Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a examin¨¦ un appel du Commissaire g¨¦n¨¦ral de l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA. L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a constat¨¦ que le Commissaire g¨¦n¨¦ral avait re?u l¡¯ordre de prendre une nouvelle d¨¦cision concernant la demande du fonctionnaire, compte tenu de l¡¯augmentation de ses fonctions et responsabilit¨¦s en mati¨¨re de gestion et de budget. L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que le Commissaire g¨¦n¨¦ral n'avait pas re?u d'ordre sp¨¦cifique de reclasser son poste ni de lui accorder une indemnit¨¦ sp¨¦ciale ; la DT de l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA avait estim¨¦ que le Commissaire g¨¦n¨¦ral avait le pouvoir discr¨¦tionnaire de d¨¦cider s'il devait ou non ¨ºtre indemnis¨¦. L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a not¨¦ que...

As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Joint Appeals Board (JAB) had provided a decision as required by Article 2(10) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute and therefore Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT had jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Further, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that an oral hearing would not assist with the expeditious and fair disposal of the case as required by Article 18(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Rules of Procedure and therefore denied the request for an oral hearing. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no error in the JAB¡¯s decision affirming the contested decision of wrongdoing following the Appellant¡¯s failure to report to work and holding of...

M. Jibril a fait appel.

En ce qui concerne la demande d'audience, l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que les questions factuelles et juridiques soulev¨¦es par cet appel avaient d¨¦j¨¤ ¨¦t¨¦ clairement d¨¦finies par les parties et qu'il n'¨¦tait pas n¨¦cessaire de fournir des ¨¦claircissements suppl¨¦mentaires. De plus, une audience ne contribuerait pas ¨¤ r¨¦gler l¡¯affaire de mani¨¨re rapide et ¨¦quitable, comme l¡¯exige l¡¯article 18(1) du R¨¨glement int¨¦rieur du TANU. En cons¨¦quence, la demande d'audience est rejet¨¦e.

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a convenu avec le DT de l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA que la d¨¦cision administrative contest¨¦e de placer M. Jibril en cong¨¦...

Mr. Jibril appealed.

As regards the request for an oral hearing, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the factual and legal issues arising from this appeal had already been clearly defined by the parties and there was no need for further clarification. Moreover, an oral hearing would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case, as required by Article 18(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Rules of Procedure. Accordingly, the request for an oral hearing is denied.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT that the challenged administrative decision to place Mr. Jibril on Administrative Leave With Pay (ALWP) was lawful. ...

Oral hearing: Mr. Izurieta Canova applied in terms of Article 18(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT for an oral hearing to be held in this case. As this is a straightforward matter, not attended by any factual or legal complexity, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT did not consider that a hearing would assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. For that reason, the application for an oral hearing was refused.

The question on appeal was whether the impugned recruitment cancellation decision by the Secretary-General of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵCTAD was a lawful and reasonable exercise of discretion?

The motive for the...

The crucial question on appeal was whether the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT committed any error when it only referred for accountability the Chief of Investigations of OIAI but not the ED and other staff members of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no error in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment, because it was within the Dispute Tribunal¡¯s discretion to reject the applicant¡¯s request for referral. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s legal approach was correct. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT decided not to refer the ED of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF for accountability because it was not shown that she had had any influence in the handling of applicant¡¯s complaint. Ms. Dettori also did not show on...

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que les faits pr¨¦tendument inconnus que M. Al Dirawi a d¨¦taill¨¦s dans sa demande de r¨¦vision du jugement de l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT se concentrent sur les constatations et les conclusions du jugement de l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT avec lesquelles il n'est pas d'accord. Notamment, ces questions ont ¨¦t¨¦ examin¨¦es dans l'appel initial et M. Al Dirawi pr¨¦sente essentiellement un deuxi¨¨me appel pour une r¨¦¨¦valuation des faits dans son cas, un recours qui n'est pas disponible pour les parties une fois que le Tribunal d'appel a rendu un jugement final. L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a donc jug¨¦ que la requ¨ºte de M. Al Dirawi n'¨¦tait pas...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the supposedly unknown facts that Mr. Al Dirawi detailed in his application for revision of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment focus on findings and conclusions in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment with which he disagrees. Notably, these matters were considered in the original appeal and Mr. Al Dirawi basically submits a second appeal for a reassessment of the facts in his case, a remedy which is not available to the parties once the Appeals Tribunal has issued a final judgment. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT thus held that Mr. Al Dirawi's application was not receivable.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Mr. Webster. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that although the current legal framework (ISA Staff Rule 11.2), mentions the establishment of a neutral first instance process with staff participation to take a decision upon any appeal by staff members against an administrative decision alleging the non-observance of their terms of appointment, including all pertinent regulations and rules, there is, to this date, no such neutral first instance process. According to the Staff Rules, the JAB Panel shall submit a report to the Secretary-General, who takes the final decision.

While it is...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT correctly exercised its broad discretion with regard to its case management in concluding that the record before it was sufficient to render a decision without an oral hearing. It concluded that the Appellant has not presented any grounds as to why an oral hearing would have been necessary and thus did not show that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT exercised its discretion in such manner as to affect the outcome of the case, as required by Article 2(1)(d) of the Appeals Tribunal Statute.

With regard to the Appellant¡¯s argument that the non-selection decision was unlawful because...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Commissioner-General of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that by the Commissioner-General had been ordered to take a new decision with respect to the staff member¡¯s request in view of the increase in his managerial and budgetary duties and responsibilities.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was of the view that the Commissioner-General had not been specifically ordered to upgrade his post or to grant him a special allowance; the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT had deemed it to be within the discretion of the Commissioner-General to decide whether or not he should be compensated.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the...

