Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que la proc¨¦dure neutre de premi¨¨re instance mise en place par l¡¯OMI, ¨¤ savoir le SAB, ¨¦tait correctement
constitu¨¦e et r¨¦pondait aux exigences de l¡¯article 2, paragraphe 10, du Statut de l¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT. L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a rejet¨¦ l¡¯argument selon lequel le SAB manquait de neutralit¨¦. L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a ¨¦galement estim¨¦ que le SAB avait ¨¦tabli un compte rendu ¨¦crit suffisant de sa d¨¦cision.

L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que le SAB avait agi dans les limites de sa juridiction et de sa comp¨¦tence lorsqu¡¯il avait r¨¦examin¨¦ la d¨¦cision du Secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral sur recommandation de l¡¯ABCC. Le SAB avait tenu d?ment compte du...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the neutral first instance process established by the IMO, i.e., the SAB, was properly constituted and met the requirements of Article 2(10) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the argument that the SAB lacked neutrality. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also found that the SAB produced a sufficient written record of its Decision.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the SAB acted within the bounds of its jurisdiction and competence when it reviewed the decision of the Secretary-General on the recommendation of the ABCC. The SAB had close regard to the fact that the ABCC reached its determination on the medical...

L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que l¡¯ancien membre du personnel n¡¯avait pas demand¨¦ d¡¯audience orale au cours de la proc¨¦dure devant l¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT et ne pouvait donc pas ¨ºtre autoris¨¦ ¨¤ le faire en appel. L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, en tant qu¡¯instance charg¨¦e d¡¯appr¨¦cier les faits, ne peut ¨ºtre contourn¨¦e.

L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT n¡¯a constat¨¦ aucune erreur dans la conclusion de l¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT selon laquelle les griefs formul¨¦s par l¡¯ancien membre du
personnel apr¨¨s sa cessation de service sortaient du champ de comp¨¦tence de cette derni¨¨re et n¡¯¨¦taient pas recevables, faute de
demande pr¨¦alable et introduite dans les d¨¦lais en vue d¡¯une ¨¦valuation par la...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the former staff member did not request an oral hearing during proceedings before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and thus cannot be allowed to do so on appeal. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT as the trier of fact cannot be bypassed.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no error in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that the former staff member¡¯s post-separation grievances were beyond its scope of adjudication and not receivable because there was no prior and timely request for management evaluation. The sanction for non-compliance with this mandatory internal procedure is the non-receivability of the application challenging the contested decision.

The...

L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que les questions soulev¨¦es en appel portaient sur le point de savoir si l¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT avait manifestement outrepass¨¦ sa juridiction ou sa comp¨¦tence en rendant les ordonnances interlocutoires contest¨¦es relatives ¨¤ la gestion de l¡¯instance, et si les
erreurs de proc¨¦dure all¨¦gu¨¦es ¨¦taient effectivement irr¨¦m¨¦diables par un jugement d¨¦finitif ou manifestement d¨¦raisonnables au point de justifier un r¨¦examen interlocutoire. Elle a rappel¨¦ que les recours contre des ordonnances interlocutoires ne sont
recevables que dans des circonstances rares et exceptionnelles, et que les questions...

L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que les questions soulev¨¦es en appel portaient sur le point de savoir si le Tribunal des litiges de l¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA avait commis une erreur en concluant que les faits de faute avaient ¨¦t¨¦ ¨¦tablis selon la norme de la preuve claire et convaincante, s¡¯il avait commis une erreur en concluant que le comportement constituait une faute grave, et s¡¯il avait commis une erreur en confirmant la proportionnalit¨¦ de la sanction disciplinaire consistant en la cessation de service sans indemnit¨¦ de licenciement. Il a rappel¨¦ que son r?le n¡¯¨¦tait pas de proc¨¦der ¨¤ un r¨¦examen de novo, mais de...

L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que les questions soulev¨¦es en appel portaient sur les points suivants : le Tribunal administratif des Nations unies (Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵTD) avait-il commis une erreur en concluant que le Secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral avait l¨¦galement exerc¨¦ son pouvoir discr¨¦tionnaire en annulant l¡¯offre d¡¯emploi ? Recrutement ¨¤ partir de la liste de r¨¦serve ? ; cette d¨¦cision reposait-elle sur des motifs rationnels et
raisonnables ; et l¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵTD avait-il commis une erreur en rejetant les all¨¦gations du fonctionnaire relatives ¨¤ une discrimination, ¨¤ un motif ill¨¦gitime ou ¨¤ une irr¨¦gularit¨¦ de proc¨¦dure?

