contestant directement et clairement sa r¨¦affectation. La question de l¡¯inscription sur la liste n¡¯a ¨¦t¨¦...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed Mr. Neupane's contention that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred when it found that he was contesting the reassignment decision when in fact he was contesting the lack of his Field Central Review Board clearance and roster membership for the reassigned post. The application was quite unclear, and focused mainly on the question of regularity of the reassignment decision which was in line with Mr. Neupane¡¯s request for management evaluation challenging directly and clearly his reassignment. The issue of rostering was raised only as an argument to prove the alleged procedural irregularity of Mr...

M. Nastase a fait appel du jugement du Tribunal.

Le TANU a confirm¨¦ la conclusion du TDNU selon laquelle il n'avait pas ¨¦t¨¦ ¨¦tabli par des preuves que la d¨¦cision administrative de classer sa plainte ¨¦tait motiv¨¦e par un parti pris ¨¤ son encontre et ¨¦tait donc ill¨¦gale.

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a rejet¨¦ l'affirmation de M. Nastase selon laquelle le Tribunal avait commis une erreur en concluant que le fait qu'en 2019, M. Nastase avait d¨¦pos¨¦ une plainte contre le CIOS pour mauvaise conduite n'avait aucun rapport avec ses probl¨¨mes de performance. L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que ces ¨¦v¨¦nements ne faisant pas partie de sa...

Mr. Nastase appealed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT's finding that it had not been established by evidence that the administrative decision to close his complaint was actuated by bias against him and was therefore unlawful.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed Mr. Nastase's contention that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding that the fact that in 2019, Mr. Nastase had filed a complaint against the CIOS alleging misconduct was unrelated to his performance issues. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that because these events were not part of his complaint of harassment and abuse of authority in relation to his performance...

Mme Larriera a interjet¨¦ appel.

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a d'abord examin¨¦ si Mme Larriera avait le droit de d¨¦poser une r¨¦clamation au titre de l'Annexe D. L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a conclu que - contrairement ¨¤ l'affaire des pensions - aux fins du Statut et du R¨¨glement du personnel, la loi du Br¨¦sil, l'?tat national de M. M, devait ¨ºtre la loi d¨¦terminant sa situation matrimoniale ou de partenariat domestique ¨¤ la date de son d¨¦c¨¨s aux fins de l'annexe D. Ce statut, tel que d¨¦termin¨¦ ult¨¦rieurement par un tribunal br¨¦silien comp¨¦tent, ¨¦tait que M. M et Mme Larriera ¨¦taient, ¨¤ la date de son d¨¦c¨¨s (et malgr¨¦ son mariage...

Ms. Larriera filed an appeal.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT first examined whether Ms. Larriera was entitled to file a claim under Appendix D. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that ¨C unlike the Pension case - for the purpose of the Staff Regulations and Rules, the law of Brazil, Mr. M¡¯s national state, was to be the law determining his marital or domestic partnership status as at the date of his death for Appendix D purposes. That status, as determined subsequently by a Brazilian court of competent jurisdiction, was that Mr. M and Ms. Larriera were, as at the date of his death (and despite his still extant French marriage to Ms. M) in...

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a examin¨¦ les arguments du Secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral selon lesquels Mme Lekoetje avait d¨¦j¨¤ rembours¨¦ les sommes dues ¨¤ l'Organisation lorsqu'elle a quitt¨¦ ses fonctions. L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a reconnu que Mme Lekoetje partageait la position du Secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral et a confirm¨¦ que 20 987,91 dollars avaient d¨¦j¨¤ ¨¦t¨¦ d¨¦duits de ses droits finaux.

En cons¨¦quence, l¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a accept¨¦ cette position et a interpr¨¦t¨¦ le jugement n¡ã 2022-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1227 comme exigeant le paiement par l¡¯Organisation ¨¤ Mme Lekoetje d¡¯une somme ¨¦gale ¨¤ un an de salaire de base net, mais sans aucune autre d¨¦duction.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT reviewed the submission of the Secretary-General that Ms. Lekoetje had already repaid the amounts due to the Organization when she separated from service. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT acknowledged that Ms. Lekoetje agreed with the Secretary-General¡¯s position, and confirmed that USD 20,987.91 had already been deducted from her final entitlements.

Accordingly, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT accepted this position, and interpreted Judgment No. 2022-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1227 as requiring a payment by the Organization to Ms. Lekoetje of a sum equal to one year¡¯s net base salary, but without any further deductions.

Le fait d¨¦cisif invoqu¨¦ par le Secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral pour justifier une r¨¦vision du jugement de l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT serait que M. Russo-Got a ins¨¦r¨¦ de fausses informations dans sa candidature concernant sa pr¨¦tendue exp¨¦rience avec l'OTAN. Le Secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral affirme qu'il a pris officiellement connaissance de ce fait pour la premi¨¨re fois lorsqu'il a ¨¦t¨¦ port¨¦ ¨¤ la connaissance de l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOPS apr¨¨s le prononc¨¦ du jugement de l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT.

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que les faits avanc¨¦s par le Secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral, ¨¤ savoir les informations pr¨¦tendument fausses que M. Russo-Got avait ins¨¦r¨¦es dans sa candidature, ne pouvaient...

The decisive fact relied on by the Secretary-General to justify a revision of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT judgment is said to be that Mr. Russo-Got inserted false information in his candidature regarding his alleged experience with NATO. The Secretary-General submits that he first became aware of this fact formally when it was made known to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOPS after the issuance of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the facts advanced by the Secretary-General, namely the allegedly false information Mr. Russo-Got had inserted in his candidature, could not be decisive of the Secretary-General¡¯s case and enable him to now...

Le TANU a not¨¦ que dans cette affaire, la Commission paritaire de recours n¡¯avait pas rendu une d¨¦cision, mais plut?t une recommandation au Greffier du TIDM, qui, ¨¤ son tour, pr¨¦tendait prendre la d¨¦cision concernant l¡¯appel de M. Savadogo. Le TANU a reconnu que le TIDM a modifi¨¦ et consolid¨¦ le Statut et le R¨¨glement du personnel pertinents de sorte que la Commission paritaire de recours prend d¨¦sormais des d¨¦cisions (dont les recours peuvent ¨ºtre interjet¨¦s devant le TANU) plut?t que, comme cela s'est produit dans cette affaire, des recommandations au Greffier du TIDM, que le registraire...