Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Le TANU a estim¨¦ que la demande de r¨¦vision de l'agent ne r¨¦pondait pas aux exigences statutaires ¨¦nonc¨¦es ¨¤ l'article 11, paragraphe 1, du statut du TANU. Le TANU a conclu que les arguments de l'agent reprenaient essentiellement ceux qu'il avait d¨¦j¨¤ avanc¨¦s devant le TANU et le TNDU. Par cons¨¦quent, le TANU a estim¨¦ que sa demande de r¨¦vision ¨¦quivalait ¨¤ une demande de r¨¦examen par le TANU de son pr¨¦c¨¦dent recours infructueux. En outre, le TANU a observ¨¦ que les observations du requ¨¦rant contenaient un certain nombre d'accusations injustes et inappropri¨¦es ¨¤ l'encontre des personnes qui...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member's application for revision failed to meet the statutory requirements outlined in Article 11(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that the staff member's arguments essentially reiterated those he previously advanced before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT and the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. As a result, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that his application for revision amounted to a request for the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT to reconsider his previous unsuccessful appeal. Moreover, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that the applicant's submissions contained a number of unfair and inappropriate accusations against persons who had dealt with his case, and...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the facts upon which the staff member relied in his application for revision all post-dated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment and therefore could not serve as a basis for revising or reconsidering the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT¡¯s prior conclusions. In particular, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the staff member¡¯s medical record, indicating a change in his condition after the issuance of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment, did not constitute grounds for revising it.

However, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT granted the staff member¡¯s request for anonymity for the present Judgment only, given the limited scope of the issues raised and the specific facts...

L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que le Tribunal avait eu raison de consid¨¦rer qu¡¯il existait clairement des ¨¦l¨¦ments de preuve suffisants pour ¨¦tayer la conclusion de l¡¯Administration selon laquelle les performances du fonctionnaire ne r¨¦pondaient que partiellement aux attentes et que cette pr¨¦occupation lui avait ¨¦t¨¦ communiqu¨¦e. Bien que la confirmation de la notation par le Comit¨¦ de r¨¦futation et la pr¨¦paration d'une deuxi¨¨me ¨¦valuation des performances ¨¤ court terme aient eu lieu apr¨¨s le non-renouvellement, l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a conclu que ces examens confirmaient n¨¦anmoins que l'¨¦valuation informelle pr¨¦alable de...

M. Ronved a fait appel.

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a rejet¨¦ l'appel et confirm¨¦ le jugement du Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT.

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que le Tribunal avait commis une erreur en jugeant la requ¨ºte irrecevable en ce qui concerne le refus d'une promotion temporaire ¨¤ la classe P-4. La d¨¦cision contest¨¦e devant le Tribunal du contentieux administratif ¨¦tait la d¨¦cision de proroger le SPA, que l'appelant a contest¨¦e en temps utile devant le MEU et le Tribunal du contentieux administratif du Tribunal. La prolongation du PSA et le refus d'accorder une promotion ¨¦taient les deux faces d'une m¨ºme d¨¦cision, avec les m¨ºmes d¨¦lais pour le...

Mr. Ronved appealed.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding the application not receivable with respect to the refusal of a temporary promotion to the P-4 level.? The contested decision before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was the decision to extend the SPA, which the Appellant timely challenged before the MEU and the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT.? The extension of the SPA and the denial to grant a promotion were two sides of the same decision, with the same time limits for management evaluation.? Therefore, the request for management evaluation of both decisions was...

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 estim¨¦ que l'absence de discussion sur la gestion de l'affaire et d'audience devant le TCNU ne constituait pas une erreur de proc¨¦dure.

Le TANU a estim¨¦ que le Tribunal n'avait pas commis d'erreur en admettant et en examinant le m¨¦morandum d'all¨¦gations de mauvaise conduite, car celui-ci avait ¨¦t¨¦ utilis¨¦ par l'Administration uniquement pour v¨¦rifier que les circonstances justifiant le placement du requ¨¦rant en ALWP existaient.

