Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that because the termination had been rescinded and Mr. Mukhopadhyay had been reinstated further to the First Judgment, the appeal of the Second Judgment had become moot as there could be no entitlement to termination notice pursuant to the applicable Regulations and Rules. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT thus granted the Secretary-General's appeal and reversed the Second Judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found not receivable Mr. Mukhopadhyay¡¯s cross-appeal requesting an award for consequential damages, compensation for moral damages and costs. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that he had made these claims for the first time on appeal and was...

The Commissioner-General appealed.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that insofar as the Agency's decision of 25 April 2019 rejecting the request for an SPOA might not have been unequivocal, that decision was reiterated in the e-mail of 17 June 2019 leaving no doubt that the Agency had decided then to pay Ms. Abou Salah an SPOA of 15 per cent rather than 25 per cent, possibly in breach of her contract. The fact that other persons subsequently sought to intervene on her behalf did not change that.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ms. Abou Salah¡¯s subsequent correspondence, as well as correspondence written on her behalf...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT Judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT correctly concluded that the decision-maker had not exercised his discretionary power properly, in that the Agency had unlawfully paid Ms. Jarallah an SPOA of 25 per cent instead of an SOA of 35 per cent which was stipulated in her contract of employment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that a valid and binding contract of employment existed between Ms. Jarallah and the Agency. An integral part of Ms. Jarallah's letter of appointment was the Job Description contained in the vacancy announcement with a reference to the 35...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly found that Ms. Hanjoury was informed on 1 March 2020 that she no longer had FS-5 Administrative Assistant Roster status. This 1 March 2020 email was clear notification of her roster status and the latest date that Ms. Hanjoury knew or reasonably should have known of the challenged decision, based on objective elements that both parties could accurately determine. As a result, Ms. Hanjoury¡¯s request for management evaluation on 6 June 2021 was beyond the 60-day deadline and therefore her application to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was not receivable ratione materiae.

The...

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. ...

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a rejet¨¦ la demande de rectification du jugement de M. Zaqqout au motif que M. Zaqqout avait tent¨¦ de relancer son affaire au lieu de d¨¦montrer des erreurs de la nature de celles cens¨¦es ¨ºtre couvertes par l'article 11(2), et qu'il n'avait pas expliqu¨¦ les erreurs importantes retard dans la demande de correction des erreurs all¨¦gu¨¦es.

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a ¨¦galement rejet¨¦ la demande de r¨¦vision du jugement pr¨¦sent¨¦e par M. Zaqqout. L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ qu'il s'agissait de la deuxi¨¨me demande de r¨¦vision d¨¦pos¨¦e par M. Zaqqout dans cette affaire, il lui ¨¦tait demand¨¦ de d¨¦montrer des circonstances...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed Mr. Zaqqout's application for correction of judgment on the grounds that Mr. Zaqqout attempted to relitigate his case instead of demonstrating mistakes in the nature of those intended to be covered by Article 11(2), and he had failed to explain the significant delay in applying to correct the alleged errors.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also dismissed Mr. Zaqqout's application for revision of judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that this being the second application for revision Mr. Zaqqout had filed in this case, he was required to demonstrate exceptional circumstances, a test he did not meet; and that even if the...

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a examin¨¦ un appel de M. Dorji.

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que l'appel ¨¦tait d¨¦fectueux dans la mesure o¨´ il n'avait identifi¨¦ aucun des cinq moyens d'appel ¨¦nonc¨¦s ¨¤ l'article 2(1) du Statut comme constituant la base juridique de l'appel. Comme le TCNU l'a estim¨¦ ¨¤ juste titre, la d¨¦mission forc¨¦e all¨¦gu¨¦e de M. Dorji et sa s¨¦paration ult¨¦rieure de l'Organisation ont eu lieu en mars et avril 2019. La demande de contr?le hi¨¦rarchique de M. Dorji a ¨¦t¨¦ d¨¦pos¨¦e en dehors du d¨¦lai l¨¦gal de 60 jours de plus de deux ans, le 25 juin 2021.

