Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Apr¨¨s l'appel de M. Yousef et que le commissaire g¨¦n¨¦ral a ¨¦t¨¦ soumis, M. vous-m¨ºme a d¨¦pos¨¦ une requ¨ºte pour retirer l'appel en raison du fait qu'un r¨¨glement interne avait ¨¦t¨¦ convenu avec l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA et le commissaire g¨¦n¨¦ral a d¨¦pos¨¦ une requ¨ºte en retiron L'Ace-aper. Non a ordonn¨¦ au registraire de fermer l'affaire.

Unat a consid¨¦r¨¦ un appel du secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral. Unat a jug¨¦ que la d¨¦cision de mettre fin ¨¤ M. Crotty en raison de l'abolition du poste n'a jamais ¨¦t¨¦ mise en ?uvre parce qu'il a obtenu un autre poste aupr¨¨s de l'organisation et que cela a rendu la d¨¦cision de l'administration de le mettre fin. Unat a jug¨¦ que la d¨¦cision administrative n'¨¦tait plus une question en direct et que Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵT n'¨¦tait pas comp¨¦tente pour porter un jugement sur la demande. Unat a jug¨¦ que Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT avait commis une erreur de droit lorsqu'elle a constat¨¦ que la demande de M. Crotty. Unat a jug¨¦ qu'¨¤ la lumi¨¨re de l'erreur de l...

Unat a consid¨¦r¨¦ un appel du secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral. Unat a tenu que l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT a correctement d¨¦termin¨¦ que M. Zachariah contestions une d¨¦cision administrative qui produisait des cons¨¦quences juridiques directes affectant son emploi. Unat a jug¨¦ qu'il n'y avait aucun fondement ¨¤ la plainte que Undt avait commis une erreur en droit et d¨¦passait sa juridiction en consid¨¦rant les questions au-del¨¤ de la port¨¦e de la demande de M. Zachariah pour l'¨¦valuation de la gestion et la r¨¦ponse de l'unit¨¦ d'¨¦valuation de la gestion, sur la base qu'il s'agissait du r?le de Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT pour interpr¨¦ter et comprendre...

Unat a consid¨¦r¨¦ un appel du secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral. Unat a jug¨¦ que la d¨¦cision de mettre fin ¨¤ M. Alsado en raison de l'abolition du poste n'a jamais ¨¦t¨¦ mise en ?uvre parce qu'il a obtenu un autre poste aupr¨¨s de l'organisation et que cela a rendu la d¨¦cision de l'administration de le mettre fin. Unat a jug¨¦ que la d¨¦cision administrative n'¨¦tait plus une question en direct et que Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵT n'¨¦tait pas comp¨¦tente pour porter un jugement sur la demande. Unat a jug¨¦ que Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT avait commis une erreur de droit lorsqu'elle a r¨¦v¨¦l¨¦ que la demande de la demande de M. Alsado. Unat a jug¨¦ qu'¨¤ la lumi¨¨re de l...

Unat a consid¨¦r¨¦ un appel du secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral. En ce qui concerne la cr¨¦ance, contrairement ¨¤ l'affirmation de M. Lemonnier selon laquelle l'appel du secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral n'est pas ¨¤ recevoir parce que le jugement contest¨¦ ne lui a pas accord¨¦ de dommages et n'¨¦tait que ?une victoire morale?, Unat a jug¨¦ que le succ¨¨s avant de ne d¨¦pend de la question de savoir si le personnel La demande du membre est accord¨¦e, en tout ou en partie, pas sur le recours accord¨¦ au membre du personnel, et que le membre du personnel peut pr¨¦valoir ou r¨¦ussir sa r¨¦clamation sans recevoir de dommages-int¨¦r¨ºts. Selon...