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a ¨¦galement constat¨¦ que le rapport d'enqu¨ºte du BSCI ne faisait pas r¨¦f¨¦rence aux communications entre l'appelant et son conseil, ni aux ¨¦changes au...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the absence of a case management discussion and an oral hearing before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was not a procedural error.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in admitting and considering the memorandum of allegations of misconduct, as it was used by the Administration only to verify that circumstances warranting the placement of the Appellant on ALWP occurred. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also found that the OIOS Investigation Report did not refer to the communications between the Appellant and his counsel, nor to exchanges during a mediation process, but only considered the Appellant¡¯s objective...

Le Secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral a interjet¨¦ appel.

Le Tribunal d'appel a estim¨¦ que le TDNU avait outrepass¨¦ sa comp¨¦tence et commis une erreur de droit en interpr¨¦tant l'article 6(3)(a) du R¨¨glement du personnel comme autorisant Mme Barbulescu, en tant que m¨¨re commanditaire dans le cadre d'une maternit¨¦ de substitution, ¨¤ avoir droit ¨¤ un cong¨¦ de maternit¨¦, contrairement aux dispositions claires et sans ambigu?t¨¦. Statut et R¨¨glement du personnel. Le Tribunal a ¨¦largi la port¨¦e de l'article 6(3) du R¨¨glement du personnel au point de prendre une d¨¦cision politique qui rel¨¨ve de la comp¨¦tence du...

The Secretary-General filed an appeal.

The Appeals Tribunal found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its jurisdiction and erred in law when it interpreted Staff Rule 6(3)(a) as allowing Ms. Barbulescu as a commissioning mother in a surrogacy to be entitled to maternity leave contrary to the clear and unambiguous Staff Regulations and Rules. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT enlarged the scope of Staff Rule 6(3) to an extent that it made a policy decision which is in the purview of the Secretary-General. Further, the Dispute Tribunal erred in making factual findings without evidence.

The Appeals Tribunal however held that the...

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que le voyage de la requ¨¦rante n'¨¦tait pas autoris¨¦ en vertu de l'article 7.10 du R¨¨glement du personnel car elle n'avait b¨¦n¨¦fici¨¦ que d'un seul jour de cong¨¦ annuel approuv¨¦ le 24 juin 2021, suivi d'une p¨¦riode de repos et de repos du 12 juillet au 16 juillet 2021. L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a ¨¦galement conclu que le L'administration a pris les mesures appropri¨¦es en lui envoyant le 25 juillet 2021 un e-mail lui rappelant que tous les membres du personnel international devaient soumettre leur demande de renouvellement de visa soudanais dans les d¨¦lais.

L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que les ¨¦v¨¦nements qui ont...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s travel was not authorized pursuant to Staff Rule 7.10 because she had just one approved day of annual leave on 24 June 2021 followed by a period of R&R from the 12 July to 16 July 2021. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also found that the Administration took the appropriate action by sending her on 25 July 2021 an e-mail reminding her that all the international staff members had to submit their Sudanese visa renewal application in a timely manner. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the events that delayed the Appellant¡¯s return to her duty station could not be construed as force majeure as they...

L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ qu¡¯il y avait une nette disjonction dans la d¨¦cision du Tribunal du contentieux des Nations Unies de faire droit ¨¤ la demande de M. Nair uniquement en ce qui concerne les mesures disciplinaires (mais pas les mesures administratives), et en m¨ºme temps d¡¯annuler la d¨¦cision disciplinaire elle-m¨ºme. Le TANU a not¨¦ la confusion suscit¨¦e par la conclusion du Tribunal du Tribunal selon laquelle ? aucune faute n'a eu lieu ?, tout en admettant que M. Nair avait ? r¨¦agi et utilis¨¦ un langage hostile ¨¤ plusieurs reprises ? ce qui justifiait, de l'avis du Tribunal, l'imposition de mesures...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was a clear disjunct in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s decision to grant Mr. Nair¡¯s application only in relation to the disciplinary measures (but not the administrative measures), and at the same time, rescinding the actual disciplinary decision. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted the confusion presented by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that ¡°no misconduct occurred at all¡±, while at the same time accepting that Mr. Nair had ¡°repeatedly reacted and used hostile language¡± which justified, in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s view, the imposition of administrative measures. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the administrative measures under Staff Rule 10.2(b)...