Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in dismissing both applications as not receivable. Regarding the first application, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Settlement Agreement encompassed all disciplinary sanctions imposed on 9 December 2022, including the deferment of eligibility for salary increment. Therefore, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was wrong to conclude that the deferment was outside the scope of the Agreement and that the Agreement had been fully implemented. The application for enforcement was properly receivable.

As to the second application, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Administration¡¯s interpretation of the Settlement...

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT avait correctement conclu que la d¨¦cision contest¨¦e ¨¦tait l¨¦gale. Il a conclu que l'¨¦valuation pr¨¦liminaire de la plainte de l'ancien membre du personnel ne r¨¦v¨¦lait aucun motif suffisant pour indiquer que la conduite pr¨¦tendument insatisfaisante de son FRO pouvait constituer une faute professionnelle et que, par cons¨¦quent, il ¨¦tait peu probable qu'une enqu¨ºte r¨¦v¨¨le des preuves suffisantes pour poursuivre l'affaire en tant que cas disciplinaire.

Le TÄ¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a ¨¦galement estim¨¦ que le TUD avait correctement identifi¨¦ la d¨¦cision faisant l'objet du contr?le...

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que le TSD avait correctement exerc¨¦ son pouvoir discr¨¦tionnaire en rejetant les all¨¦gations de racisme au sein de la CAF formul¨¦es par l'ancien fonctionnaire, ainsi que son affirmation selon laquelle son avocat avait ¨¦t¨¦ trait¨¦ de mani¨¨re injuste lors de l'audience du TSD, et en rejetant sa demande de citer l'enqu¨ºteur ¨¤ compara?tre. N¨¦anmoins, l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a conclu que le TSD avait commis une erreur en concluant que les faits ¨¤ l'origine de la faute pr¨¦sum¨¦e avaient ¨¦t¨¦ prouv¨¦s par des ¨¦l¨¦ments de preuve clairs et convaincants, en particulier dans son ¨¦valuation de la cr¨¦dibilit¨¦...

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que le Tribunal du contentieux de l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA n'avait pas commis d'erreur en concluant que la faute de l'ancien membre du personnel ¨¦tait ¨¦tablie et que la mesure disciplinaire de licenciement, assortie d'une indemnit¨¦ tenant lieu de pr¨¦avis et sans indemnit¨¦ de licenciement, ¨¦tait proportionn¨¦e au regard du cadre r¨¦glementaire de l'Agence. Le TÄ¢¹½ÊÓƵU a soulign¨¦ que la fraude et les pratiques collusoires sont consid¨¦r¨¦es comme des domaines tr¨¨s pr¨¦occupants et que la faute commise par une personne occupant un poste de confiance, tel qu'un membre du Comit¨¦ des pr¨ºts du Fonds de...

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a not¨¦ que plusieurs mois apr¨¨s le d¨¦c¨¨s du participant au Fonds, l'appelant avait produit des formulaires Pens.A/2 visant ¨¤ modifier la d¨¦signation du b¨¦n¨¦ficiaire du r¨¨glement r¨¦siduel, sign¨¦s d'une empreinte digitale et non de la signature du participant. L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a ¨¦galement pris note des preuves m¨¦dicales attestant des signes de d¨¦mence du participant.

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a conclu que l'appelant n'avait fourni aucune preuve ¨¤ l'appui de l'affirmation selon laquelle les capacit¨¦s mentales du participant s'¨¦taient am¨¦lior¨¦es au moment o¨´ il avait appos¨¦ son empreinte digitale sur les formulaires...

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a d¨¦termin¨¦ qu'il avait ¨¦t¨¦ d¨¦montr¨¦ par des preuves claires et convaincantes que l'ancienne employ¨¦e avait commis une faute grave en : i) ne restituant pas ¨¤ la coop¨¦rative de cr¨¦dit f¨¦d¨¦rale des Nations Unies (Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFCU) des fonds d'un montant de 587 428,65 dollars am¨¦ricains qui avaient ¨¦t¨¦ cr¨¦dit¨¦s par erreur sur son compte et auxquels elle n'avait pas droit ; ii) n'ayant pas respect¨¦ un jugement rendu par la Haute Cour de Zambie (jugement de la Haute Cour), qui lui ordonnait de restituer les fonds susmentionn¨¦s ¨¤ l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFCU ; et iii) ayant pr¨¦sent¨¦ de faux documents et/ou d¨¦form¨¦ les...

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT n'avait pas commis d'erreur en concluant que la demande de l'ancien fonctionnaire n'¨¦tait pas recevable ratione materiae car il n'avait pas tent¨¦ de r¨¦soudre le litige par l'interm¨¦diaire du Bureau du M¨¦diateur des Fonds et programmes des Nations Unies, comme l'exigeait explicitement l'accord de r¨¨glement qu'il avait express¨¦ment accept¨¦. Le TÄ¢¹½ÊÓƵU a estim¨¦ que les termes de l'accord de r¨¨glement restaient contraignants et ex¨¦cutoires pour les parties, et que le TNDU n'avait commis aucune erreur en obligeant les parties ¨¤ respecter ces termes.

