Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

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...

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a examin¨¦ trois recours du requ¨¦rant.

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que l'ordonnance contest¨¦e ¨¦tait une ordonnance interlocutoire et ne relevait manifestement pas de sa comp¨¦tence.

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que le requ¨¦rant n'avait pas pr¨¦sent¨¦ de documents prouvant qu'il ¨¦tait membre du personnel des Nations Unies et qu'il n'avait aucun statut juridique devant le Tribunal. L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a not¨¦ que rien ne prouvait qu'une offre d'engagement lui avait ¨¦t¨¦ adress¨¦e pour l'un ou l'autre poste. Deuxi¨¨mement, il n¡¯a pas accompli les formalit¨¦s pr¨¦alables au recrutement pour les deux postes. Troisi¨¨mement, il n'a pas...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered three appeals by the applicant.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the impugned Order was an interlocutory order and was obviously beyond the competence of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the applicant had not submitted documents to prove being a United Nations staff member and that he had no legal standing before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that there was no evidence of an offer of appointment having been issued to him for either post. Second, he failed to complete the pre-recruitment formalities for both posts. Third, he failed to confirm, within a reasonable time, his interest and...

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a rejet¨¦ l'affirmation de M. Neupane selon laquelle l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT avait commis une erreur en estimant qu'il contestait la d¨¦cision de r¨¦affectation alors qu'en fait il contestait l'absence d'habilitation du Comit¨¦ central de contr?le des missions et d'inscription sur la liste pour le poste r¨¦affect¨¦. La requ¨ºte ¨¦tait assez floue et portait principalement sur la question de la r¨¦gularit¨¦ de la d¨¦cision de r¨¦affectation qui ¨¦tait conforme ¨¤ la demande de contr?le hi¨¦rarchique de M. Neupane contestant directement et clairement sa r¨¦affectation. La question de l¡¯inscription sur la liste n¡¯a ¨¦t¨¦...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed Mr. Neupane's contention that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred when it found that he was contesting the reassignment decision when in fact he was contesting the lack of his Field Central Review Board clearance and roster membership for the reassigned post. The application was quite unclear, and focused mainly on the question of regularity of the reassignment decision which was in line with Mr. Neupane¡¯s request for management evaluation challenging directly and clearly his reassignment. The issue of rostering was raised only as an argument to prove the alleged procedural irregularity of Mr...