Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Le Tribunal administratif des Nations unies (Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT) a estim¨¦ que le directeur technique de l¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA n¡¯avait pas commis d¡¯erreur en concluant que la requ¨ºte de l¡¯ancien membre du personnel n¡¯¨¦tait pas recevable ratione materiae. L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a jug¨¦ que le Bureau des affaires internes et de la surveillance (DIOS) ne disposait d¡¯aucun pouvoir d¨¦cisionnel quant au fond de sa plainte pour repr¨¦sailles et qu¡¯il avait men¨¦ son enqu¨ºte uniquement dans le cadre de la proc¨¦dure d¡¯enqu¨ºte, ce qui ne constituait pas une d¨¦cision
administrative susceptible de recours.

De m¨ºme, le TNA a estim¨¦ que la conclusion du...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not err in finding that the former staff member¡¯s application was not receivable ratione materiae.The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that DIOS had no decision-making authority in addressing the substance of his complaint of retaliation and that it undertook its investigation merely as a step in the investigative process that did not amount to a reviewable administrative decision.

Similarly, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ethics Office¡¯s determination that it had not been established that retaliation had occurred, and its subsequent closure of the file without further investigation...

L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que M. Flekal, en acceptant le renvoi de la plainte pour harc¨¨lement le 3 mars 2024 en vue d¡¯une intervention de la direction, avait en substance renonc¨¦ ¨¤ son droit de saisir les tribunaux pour absence d¡¯enqu¨ºte sur ses plaintes pour harc¨¨lement, y compris pour intimidation. L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a not¨¦ qu¡¯en vertu de l¡¯instruction technique pertinente du D¨¦partement des services de contr?le interne, l¡¯intimidation ne constitue pas une cat¨¦gorie distincte de faute professionnelle, mais est consid¨¦r¨¦e comme une forme de harc¨¨lement.

L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a not¨¦ que M. Flekal avait ¨¦galement renonc¨¦ ¨¤ sa...

L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a fait remarquer que la d¨¦cision de soumettre M. Flekal ¨¤ une proc¨¦dure d¡¯OTI ne constituait qu¡¯une ¨¦tape interm¨¦diaire du processus de gestion des performances et n¡¯avait eu aucun impact direct ni aucune cons¨¦quence d¨¦favorable sur ses conditions de nomination ou son contrat de travail; il ne s¡¯agissait donc pas d¡¯une d¨¦cision administrative susceptible de recours judiciaire.

L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a constat¨¦ que M. Flekal avait ¨¦t¨¦ mis ¨¤ la retraite pour raisons m¨¦dicales, d¨¦clar¨¦ inapte au service et b¨¦n¨¦ficiait d¡¯une pension d¡¯invalidit¨¦. Il n¡¯a pas ¨¦t¨¦ mis ¨¤ la retraite de l¡¯Agence en raison du non...

L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ qu¡¯une partie l¨¦s¨¦e par le rejet d¡¯une mesure provisoire peut, et doit g¨¦n¨¦ralement, attendre que l¡¯affaire soit
d¨¦finitivement tranch¨¦e avant d¡¯interjeter appel.

L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a jug¨¦ qu¡¯une d¨¦cision relative ¨¤ une mesure provisoire peut faire l¡¯objet d¡¯un r¨¦examen s¡¯il est d¨¦montr¨¦ que le tribunal de premi¨¨re instance, ¨¤ savoir le JAB, a outrepass¨¦ sa comp¨¦tence.

L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a not¨¦ que le JAB est express¨¦ment habilit¨¦ par le r¨¨glement du personnel de l¡¯ISA ¨¤ d¨¦cider si la suspension d¡¯une mesure administrative est appropri¨¦e, ce qui rel¨¨ve de sa comp¨¦tence et de sa juridiction.

