Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a rejet¨¦ l'appel. L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a constat¨¦ que l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT avait commis une erreur en concluant que la demande n'¨¦tait pas ¨¤ recevoir Ratione Personae et Ratione Materiae. L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a jug¨¦ que le refus d'enqu¨ºter sur sa plainte constituait une d¨¦cision administrative appelable et que la demande ¨¦tait donc ¨¤ recevoir ratione materiae. En outre, ¨¦tant donn¨¦ que, dans ce cas, la pr¨¦tendue abus aurait ¨¦t¨¦ la justification inappropri¨¦e de la s¨¦paration du service de M. Ross, en tant qu'ancien membre du personnel, il ¨¦tait suffisamment li¨¦ ¨¤ son emploi pour conf¨¦rer la comp¨¦tence de la personae Ratione. En...

L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a jug¨¦ qu¡¯il n¡¯y avait aucun m¨¦rite ¨¤ la requ¨ºte du membre du personnel de stimuler le dossier de la r¨¦ponse du secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral ¨¤ une ordonnance de l¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT demandant des informations. L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a constat¨¦ que l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT n'avait pas commis une erreur dans sa d¨¦termination que les informations disponibles ¨¦tablissaient sur un ¨¦quilibre des probabilit¨¦s que le membre du personnel avait engag¨¦ dans l'inconduite pr¨¦sum¨¦e justifiant son placement sur Alwop. Le clip vid¨¦o, diffus¨¦ sur les r¨¦seaux sociaux et ailleurs, la concession ¨¦quivoque (plus tard pour devenir un aveu sans ¨¦quivoque) ¨¤ ¨ºtre la...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding that the application was not receivable ratione personae and ratione materiae. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the refusal to investigate his complaint constituted an appealable administrative decision and the application was thus receivable ratione materiae. Furthermore, given that in this case the purported abuse was alleged to have been the improper rationale for the separation from service of Mr. Ross, as a former staff member, it was sufficiently connected to his employment to confer jurisdiction ratione personae. Turning...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied Ms. Banyanga¡¯s appeal and affirmed the decision of the Standing Committee. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ms. Banyanga had not adequately explained the inconsistencies between her own personal information and the information submitted by Mr. Mbirange regarding his reported spouse (including that the name ¡°Banyanga¡± did not appear in the documentation that Mr. Mbirange provided about his spouse).

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also rejected Ms. Banyanga¡¯s reliance on the marriage certificate that she submitted, which showed a purported date of marriage in 1997. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that Mr. Mbirange entered...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no merit to the staff member¡¯s motion to strike from the record the Secretary-General¡¯s response to a Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT order requesting information. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not erred in its determination that the available information established on a balance of probabilities that the staff member had engaged in the alleged misconduct justifying his placement on ALWOP. The video clip, circulated on social media and elsewhere, the equivocal concession (later to become an unequivocal admission) to being the person in the vehicle and the identification evidence alone...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in concluding that there was clear and convincing evidence that the Appellant physically assaulted another staff member and that the disciplinary measure of separation from service, with compensation in lieu of notice and without termination indemnity, was proportionate to the nature and gravity of the Appellant¡¯s misconduct. Importantly, the Appellant did not establish a degree of provocation that mitigated her retaliation which was also excessive and beyond the bounds of any permissible defense in the altercation.

The findings of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that the...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the OAI recommendation in its investigation report that disciplinary action should be taken against the staff member did not constitute an administrative decision. Moreover, the recommendation of OAI was not a ¡°decision¡±. It was an intermediate recommendation and thus did not have a direct, legal or adverse effect. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that, likewise, the decision that there was insufficient evidence to charge the staff member with misconduct did not constitute an administrative decision because it did not have an adverse impact on his rights under the contract of employment. The...