The main issue presented in this appeal was whether the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct to dismiss Mr. Shah¡¯s application as not receivable ratione materiae because he was not challenging a final administrative decision. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly found that an interoffice memorandum that changed the reporting lines for all of the staff who worked on the India side of the United Nations Mission Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan (Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵMOGIP) was not an appealable administrative decision because it did not deprive Mr. Shah of his work or affect his functions.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also rejected Mr...

Unat a jug¨¦ que, puisque le fils de l'appelant a un handicap, il avait le droit de recevoir des prestations uniquement dans le cadre du programme de subventions d'¨¦ducation sp¨¦ciale ST / AI / 2018/2 (subvention d'¨¦ducation sp¨¦ciale et avantage connexe pour les enfants handicap¨¦s) et non dans l'¨¦ducation r¨¦guli¨¨re Sch¨¦ma de subventions ST / AI / 2018/1 / Rev.1 (subvention en mati¨¨re d'¨¦ducation et prestations connexes). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a conclu que, puisque le fils de l'appelant ne faisait pas d'embarquement pendant l'ann¨¦e acad¨¦mique de 2019-2020 et a continu¨¦ ¨¤ r¨¦sider au domicile parental, l'appelant n...

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a jug¨¦ que l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT n'avait pas commis une erreur en jugeant qu'il y avait eu des preuves claires et convaincantes que le membre du personnel avait harcel¨¦ d'autres membres du personnel sur une p¨¦riode de temps substantielle et que ce comportement constituait une mauvaise conduite s¨¦rieuse. L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a affirm¨¦ qu'il y avait des preuves claires et convaincantes pour soutenir les sept all¨¦gations selon lesquelles Mme Iram a utilis¨¦ un langage abusif, fait des remarques insultantes, cri¨¦ et victime d'intimidation, engag¨¦ dans un contact inappropri¨¦ et ¨¦tabli des contacts ind¨¦sirables avec des...

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a soutenu que l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT a soulign¨¦ correctement que le seul recours demand¨¦ par le membre du personnel dans sa demande ¨¤ l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT ¨¦tait l'annulation de la d¨¦cision administrative de ne pas le transf¨¦rer. Ce n'est que maintenant en appel que le membre du personnel soul¨¨ve d'autres r¨¦clamations et demande en outre le paiement de tous les salaires et des avantages de la date de r¨¦siliation ¨¤ la date du jugement Unat, y compris les prestations de retraite et l'indemnisation des dommages mat¨¦riels et moraux qui lui sont inflig¨¦s, caus¨¦s par harc¨¨lement, mauvais traitements et r¨¦siliation ill¨¦gale...

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT n'a trouv¨¦ aucune erreur dans le jugement de l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA et a rejet¨¦ l'appel. L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a constat¨¦ que l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT a correctement soutenu que les droits de la proc¨¦dure r¨¦guli¨¨re de M. Neekhra n'avaient pas ¨¦t¨¦ viol¨¦s par un retard indu dans la proc¨¦dure d'enqu¨ºte; que les actions de M. Neekhra visant ¨¤ copier-coller des extraits provenant de sources internes / externes sans citation appropri¨¦e ont ¨¦t¨¦ une violation du cadre r¨¦glementaire de l'agence et une faute constitu¨¦e; et que les mesures disciplinaires d'une censure ¨¦crite et un report de l'admissibilit¨¦ ¨¤ la consid¨¦ration pour la...

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a convenu avec l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT que l'administration avait montr¨¦ que la candidature de M. Mirella avait ¨¦t¨¦ pleinement consid¨¦r¨¦e comme une consid¨¦ration compl¨¨te qui satisfait la pr¨¦somption de r¨¦gularit¨¦ et que M. Mirella n'a pas prouv¨¦ par des preuves claires et convaincantes qu'il s'est vu refuser une chance ¨¦quitable. L'inattre a examin¨¦ l'affirmation de M. Mirella selon laquelle l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT a commis une erreur en concluant que son exclusion de la liste restreinte ¨¦tait conforme ¨¤ la section 7.4 de ST / AI / 2010/3 (syst¨¨me de s¨¦lection du personnel). Plus pr¨¦cis¨¦ment, l¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a ¨¦valu¨¦ l¡¯argument...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not erred in holding that there had been clear and convincing evidence that the staff member harassed other staff members over a substantial period of time, and that this behaviour constituted serious misconduct. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed that there was clear and convincing evidence to support the seven allegations that Ms. Iram used abusive language, made insulting remarks, shouted and bullied individuals, engaged in inappropriate touching, and made unwelcome contacts with individuals at their homes after working hours. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the staff member¡¯s due...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly pointed out that the only remedy requested by the staff member in his application to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was the rescission of the administrative decision not to transfer him. Only now on appeal does the staff member raise other claims and additionally requests payment of all salaries and benefits from the date of termination to the date of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment, including pension benefits and compensation for the material and moral harm inflicted on him, caused by harassment, mistreatment, and unlawful termination. His new requests on appeal cannot be accepted by the...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no errors in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT Judgment and dismissed the appeal. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT correctly held that Mr. Neekhra¡¯s due process rights were not violated by an undue delay in the investigation proceedings; that Mr. Neekhra¡¯s actions to copy-paste excerpts from internal/external sources without proper citation was a violation of the Agency¡¯s regulatory framework and constituted misconduct; and that the disciplinary measures of a written censure and deferment of eligibility for consideration for promotion were proportionate to the offense. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the...