Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a rejet¨¦ la demande d¡¯anonymat de l¡¯appelant car la question soulev¨¦e dans son appel ¨¦tait purement proc¨¦durale et juridictionnelle et ne concernait aucune donn¨¦e personnelle devant ¨ºtre prot¨¦g¨¦e.

L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a ¨¦galement rejet¨¦ la demande d¡¯audience de l¡¯appelant, estimant que cela n¡¯aiderait pas le Tribunal d¡¯appel ¨¤ r¨¦gler l¡¯affaire de mani¨¨re rapide et ¨¦quitable.

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que le requ¨¦rant ayant d¨¦pos¨¦ sa requ¨ºte 93 jours apr¨¨s la r¨¦ception de la d¨¦cision administrative contest¨¦e, celle-ci n'¨¦tait pas recevable, sauf renonciation au d¨¦lai par le Tribunal. L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a observ¨¦ qu¡¯¨¦tant...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the Appellant¡¯s request for anonymity as the issue presented in his appeal was purely procedural and jurisdictional and did not involve any personal data which had to be protected.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also denied the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing, finding that that it would not assist the Appeals Tribunal in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that because the Appellant filed his application 93 days after the receipt of the contested administrative decision, it was not receivable, absent waiver of the deadline of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that given...

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a examin¨¦ un appel du Secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral.

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que l'administration de l'examen ¨¦crit sur les affaires de s¨¦curit¨¦ dans la pr¨¦sente affaire n'avait pas respect¨¦ les normes minimales d¨¦taill¨¦es dans Chhikara. L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a not¨¦ que l'Administration avait d'abord administr¨¦ le test, analys¨¦ les r¨¦sultats, et qu'ensuite seulement elle avait d¨¦cid¨¦ que certaines questions devaient ¨ºtre ¨¦limin¨¦es de l'examen. L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que la suppression inopin¨¦e et ex post de questions de l'examen ¨¦crit, apr¨¨s que celui-ci ait d¨¦j¨¤ ¨¦t¨¦ corrig¨¦, violait ¨¤ premi¨¨re vue l'obligation d'administrer...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the administration of the written security affairs exam in the present case had not met the minimum standards detailed in Chhikara. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Administration had first administered the test, analyzed the results, and only then had decided that certain questions should be eliminated from consideration. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the unannounced and ex post deletion of questions from the written examination, after it had already been marked, on its very face violated the obligation to administer the test in a...

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

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a constat¨¦ que le rapport de recommandation ne fournissait aucune explication permettant de comprendre la justification de la d¨¦cision de non-s¨¦lection. L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a not¨¦ qu'aucune information n'avait ¨¦t¨¦ fournie au cours de la proc¨¦dure judiciaire quant aux raisons pour lesquelles le candidat externe ¨¦tait le candidat le plus appropri¨¦. L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que, dans un souci de raisonnabilit¨¦, d'¨¦quit¨¦ et de transparence, l'Administration ¨¦tait cens¨¦e fournir des raisons pertinentes et v¨¦ritables ¨¤ l'appui de son choix final. L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a...

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

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the recommendation report did not provide any explanation to understand the rationale of the non-selection decision. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that no information had been given in the course of the judicial proceedings either as to why the external candidate was the most suitable candidate. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, for the sake of reasonableness, fairness and transparency, it was expected from the Administration to give relevant and true reasons supporting its ultimate choice. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had made an error of fact...

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

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que le raisonnement suivi par le DT de l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA pour refuser une audience parce que le fonctionnaire n'avait pas ¨¦tabli que son recours ¨¦tait recevable ¨¦tait ex post facto et, par cons¨¦quent, erron¨¦.

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a constat¨¦ qu'il y avait une erreur dans le calcul de l'indemnit¨¦ par le DT de l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA en remplacement de l'annulation de la d¨¦cision de non-s¨¦lection, car il n'y avait aucune preuve pour ¨¦tayer la conclusion selon laquelle l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA l'aurait jug¨¦ inapte ¨¤ occuper ce poste ¨¤ la fin de la p¨¦riode. p¨¦riode de probation.

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

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s reasoning for refusing an oral hearing because the staff member failed to establish that her appeal was receivable, was ex post facto and, thereby, erroneous.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that there was an error in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s calculation of compensation in lieu of rescission of the non-selection decision as there was no evidence to support the conclusion that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA would have found her unsuitable for the role at the end of the probationary period.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was of the view that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s methodology of fixing...

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que le Tribunal n'avait pas commis d'erreur en concluant que les faits ¨¤ l'origine de la r¨¦primande ¨¦crite ¨¦taient ¨¦tablis. L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a reconnu que le plaidoyer de Mme Kamara-Joyner en faveur d¡¯un membre individuel du personnel ne relevait pas de ses r?les et fonctions, tant en sa qualit¨¦ de charg¨¦e de r¨¦solution des conflits pour l¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOMS que de pr¨¦sidente de l¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵPAD. L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a constat¨¦ que Mme Kamara-Joyner n'avait pas express¨¦ment demand¨¦ l'approbation du conflit d'int¨¦r¨ºts entre ses deux fonctions et avait refus¨¦ de suivre les instructions visant ¨¤ ¨¦liminer le conflit d'int¨¦r¨ºts...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in finding that the facts underlying the written reprimand were established. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed that Ms. Kamara-Joyner¡¯s advocacy for an individual staff member was outside of her roles and duties in both her capacity as a Conflict Resolution Officer for Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOMS and as President of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵPAD. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ms. Kamara-Joyner failed to expressly seek approval for the conflict of interest between her two roles and refused to follow instructions on removing the conflict of interest. Accordingly, she was subject to a disciplinary or administrative measure. The...