Le TANU a estim¨¦ que certaines des conclusions de l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT ¨¦taient sp¨¦culatives, n'avaient pas tenu compte des preuves et avaient mal appliqu¨¦ le cadre juridique applicable. En particulier, le TANU a estim¨¦ que le TCNU avait commis une erreur en concluant que la conduite du membre du personnel n'¨¦tait pas grave parce qu'elle avait dur¨¦ pendant une dur¨¦e limit¨¦e. Il a non seulement harcel¨¦ sexuellement deux femmes, mais a harcel¨¦ sexuellement ces deux femmes deux fois de suite. Son comportement cumulatif a fait preuve d'une disposition qui, dans ce cas, a caus¨¦ un malaise et une anxi¨¦t¨¦...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that some of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s findings were speculative, disregarded the evidence and misapplied the applicable legal framework. In particular, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding that the staff member¡¯s conduct was not serious because it endured for a limited duration of time. He not only sexually harassed two women but sexually harassed those two women twice in quick succession. His cumulative behaviour exhibited a disposition, which in this instance caused the complainants significant discomfort and anxiety and impacted on their ongoing professional relationship with him.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵA...

M. Russo-Got a fait appel. L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a jug¨¦ que les preuves ont incontestablement ¨¦tabli que M. Russo-Got n'avait contest¨¦ aucune d¨¦cision de liste noire dans sa demande d'¨¦valuation de la gestion. De plus, bien que la demande contenait des r¨¦f¨¦rences ¨¤ plusieurs postes pour lesquels il avait postul¨¦ et n'avait pas ¨¦t¨¦ s¨¦lectionn¨¦, il n'a demand¨¦ une ¨¦valuation de gestion d'aucune d¨¦cision de s¨¦lection et n'a fait appel d'aucune d¨¦cision de s¨¦lection particuli¨¨re dans sa demande ¨¤ l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a constat¨¦ que l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT n'avait donc pas commis une erreur en concluant que les r¨¦clamations dans la...

Mr. Russo-Got appealed. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the evidence incontrovertibly established that Mr. Russo-Got had failed to challenge any blacklisting decision in his request for management evaluation. Moreover, while the application contained references to several posts for which he had applied and had not been selected, he did not request management evaluation of any selection decision nor did he appeal any particular selection decision in his application to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT accordingly had not erred in finding that the claims in the application regarding the alleged...

Mme Specker a fait appel. L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a jug¨¦ que la question essentielle est de savoir si la sanction impos¨¦e ¨¦tait proportionn¨¦e. Le principe de proportionnalit¨¦ exige qu'une mesure disciplinaire impos¨¦e ¨¤ un membre du personnel soit proportionn¨¦e ¨¤ la nature et ¨¤ la gravit¨¦ de son inconduite. L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a not¨¦ que l'argument principal de Mme Specker ¨¦tait que la sanction impos¨¦e ¨¤ elle montrait un ¨¦l¨¦ment d'incoh¨¦rence historique dans la mesure o¨´ des sanctions moindres pour une faute similaire avaient ¨¦t¨¦ impos¨¦es dans d'autres cas. L'implication de sa soumission est que l'¨¦chec ¨¤ imposer la...

Ms. Specker appealed. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the essential question is whether the sanction imposed was proportionate. The principle of proportionality requires that a disciplinary measure imposed on a staff member shall be proportionate to the nature and gravity of his or her misconduct. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that Ms. Specker¡¯s main argument was that the sanction imposed upon her displayed an element of historical inconsistency in that lesser sanctions for similar misconduct had been imposed in other cases. The implication of her submission is that the failure to impose separation for this kind of...

M. Younis a fait appel. L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a constat¨¦ qu'apr¨¨s avoir parcouru le PHP soumis par M. Younis, le Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT avait jug¨¦ que l'examen de l'ad¨¦quation ¨¦tait correct. Le PHP a confirm¨¦ l¡¯¨¦valuation par l¡¯administration de l¡¯exp¨¦rience de travail de M. Younis. Le nombre total d'ann¨¦es de son exp¨¦rience pour les deux crit¨¨res avait ¨¦t¨¦ correctement arriv¨¦e en d¨¦terminant d'abord si la nature de son exp¨¦rience de travail remplissait les crit¨¨res pertinents, puis le nombre d'ann¨¦es pour lesquelles il avait occup¨¦ des r?les pertinents a ¨¦t¨¦ calcul¨¦ pour les deux crit¨¨res . L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a soutenu que m¨ºme si M...