L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Mr. Flekal, by consenting to the referral of the harassment claim on 3 March 2024, for managerial action, had essentially waived the right to pursue a remedy before the Tribunals for the lack of an investigation into his complaints of harassment, including bullying. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that under the relevant technical instruction of the Department of Internal Oversight Services, bullying is not a separate category of misconduct, it is considered a kind of harassment.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that Mr. Flekal had also waived his ¡°abuse of power¡± claim because it was not pled in his...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the decision to place Mr. Flekal on an OTI process is only an intermediate step in the performance management process and has had no direct impact or adverse consequence on his terms of appointment or the contract of employment and therefore is not an administrative decision subject to judicial review.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Mr. Flekal was separated for medical reasons, declared incapacitated and awarded a disability pension. He was not separated from the Agency due to non-renewal of his fixed-term appointment. Therefore, Mr. Flekal¡¯s challenge of the 29 August 2023 decision...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that a party aggrieved by denial of interim relief can and generally must wait until the matter is finally resolved before filing an appeal.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that a decision regarding interim relief may be reviewable if it can be shown that the first instance tribunal, the JAB, exceeded its jurisdiction or competence.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the JAB is specifically empowered by the ISA Staff Rules to decide whether suspension of an administrative action is appropriate, which is within its competence and jurisdiction.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that there was no basis for its intervention in the...

L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que l¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT avait commis une erreur en concluant que les faits ¨¦tablis ¨¤ l¡¯origine des all¨¦gations ne constituaient pas une faute professionnelle. Elle a jug¨¦ que la participation r¨¦guli¨¨re de l¡¯ancien membre du personnel ¨¤ des ¨¦changes portant sur le partage d¡¯informations non publiques, ainsi que ses communications avec M.R., une personne s¡¯exprimant publiquement sur des questions relatives au Bureau de gestion des investissements (OIM), constituaient une divulgation non autoris¨¦e ou, ¨¤ tout le moins, une participation ¨¤ un partage non autoris¨¦ d¡¯informations non publiques.

L...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding that the established facts underlying the allegations did not amount to misconduct. It found that the former staff member's sustained participation in exchanges concerning the sharing of non-public information and his communications with M.R., an individual engaging publicly on matters pertaining to the Office of Investment Management (OIM), constituted unauthorized disclosure or, at minimum, participation in unauthorized sharing of non-public information.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in characterizing as too vague the allegation that the...

L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que les questions soulev¨¦es en appel portaient sur le point de savoir si l¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT avait commis une erreur en
refusant d¡¯accorder l¡¯anonymat au membre du personnel dans le cadre d¡¯une proc¨¦dure contestant une r¨¦primande ¨¦crite, s¡¯il avait mal appliqu¨¦ la jurisprudence r¨¦gissant l¡¯anonymisation, et si une telle erreur justifiait un r¨¦examen interlocutoire. Elle a rappel¨¦ que les recours interlocutoires ne sont recevables que dans des circonstances rares et exceptionnelles, notamment lorsqu¡¯une erreur ne peut ¨ºtre corrig¨¦e par un jugement d¨¦finitif et qu¡¯il serait manifestement...

L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que les questions soulev¨¦es en appel portaient sur le point de savoir si le Tribunal des litiges de l¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA avait commis une erreur en concluant que les faits de faute avaient ¨¦t¨¦ ¨¦tablis selon la norme de la preuve claire et convaincante, s¡¯il avait commis une erreur en concluant que le comportement constituait une faute grave, et s¡¯il avait commis une erreur en confirmant la proportionnalit¨¦ de la sanction disciplinaire consistant en la cessation de service sans indemnit¨¦ de licenciement. Il a rappel¨¦ que son r?le n¡¯¨¦tait pas de proc¨¦der ¨¤ un r¨¦examen de novo, mais de...

L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a tout d¡¯abord estim¨¦ que la d¨¦cision contest¨¦e du 17 avril 2011 ne constituait pas une d¨¦cision administrative susceptible de recours et n¡¯¨¦tait pas recevable ratione materiae, dans la mesure o¨´ elle se contentait de conseiller ¨¤ l¡¯ancien membre du personnel de se rendre au bureau du HCR le plus proche et d¡¯y demander l¡¯asile ou la r¨¦installation en tant que r¨¦fugi¨¦.

? titre subsidiaire, m¨ºme en supposant que le courriel du 17 avril 2011 ait pu constituer une d¨¦cision administrative valable et susceptible de recours, l¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que la demande de l¡¯ancien fonctionnaire resterait...