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que la DT de l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA n'avait pas commis d'erreur en accordant une indemnit¨¦ compensatrice. Elle a examin¨¦ ¨¤ juste titre les chances de M. Fanous d¡¯¨ºtre s¨¦lectionn¨¦ pour le poste lorsqu¡¯elle a d¨¦clar¨¦ qu¡¯elle consid¨¦rait qu¡¯il n¡¯y avait aucune garantie d¡¯une s¨¦lection future. La DT de l¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA a appliqu¨¦ un montant forfaitaire sp¨¦cifique au contexte. Elle a pris en compte la probabilit¨¦ de s¨¦lection et le salaire de M. Fanous ¨¤ l¡¯¨¦poque. Elle a rendu une d¨¦cision qui ¨¦tait juste et juste dans le cas pr¨¦sent, mais a ¨¦galement adopt¨¦ une approche fond¨¦e sur des principes qui a pris...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not err in its award of in-lieu compensation. It appropriately considered Mr. Fanous¡¯ chance of selection for the post when it stated that it considered there was no guarantee of a future selection. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT applied a context-specific lump sum amount. It considered the likelihood of selection and Mr. Fanous¡¯ salary at the time. It made a determination that was fair and just in the present case but also took a principled approach that considered all relevant considerations.

As to Mr. Fanous¡¯ request for moral damages, with regard to the First and...

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a examin¨¦ un appel du Secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral de l'OMM. L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que le fonctionnaire cherchait ¨¤ adh¨¦rer ¨¤ une modification convenue de son contrat qui, en ¨¦change d'un raccourcissement de sa dur¨¦e d'emploi, lui donnait droit ¨¤ une indemnit¨¦ de licenciement.

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a not¨¦ que le Tribunal avait eu raison d'¨¦tablir comme condition de recevabilit¨¦ l'effet direct et n¨¦gatif provoqu¨¦ par la mise en ?uvre de la d¨¦cision contest¨¦e. L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT ¨¦tait d¡¯avis que la d¨¦cision de l¡¯OMM visant ¨¤ r¨¦silier son accord affectait les projets professionnels et personnels ¨¦tablis par le fonctionnaire...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General of WMO.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the staff member was seeking to adhere to an agreed variation to his contract which, in return for foreshortening his period of employment, entitled him to a termination indemnity. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had been correct in establishing a direct and negative effect, brought about by the implementation of the contested decision, as a condition for receivability.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was of the view that WMO¡¯s decision purporting to rescind its agreement affected the staff member¡¯s established career and personal...

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT avait commis une erreur en estimant que l'administration avait mal interpr¨¦t¨¦ l'une des exigences pour le poste annonc¨¦ dans le JO 127555, ¨¤ savoir ? l'exp¨¦rience dans la direction de grandes ¨¦quipes ?, comme exigeant une exp¨¦rience de la supervision directe de 10 personnes ou plus. L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a en outre estim¨¦ que l¡¯avis de vacance permettait une interpr¨¦tation contextuelle dans la mesure o¨´ le sens litt¨¦ral du terme ? diriger ? est tr¨¨s g¨¦n¨¦ral et ne permet pas, en soi, de comprendre exactement le sens voulu. Par cons¨¦quent, l¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ qu¡¯il ¨¦tait raisonnable pour...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in holding that the Administration misinterpreted one of the requirements for the position advertised in JO 127555, namely ¡°experience in leading large teams¡±, as requiring experience of direct supervision of 10 people or more. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further found that the vacancy announcement allowed for a such contextual interpretation as the literal meaning of ¡°lead¡± is very general and does not, by itself, allow for an exact comprehension of the intended meaning. Therefore, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was reasonable for the Administration to interpret the requirement of...

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 examin¨¦ un appel interjet¨¦ par le fonctionnaire.

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que le Tribunal n'avait pas commis d'erreur de fait en n'ayant pas consid¨¦r¨¦ la cessation de service, mentionn¨¦e dans l'avis de cessation de service, comme le motif de la d¨¦cision contest¨¦e ; la mention de la retraite n¡¯avait aucune incidence sur la cessation de service du fonctionnaire. L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que la lettre l'informant de l'expiration de son engagement de dur¨¦e d¨¦termin¨¦e ¨¦tait conforme ¨¤ la suppression du poste qu'elle occupait.

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a not¨¦ que le contr?le judiciaire dans le contexte d'une suspension d...

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

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not erred in fact when it had not considered separation on retirement, mentioned in the separation notice, to be the reason for the contested decision; the mention of retirement had no import on the staff member¡¯s separation. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was of the view that the letter informing her of the expiry of her fixed-term appointment was in line with the abolition of the post she encumbered.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that judicial review in the context of suspension of action is different from the review conducted by the Tribunal...