Mr. Younis appealed. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that after perusing the PHP submitted by Mr. Younis, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had held that the suitability review was correct. The PHP confirmed the Administration¡¯s assessment of Mr. Younis¡¯ work experience. The total number of years of his experience for the two criteria had been properly arrived at by first determining if the nature of his work experience fulfilled the relevant criteria and then the number of years for which he had served in relevant roles was computed for both criteria. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that even if Mr. Younis was given the benefit of the doubt on the...

L'appel du Secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral a contest¨¦ l'ordonnance de l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵT en faisant r¨¦f¨¦rence ¨¤ la d¨¦cision de cong¨¦ de maternit¨¦ pour responsabilit¨¦. Unat a constat¨¦ que l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT avait commis une erreur en avan?ant la question car elle avait d¨¦j¨¤ ¨¦t¨¦ jug¨¦e dans un jugement ant¨¦rieur. En avan?ant le m¨ºme probl¨¨me une deuxi¨¨me fois, le Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵT a d¨¦pass¨¦ sa comp¨¦tence depuis que la d¨¦cision de cong¨¦ de maternit¨¦ n'avait pas ¨¦t¨¦ contest¨¦e avant le Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵT en l'esp¨¨ce; et le jugement ant¨¦rieur, qui a ¨¦t¨¦ confirm¨¦ en appel (rendant sa r¨¦solution), a jug¨¦ que la demande en relation avec la d¨¦cision de cong¨¦ de...

The Secretary-General's appeal challenged the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT order referring the maternity leave decision for accountability. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred by adjudicating the issue as it had already been adjudicated in an earlier judgment. In adjudicating the same issue a second time, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its competence since the maternity leave decision had not been challenged before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT in the instant case; and the earlier judgment, which was affirmed on appeal (rendering it res juidcata), held that the application in relation to the maternity leave decision was not receivable ratione temporis and...

Unat a jug¨¦ que la d¨¦cision de M. Erg¨¹den lorsqu'il a choisi d'¨ºtre sur la piste de monnaie locale ¨¦tait irr¨¦versible ¨¤ moins que les conditions pr¨¦alables telles que d¨¦finies au paragraphe 31 (b) et 38 (e) du PAS ne soient remplies. Unat a jug¨¦ que M. Erg¨¹den n'avait pas respect¨¦ ces conditions pr¨¦alables et que, comme la d¨¦cision du Comit¨¦ permanent ¨¦tait en respectant ces dispositions, il n'y avait aucune base pour accorder ¨¤ M. Erg¨¹den le droit de revenir ¨¤ la voie USD. Unat a jug¨¦ qu'il n'y avait pas de base appropri¨¦e pour obliger le directeur g¨¦n¨¦ral de la retraite ¨¤ la suspension de la...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr. Erg¨¹den¡¯s decision when he elected to be on the local-currency track was irreversible unless the pre-conditions as set out in Paragraph 31(b) and 38(e) of the PAS were met. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr. Erg¨¹den did not meet those pre-conditions and that, as the decision of the Standing Committee was in observance of these provisions, there was no basis to grant Mr. Erg¨¹den the right to revert to the USD track. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no proper basis to compel the Chief Executive of Pension Administration to suspend Turkey from the two-track system. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and...

Mme Pakkala a d¨¦pos¨¦ un appel. Unat a constat¨¦ que la d¨¦cision d'imposer les mesures administratives ¨¤ Mme Pakkala ¨¦tait un exercice l¨¦gal et raisonnable du pouvoir discr¨¦tionnaire. La lettre du directeur, DHR a clairement ¨¦nonc¨¦ la justification pour imposer les mesures administratives, c'est-¨¤-dire que le processus d'enqu¨ºte avait fait surface un mod¨¨le de comportement pr¨¦sent¨¦ par Mme Pakkala au fil du temps, ce qui ¨¦tait pr¨¦occupant et justifi¨¦ les mesures administratives. Alors que le directeur, DHR a constat¨¦ que la preuve d'un pr¨¦sum¨¦ harc¨¨lement n'¨¦tait pas claire et convaincante, ¨¤...