L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a constat¨¦ que Mme George avait d¨¦pos¨¦ sa demande de retour au syst¨¨me de r¨¦mun¨¦ration en dollars am¨¦ricains le 4 ao?t 2015 et que l¡¯Administration l¡¯avait rejet¨¦e le 10 novembre 2015. Malgr¨¦ cette communication claire, l¡¯ancienne fonctionnaire a continu¨¦ ¨¤ ¨¦changer des courriers avec l¡¯Administration afin d¡¯obtenir un r¨¦examen de la d¨¦cision pendant pr¨¨s de neuf ans. Elle a attendu le 9 avril 2024 pour d¨¦poser sa demande de r¨¦examen aupr¨¨s du Comit¨¦ permanent. Comme celle-ci avait ¨¦t¨¦ d¨¦pos¨¦e au-del¨¤ du d¨¦lai l¨¦gal de quatre-vingt-dix jours ¨¤ compter de la r¨¦ception de la notification...

L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que l¡¯ancien agent avait form¨¦ son recours dans le d¨¦lai l¨¦gal. Elle a relev¨¦ que, puisqu¡¯il avait d¨¦pos¨¦ sa requ¨ºte devant le TNDU en fran?ais, le d¨¦lai de 60 jours pour former son recours courait ¨¤ compter de la date de r¨¦ception de l¡¯arr¨ºt du TNDU dans cette m¨ºme langue. Comme il avait re?u l¡¯arr¨ºt du TDN en fran?ais le 11 juillet 2025 et avait form¨¦ son pourvoi le 13 ao?t 2025, l¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que celui-ci avait ¨¦t¨¦ form¨¦ dans les d¨¦lais.

N¨¦anmoins, l¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a jug¨¦ que la requ¨ºte de l¡¯ancien fonctionnaire devant le TDN n¡¯¨¦tait pas recevable. ? cet ¨¦gard, l¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a tout d...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the former staff member filed his appeal within the statutory deadline. It noted that since he filed his application before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT in French, the 60-day time limit for filing his appeal ran from the date of receipt of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment in that same language. As he received the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment in French on 11 July 2025 and filed his appeal on 13 August 2025, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was filed in a timely manner.

Nevertheless, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the former staff member¡¯s application before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was not receivable. In this regard, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT first rejected his contention...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ms. George submitted her request to revert to the US dollar track system on 4 August 2015 and the Administration rejected it on 10 November 2015.Despite that clear communication, the former staff member continued to exchange correspondence with the Administration seeking reconsideration of the decision for almost nine years.She waited until 9 April 2024 before submitting her request for review to the Standing Committee.As it was filed beyond the statutory time limit of ninety days of receipt of notification of the contested decision, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that her request was...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT first held that the contested decision of 17 April 2011 did not constitute an appealable administrative decision and was not receivable ratione materiae, insofar as it merely advised the former staff member to go to the nearest Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR office and seek asylum or resettlement as a refugee.

Subsidiarily, even assuming that the e-mail of 17 April 2011 could have constituted a valid appealable administrative decision, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the former staff member¡¯s application would nonetheless remain not receivable on two grounds. First, he did not request management evaluation of the...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the issues on appeal were whether the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA Dispute Tribunal erred in finding that the facts of misconduct were established to the clear and convincing evidence standard, whether it erred in concluding that the conduct constituted serious misconduct, and whether it erred in affirming the proportionality of the disciplinary sanction of separation from service without termination indemnity. It recalled that its role is not to conduct a de novo review, but to determine whether the first?instance tribunal committed an error of law, fact, or procedure resulting in an unreasonable...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the issues on appeal were whether the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in refusing to grant anonymity to the staff member in proceedings challenging a written reprimand, whether it misapplied the jurisprudence governing anonymization, and whether such an error justified interlocutory review. It recalled that interlocutory appeals are receivable only in rare and exceptional circumstances, including where an error is irremediable by a final judgment and it would be manifestly unreasonable for the impugned order to remain in effect.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT committed an error of law by...