Unat a jug¨¦ que les appelants n'avaient soulev¨¦ ni la diff¨¦rence factuelle ni des probl¨¨mes juridiques diff¨¦rents de ceux qui ont ¨¦t¨¦ interrog¨¦s dans les affaires compagnons et ¨¦limin¨¦ dans le jugement n ¡ã 2017-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-750 (Kagizi et al.) Et Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a donc adopt¨¦ le raisonnement de son jugement ant¨¦rieur aux paragraphes 18-27. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a rejet¨¦ les appels et a confirm¨¦ les jugements Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Mr Wu and a cross-appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the cross-appeal was receivable, despite it being a default judgment and the Secretary-General not having been allowed to participate in the proceedings or to file a reply. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application was not receivable ratione materiae on the basis that he had not made a timely request for management evaluation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that therefore Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had no jurisdiction to address the merits of the claims in the application and those claims were not properly before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT for consideration. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the decision to terminate Mr. Crotty due to abolition of post was never implemented because he obtained another position with the Organisation and that this rendered moot the Administration¡¯s decision to terminate him. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the administrative decision was no longer a live issue and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was not competent to pass judgment on the application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT made an error of law when it found Mr. Crotty¡¯s application receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that in light of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s error in receiving the application, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly determined that Mr. Zachariah was challenging an administrative decision that produced direct legal consequences affecting his employment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no merit to the complaint that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law and exceeded its jurisdiction by considering matters beyond the scope of Mr. Zachariah¡¯s request for management evaluation and the Management Evaluation Unit¡¯s response, on the basis that it was the role of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to adequately interpret and comprehend the application and that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had the inherent power to...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the decision to terminate Mr Alsado due to abolition of post was never implemented because he obtained another position with the Organisation and that this rendered moot the Administration¡¯s decision to terminate him. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the administrative decision was no longer a live issue and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was not competent to pass judgment on the application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT made an error of law when it found Mr Alsado¡¯s application receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that in light of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s error in receiving the application, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. On the issue of receivability, contrary to Mr Lemonnier¡¯s contention that the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal is not receivable because the impugned judgment did not award him any damages and was mere ¡°a moral victory¡±, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that success before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT depends on whether the staff member¡¯s application is granted, in whole or in part, not on the remedy afforded to the staff member, and that the staff member may prevail or succeed on his claim(s) without receiving an award of damages. According to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, as the unsuccessful party before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellants had raised neither factual difference nor legal issues different from those canvassed in companion cases and disposed of in judgment No. 2017-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-750 (Kagizi et al. ) and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, therefore, adopted the reasoning from its prior judgment at paragraphs 18-27. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeals and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgments.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no merit to the Appellant¡¯s claims that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT failed to exercise its jurisdiction or erred in law by using the summary judgment procedure to determine the application was not receivable ratione materiae. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not challenge an administrative decision that was alleged to be in non-compliance with the terms of appointment or the contract of employment of the staff member, rather the Appellant challenged the MEU¡¯s wording in a letter to him acknowledging the receipt of his grievance or complaint. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in law...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the central question before it was whether the Organisation complied with its obligation to Ms. El-Kholy to find her a suitable post. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Administration failed in its obligation to demonstrate that all reasonable and good faith efforts had been made to consider the staff member for available and suitable posts within Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP before terminating her permanent appointment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Administration¡¯s obligation to find a vacant and suitable post did not shift to the Appellant, regardless of the following: her...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that there was no dispute as to the applicable statutory provision governing the timeliness of the Appellant¡¯s application to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT or that management evaluation was not required as the Appellant was challenging a disciplinary measure. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s application was not receivable ratione temporis, noting that the Appellant himself acknowledged that his application was untimely. On the Appellant¡¯s claim that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in not waiving the time limit for him to file the application due to exceptional circumstances, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly applied judgment No. 2011...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT ruling that the 2010 decisions were time-barred and not receivable ratione temporis. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT acted ultra vires or in excess of its competence and jurisdiction by considering whether the Appellant had shown exceptional circumstances justifying a waiver of the filing deadline, and thus held that the relevant paragraphs of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment were obiter dicta and should be stricken. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in holding the Appellant¡¯s motion or request for waiver of the deadline as not receivable ratione temporis on the basis that while it was not timely, that did...

After Mr. Yousef¡¯s appeal and the Commissioner-General¡¯s cross-appeal had been submitted, Mr. Yourself filed a motion to withdraw the appeal based on the fact that an internal settlement had been agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA and the Commissioner-General filed a motion to withdraw the cross-appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT directed the Registrar to close the case.

On the issue of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s denial of the Appellant¡¯s request for confidentiality, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in law or fact in denying her request as if confidentiality were attached to the identity of each staff member, there would be no transparency. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT did not admit into evidence additional documents as they were of no assistance to it and there were no exceptional circumstances. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant merely gave passing reference to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute¡¯s grounds of appeal and offered no legal authority to support her claims. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the characterization of the issue by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s determination and noted that it gave a clear directive to the Administration that, upon remand, it should consider staff member¡¯s suitability for conversion to a permanent appointment ¡°by reference to the relevant circumstances as they stood at the time of the first impugned refusal to convert her appointment¡± and that the Administration failed to comply with the said directive. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that the Assistant Secretary-General for Office of Human Resources Management failed to give any consideration whatsoever to...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal and Ademagic¡¯s cross-appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s determination that the Assistant Secretary-General for Office of Human Resources Management did not give meaningful individual consideration to the staff members¡¯ requests for conversion to permanent appointments. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that it gave a clear directive to the Administration that, upon remand, it should consider the staff members¡¯ suitability for conversion to permanent appointments ¡°by reference to the relevant circumstances as they stood at the time of the first impugned refusal to convert their...