Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT declined Mr. Turk¡¯s request for an oral hearing, and found no error in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s decision not to order the production of additional documents.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT reaffirmed the legal framework which provides that staff members have no legitimate expectation of any renewal of their fixed-term appointments. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also confirmed that the Tribunals will not interfere with the Organization¡¯s discretion in restructuring decisions, and that the Tribunals have no authority to review General Assembly decisions related to administrative and budgetary matters. In this case, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the...

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a conclu que le Tribunal du contentieux administratif s'¨¦tait inspir¨¦ des facteurs appropri¨¦s pour accorder une indemnit¨¦ compensatoire. Plus pr¨¦cis¨¦ment, le Tribunal a examin¨¦ l'anciennet¨¦ du fonctionnaire, le type de contrat qu'il occupait et les chances de se voir proposer des postes ¨¦quivalents, les motifs du licenciement et les mois de service jusqu'¨¤ l'?ge de la retraite. Compte tenu de la d¨¦f¨¦rence du TANU ¨¤ l¡¯¨¦gard du TCNU sur de telles questions, le TANU a estim¨¦ qu¡¯il ¨¦tait inutile de r¨¦examiner ces facteurs.

L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a rejet¨¦ l¡¯affirmation du Secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral selon laquelle...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that the Dispute Tribunal had been guided by the appropriate factors in making its award of compensation in lieu. Specifically, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had considered the seniority of the staff member, the type of contract he held and the chance of being offered equivalent positions, the reasons for termination, and months of service until retirement age. In light of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT¡¯s deference to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT in such matters, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found it to be an adventure in futility to re-examine these factors.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the Secretary-General¡¯s contention that the length of the Temporary Job...

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que le Tribunal n'avait pas commis d'erreur de proc¨¦dure dans sa gestion de l'affaire qui aurait affect¨¦ l'issue de l'affaire. L'appelant a eu une occasion significative de pr¨¦senter sa d¨¦fense et de remettre en question la v¨¦racit¨¦ des d¨¦clarations port¨¦es contre lui. Les t¨¦moins suppl¨¦mentaires qu¡¯il souhaitait faire compara?tre n¡¯auraient gu¨¨re ¨¦t¨¦ d¡¯une grande utilit¨¦ pour sa cause.

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que le Tribunal avait conclu ¨¤ juste titre que le comportement all¨¦gu¨¦ ¨¦tait ¨¦tabli par des preuves claires et convaincantes et que les actes de l'appelant, ¨¤ savoir le fait de...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not commit an error of procedure in its case management that affected the outcome of the case. The Appellant had a meaningful opportunity to mount a defense and to question the veracity of the statements against him. The additional witnesses that he wished to call would have been of little assistance to his case.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly concluded that the alleged conduct was established by clear and convincing evidence and that the Appellant¡¯s actions, i.e., making inappropriate comments of a sexual nature in social settings, amounted to sexual...

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que l'appel contre les deux ordonnances interlocutoires ¨¦tait devenu sans objet apr¨¨s le prononc¨¦ du jugement n¡ã Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2022/124 et que l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT n'avait pas commis d'erreur en rendant son jugement pendant la dur¨¦e de cet appel. L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a n¨¦anmoins observ¨¦ que l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT avait commis une erreur de droit en imposant un d¨¦lai d¨¦raisonnablement court pour se conformer ¨¤ l'ordonnance n¡ã 157 (NBI/2022). Malgr¨¦ cela, l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a conclu que, la proc¨¦dure ¨¦tant irrecevable, cette conclusion n'¨¦tait pas d'une grande aide pour l'appelant dans sa cause. Concernant l'ordonnance n¡ã 158 (NBI/2022), l...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal against the two interlocutory Orders became moot following the issuance of Judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2022/124 and that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in delivering its Judgment during the pendency of that appeal. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT nevertheless observed that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law by imposing an unreasonably short period for compliance with Order No. 157 (NBI/2022). Despite this, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that, as the proceeding was unreceivable, this finding did not assist the Appellant in his case. With regard to Order No. 158 (NBI/2022), the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT rightfully refused to...

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que le Tribunal a commis une erreur de proc¨¦dure telle qu'elle a affect¨¦ l'issue de l'affaire en ne tenant pas d'audience et en s'appuyant de mani¨¨re significative sur le rapport d'enqu¨ºte de l'OAIS pour corroborer la v¨¦racit¨¦ des ¨¦v¨¦nements all¨¦gu¨¦s par le plaignant, alors qu'il n'y avait pas d'audience. Les t¨¦moins directs de la mauvaise conduite all¨¦gu¨¦e et tous les t¨¦moins sur lesquels se sont appuy¨¦s les enqu¨ºteurs de l'OAIS ont obtenu leurs preuves et informations aupr¨¨s du plaignant. ? ce titre, l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a conclu que leurs ¨¦l¨¦ments de preuve ¨¦taient des preuves par ou?...

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a examin¨¦ un appel interjet¨¦ par le fonctionnaire.

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a constat¨¦ que le fonctionnaire n'avait cit¨¦ aucune disposition de l'article 2(1) du Statut de l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT et n'avait pas indiqu¨¦ si des erreurs commises par le DT de l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA dans son affaire concernaient sa comp¨¦tence, la proc¨¦dure, une question de droit ou une question de fait. L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que le recours ¨¦tait vici¨¦ et, par cons¨¦quent, irrecevable.

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a n¨¦anmoins r¨¦it¨¦r¨¦ sa jurisprudence sur certaines des questions soulev¨¦es et a approuv¨¦ la mani¨¨re dont le DT de l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA avait d¨¦termin¨¦ le montant de l'indemnisation en...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the staff member.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the staff member did not cite any provision of Article 2(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute and did not indicate whether any errors by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT in his case related to its jurisdiction, the procedure, a question of law or a question of fact. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was defective and consequently not receivable.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, nevertheless, reiterated its jurisprudence on some of the issues raised, and agreed with the way the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT had determined the amount of in-lieu compensation. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also agreed with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT committed an error of procedure such that it affected the outcome of the case in not holding an oral hearing and relying significantly on the OAIS investigation report to corroborate the truth of the events alleged by the Complainant, when there was no direct witnesses to the alleged misconduct and all the witnesses relied upon by the OAIS investigators obtained their evidence and information from the Complainant. As such, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that their evidence was hearsay evidence and that the prejudice to the Appellant in admitting and relying upon this evidence...

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...