Le TÄ¢¹½ÊÓƵO a en outre estim¨¦...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the only issue on appeal was whether the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding the additional disciplinary sanction disproportionate and rescinding it. It emphasized that under Staff Rule 10.3(b), sanctions must be proportionate, but the Administration enjoys broad discretion in disciplinary matters, subject to judicial review for lawfulness, rationality, and proportionality.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its authority by substituting its own opinion for that of the Secretary-General. It noted that the Administration had considered all relevant factors, including the seriousness of...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in finding the extensions of administrative leave with pay lawful, as the Administration reasonably assessed the risk to workplace harmony given the appellant¡¯s senior role.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed that the refusals to complete ePAS evaluations and to approve a subordinate¡¯s workplan and telecommuting request constituted insubordination under Staff Rule 1.2(a), which requires compliance with instructions properly issued by supervisors. It clarified that staff must follow instructions even if they believe them unlawful, unless criminal, and that ¡°properly issued¡±...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that months after the death of the participant in the Fund, the Appellant had produced Pens.A/2 forms purporting to change the designation of the beneficiary of the residual settlement, executed by a thumbprint and not the participant¡¯s signature. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also noted the medical evidence of signs of the participant¡¯s dementia.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Appellant had provided no evidence to support the contention that the participant¡¯s mental capacity had improved by the time of thumbprinting the later forms. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Fund had not erred when it found those forms...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in finding that the former staff member¡¯s change of title following a reclassification did not amount to an abolition or discontinuance of her post, rendering her termination of appointment unlawful.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also determined that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in awarding the former staff member compensation in lieu of two years¡¯ net base salary. In this regard, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT emphasized that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly considered the fact that the former staff member¡¯s permanent appointment included a specific undertaking stating that she could only be terminated due to an...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT first considered the staff member¡¯s request for an oral hearing, and decided it was not necessary for the expeditious and fair disposal of his case.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that when the only persons present in a physical assault are the perpetrator and the victim, an oral hearing may be useful for reaching credibility findings. However, in this case, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the staff member and his counsel agreed that they had no witnesses to present at an oral hearing and preferred to rely on the investigation report. In these circumstances, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in not holding an oral hearing...

The Appeals Tribunal found that the Administration¡¯s decision not to investigate further Mr. Lutfiev¡¯s allegations against his former Chief of Staff was one which it was entitled to make given that the former Chief of Staff was no longer an Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA staff member.

Furthermore, the Appeals Tribunal was satisfied that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s decision rescinding Mr. Lutfiev¡¯s separation from service was decided erroneously. The Dispute Tribunal applied the wrong methodology to its consideration of the grounds for Mr. Lutfiev¡¯s separation from service and failed to undertake what is known as the four-pronged...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that the Secretary-General elected to limit the scope of his appeal only against the findings of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT with respect to two of nine instances of alleged misconduct by the former staff member. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further acknowledged that the Secretary-General¡¯s contention was that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law when it applied the legal tests for harassment and sexual harassment to the two incidents.

Nonetheless, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that to determine the issue on appeal required more than simply an application of the correct legal test. To reach any conclusions requires more than simply regard to...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member¡¯s application was not receivable, as he did not file a timely request for management evaluation of the contested decision.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that the staff member was notified of the contested decision on 9 November 2023. Accordingly, he had until 8 January 2024 to file his request for management evaluation, but instead filed it on 12 August 2024, more than 270 days after being notified of the contested decision. It further found that, even assuming that he was notified of the contested decision in February 2024, his request was still submitted well...

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que M. Slayyeh n'avait pas form¨¦ de recours en bonne et due forme contre le jugement contest¨¦, mais qu'il avait plut?t introduit une nouvelle demande d'indemnisation qui n'avait pas ¨¦t¨¦ soumise au Tribunal du contentieux. L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a jug¨¦ qu'il ne pouvait pas soulever en appel une question qui n'avait pas ¨¦t¨¦ pr¨¦sent¨¦e au tribunal de premi¨¨re instance, car cela constituait une violation des droits de l'autre partie ¨¤ une proc¨¦dure r¨¦guli¨¨re et n'¨¦tait pas conforme au syst¨¨me ¨¤ deux niveaux d'administration de la justice.

Le TÄ¢¹½ÊÓƵU a estim¨¦ que les recours disponibles en vertu de l...

Le TÄ¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF avait men¨¦ le processus de s¨¦lection dans le respect total de son cadre juridique administratif, notamment en fournissant des motifs d¨¦taill¨¦s pour justifier le rejet de la candidature du fonctionnaire. Le TÄ¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que sa candidature avait fait l'objet d'un examen complet et ¨¦quitable et qu'il n'avait pas d¨¦montr¨¦, ¨¤ l'aide d'¨¦l¨¦ments de preuve clairs et convaincants, qu'il avait ¨¦t¨¦ priv¨¦ d'une chance ¨¦quitable d'¨ºtre s¨¦lectionn¨¦. Le TÄ¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a not¨¦ qu'il n'y avait aucune preuve de partialit¨¦ ou de mauvaise intention ¨¤ son ¨¦gard.

Le TÄ¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que le fait...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in concluding that the former staff member¡¯s application was not receivable because most of the contested decisions were either time-barred, res judicata, or did not constitute appealable administrative decisions. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Advisory Board on Compensation Claims (ABCC) correctly determined that the claim for compensation under Appendix D remained time-barred under Article 2.1(b) and that the requirements for waiver under Article 2.1(e) were not met, as there was no evidence of incapacity preventing timely filing. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further held that...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Inspector General¡¯s Office (IGO) and the Administration failed to properly consider relevant factors brought to their attention during the investigation into the staff member's misconduct. Specifically, they did not considerate the medical context in which the established misconduct occurred, which could have been exculpatory for the staff member. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that they failed to investigate and appreciate the potential effects of the staff member's brain tumour and/or treatment on certain aspects of his interpersonal relations with other staff members.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT properly exercised its discretion in excluding the former staff member¡¯s allegations of racism within the CAF and his claim that his counsel was treated unfairly during the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT hearing, as well as in denying his request to call the investigator to testify. Nevertheless, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding that the facts underlying the alleged misconduct had been proven by clear and convincing evidence, particularly in its assessment of the credibility of the witnesses.

Regarding V01¡¯s allegations, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT improperly explained away...