Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

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)...

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que le Tribunal n'avait pas commis d'erreur de proc¨¦dure dans sa gestion de l'affaire qui aurait affect¨¦ l'issue de l'affaire. L'appelant a eu une occasion significative de pr¨¦senter sa d¨¦fense et de remettre en question la v¨¦racit¨¦ des d¨¦clarations port¨¦es contre lui. Les t¨¦moins suppl¨¦mentaires qu¡¯il souhaitait faire compara?tre n¡¯auraient gu¨¨re ¨¦t¨¦ d¡¯une grande utilit¨¦ pour sa cause.

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que le Tribunal avait conclu ¨¤ juste titre que le comportement all¨¦gu¨¦ ¨¦tait ¨¦tabli par des preuves claires et convaincantes et que les actes de l'appelant, ¨¤ savoir le fait de...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not commit an error of procedure in its case management that affected the outcome of the case. The Appellant had a meaningful opportunity to mount a defense and to question the veracity of the statements against him. The additional witnesses that he wished to call would have been of little assistance to his case.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly concluded that the alleged conduct was established by clear and convincing evidence and that the Appellant¡¯s actions, i.e., making inappropriate comments of a sexual nature in social settings, amounted to sexual...

L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a rejet¨¦ la demande d¡¯audience de l¡¯appelant, estimant que les questions ¨¦taient bien d¨¦finies et ne n¨¦cessitaient pas de d¨¦veloppement suppl¨¦mentaire au cours d¡¯une audience.

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que la demande du requ¨¦rant visant ¨¤ r¨¦examiner la r¨¦ponse ¨¤ sa demande de contr?le hi¨¦rarchique concernant sa non-s¨¦lection n'¨¦tait pas recevable ratione materiae car elle n'avait pas produit de cons¨¦quences juridiques directes pour lui et ne constituait donc pas une d¨¦cision administrative susceptible de recours.

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a ¨¦galement constat¨¦ que le requ¨¦rant avait ¨¦t¨¦ inform¨¦ du r¨¦sultat de sa...

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

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a constat¨¦ que le fonctionnaire n'avait cit¨¦ aucune disposition de l'article 2(1) du Statut de l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT et n'avait pas indiqu¨¦ si des erreurs commises par le DT de l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA dans son affaire concernaient sa comp¨¦tence, la proc¨¦dure, une question de droit ou une question de fait. L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que le recours ¨¦tait vici¨¦ et, par cons¨¦quent, irrecevable.

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a n¨¦anmoins r¨¦it¨¦r¨¦ sa jurisprudence sur certaines des questions soulev¨¦es et a approuv¨¦ la mani¨¨re dont le DT de l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA avait d¨¦termin¨¦ le montant de l'indemnisation en...

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

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the staff member did not cite any provision of Article 2(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute and did not indicate whether any errors by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT in his case related to its jurisdiction, the procedure, a question of law or a question of fact. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was defective and consequently not receivable.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, nevertheless, reiterated its jurisprudence on some of the issues raised, and agreed with the way the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT had determined the amount of in-lieu compensation. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also agreed with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing, finding that that the issues were well-defined and required no further development through an oral hearing.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s application for review of the response to his request for management evaluation of his non-selection was not receivable ratione materiae as it did not produce direct legal consequences for him and was, therefore, not a reviewable administrative decision.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also found that the Appellant was informed of the outcome of his request for a management evaluation regarding his non-selection...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct to find that there was clearly sufficient evidence to support the Administration¡¯s conclusion that the staff member¡¯s performance only partially met expectations, and that this concern was communicated to him. Although the Rebuttal Board¡¯s confirmation of the rating, and the preparation of a second short-term performance appraisal occurred after the non-renewal was taken, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that these reviews nonetheless confirmed that management¡¯s prior informal evaluation of the staff member¡¯s performance was not arbitrary but was instead well-based...