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a rejet¨¦ l'appel et a confirm¨¦ le jugement n¡ã Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2021...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Mr. Dorji.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the appeal was defective in that it failed to identify any of the five grounds of appeal set out in Article 2(1) of the Statute as forming the legal basis of the appeal. As the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly held, Mr. Dorji¡¯s alleged coerced resignation and subsequent separation from the Organization occurred in March and April 2019. Mr. Dorji¡¯s request for management evaluation thereof was filed outside the 60-day statutory time limit by more than two years, on 25 June 2021.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed Judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2021...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Mr. Loubani. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that while a preliminary assessment [regarding potential evidence by witnesses nominated by Mr. Loubani to be interviewed] should have been made by the investigators, this was done by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT, and the evidence found to be so inadequate as to be safely ignored.

Mr. Loubani had an opportunity to present this evidence before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT, so that its proper assessment meant that his due process right was allowed, albeit belatedly. It would have made no difference to the outcome had the investigators done so. The investigators would have reached...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the simple issue arising in this appeal was whether it was appropriate and correct for the judge to have proceeded with the application for review of the contested decisions while the motion for recusal was pending. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the straightforward answer is that it was not.

An application for recusal can be brought at any time in the proceedings and is usually a difficult strategic choice for the party making the challenge. Such an application is made, typically, at the moment the party loses confidence in the judge. Its timing will depend on the circumstances. The...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that the first two claims should be dismissed. The Appellant did not provide sufficient evidence showing that her candidacy was not given full and fair consideration. Regarding the generalized complaint of harassment, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed that the application on this question was not receivable.

However, in regards to the finding that the Administration abused its authority in mishandling the Appellant¡¯s sexual harassment complaint, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was an error in procedure. The Appellant made a motion to admit additional evidence, and the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT made no ruling on this...

La premi¨¨re conclusion du Tribunal d'appel est que le Tribunal a eu raison de consid¨¦rer que l'article 17(d) de la Politique de rapatriement n'est pas en conflit avec l'article 3.19(g) du R¨¨glement du personnel et que, par cons¨¦quent, les deux ensembles de dispositions doivent ¨ºtre interpr¨¦t¨¦s ensemble de mani¨¨re coh¨¦rente. .

Nous jugeons ¨¦galement correct le raisonnement du TDNU selon lequel l'application de l'article 17(d) de la Politique de rapatriement du PNUD n'est pas limit¨¦e aux membres du personnel du PNUD, car elle cherche ¨¤ rapprocher les paiements effectu¨¦s aux membres du personnel...

The Appeals Tribunal¡¯s first finding is that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct in its holding that Section 17(d) of the Repatriation Policy is not in conflict with Staff Rule 3.19 (g) and, thus, the two sets of provisions fall to be read together coherently.

We also find correct the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s reasoning that the application of Section 17(d) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP Repatriation Policy is not limited to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP staff members as it seeks to reconcile payments made to staff members within the United Nations system, irrespectively of the fact that the spouse is a Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP staff member too or not, avoiding in any case to duplicate...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT decided that mistakes in the way the summary dismissal decision was communicated to the appellant did not affect the fact that the real decision had ultimately been taken by the competent person in the Commissioner-General and not by any delegated authority.

It was undisputed that Mr. Mohammad was not afforded the opportunity to comment on the additional evidence produced against him after the re-opening of the investigation (two interviews of student B¡¯s mother and student B). However, neither in his appeal nor in his initial application to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did he point out any...

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a examin¨¦ un appel de Mme Mukomah.

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que l'affirmation de Mme Mukomah selon laquelle elle ¨¦tait l'¨¦pouse du d¨¦funt participant au moment de son d¨¦c¨¨s et avait donc droit, sur cette base, ¨¤ une prestation de veuvage en vertu de l'article 34 des statuts de la Caisse, n'¨¦tait pas fond¨¦e sur la base des ¨¦l¨¦ments de preuve pr¨¦sent¨¦s devant elle. l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT.

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ qu'il n'y avait pas suffisamment de preuves prouvant que le d¨¦funt participant et Mme Mukomah avaient l¨¦galement conclu une (deuxi¨¨me) union l¨¦galement reconnue par l'autorit¨¦ comp¨¦tente du Kenya, conf¨¦rant des...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Ms. Mukomah.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ms. Mukomah¡¯s submission that she was the spouse of the late participant at the time of his death and is therefore entitled on that basis to a widow¡¯s benefit under Article 34 of the Fund¡¯s Regulations, was not sustainable based on the evidence before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that there was insufficient evidence proving that the late participant and Ms. Mukomah lawfully entered a (second) union legally recognized by the competent authority of Kenya conferring similar legal effects as a marriage in relation to pension rights...

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...