L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que...

L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que les questions soulev¨¦es en appel portaient sur les points suivants : le TND avait-il commis une erreur en concluant que le fonctionnaire avait b¨¦n¨¦fici¨¦ d¡¯un examen complet et ¨¦quitable de sa candidature au poste temporaire vacant ? Avait-il commis une erreur en concluant que la d¨¦cision de non-s¨¦lection n¡¯¨¦tait entach¨¦e d¡¯aucun parti pris, d¡¯aucune discrimination ni d¡¯aucune autre consid¨¦ration ¨¦trang¨¨re ¨¤ l¡¯affaire ? Et avait-il commis une erreur en d¨¦clarant certains griefs irrecevables au motif que le fonctionnaire n¡¯avait pas demand¨¦ d¡¯¨¦valuation de la direction ? Elle...

L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que l¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT n¡¯avait pas commis d¡¯erreur en concluant que la requ¨ºte de l¡¯ancienne employ¨¦e n¡¯¨¦tait pas recevable.

En ce qui concerne les griefs de l¡¯ancienne fonctionnaire relatifs au vol pr¨¦sum¨¦ de son salaire, ¨¤ l¡¯absence pr¨¦sum¨¦e de fondement juridique pour le recouvrement de son indemnit¨¦ de fin de service et ¨¤ la retenue ill¨¦gale pr¨¦sum¨¦e de cette indemnit¨¦, l¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a
estim¨¦ que ces griefs n¡¯¨¦taient pas recevables ratione materiae, car elle n¡¯avait pas demand¨¦ l¡¯¨¦valuation par la direction des
d¨¦cisions contest¨¦es dans le d¨¦lai r¨¦glementaire. ? cet ¨¦gard, l¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a en outre...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in finding that the former staff member¡¯s application was not receivable.

Regarding the former staff member¡¯s claims concerning the alleged theft of her wages, the alleged lack of a legal basis for the recovery of her final pay, and the alleged illegal withholding of her final pay, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that these claims were not receivable ratione materiae, because she failed to request management evaluation of the contested decisions within the statutory time limit.In this regard, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further held that her ignorance or misunderstanding of the law...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the issues on appeal were whether the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding that the staff member received full and fair consideration for the Temporary Job Opening, whether it erred in concluding that the non?selection decision was untainted by bias, discrimination, or other extraneous considerations, and whether it erred in declaring certain claims not receivable for failure to request management evaluation. It recalled that its role on appeal is not to conduct a de novo review, but to determine whether the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT committed an error of law, fact, or procedure resulting in an unreasonable...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the issues on appeal were whether the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding that the Secretary-General lawfully exercised his discretion in cancelling the Recruit from Roster Job Opening, whether the decision was supported by a rational and reasonable basis, and whether the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in rejecting the staff member¡¯s allegations of discrimination, improper motive, or procedural irregularity.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly applied established jurisprudence on staff selection, including the principle that the Administration is not obliged to complete a recruitment exercise once...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the issues on appeal were whether the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA Dispute Tribunal erred in finding that the facts of misconduct were established to the clear and convincing evidence standard, whether it erred in concluding that the conduct constituted serious misconduct, and whether it erred in affirming the proportionality of the disciplinary sanction of separation from service without termination indemnity. It recalled that its role is not to conduct a de novo review, but to determine whether the first?instance tribunal committed an error of law, fact, or procedure resulting in an unreasonable...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the issues on appeal were whether the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had clearly exceeded its jurisdiction or competence in issuing the impugned interlocutory case?management orders, and whether any alleged procedural errors were effectively irremediable by a final judgment or manifestly unreasonable so as to justify interlocutory review. It recalled that appeals against interlocutory orders are receivable only in rare and exceptional circumstances, and that matters relating to evidence, procedure, and trial conduct fall within the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s broad case?management discretion.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT...

Le Tribunal a estim¨¦ que la demande de M. Issa ne remplissait pas les conditions strictes de recevabilit¨¦ pr¨¦vues par le Statut de l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, ¨¤ savoir que le fait d¨¦terminant sur lequel il s'appuie aujourd'hui, ¨¤ savoir la fermeture compl¨¨te de tous les bureaux de l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA en Cisjordanie, ¨¦tait inconnu du Tribunal d'appel et de lui-m¨ºme avant le jugement. Ce fait ¨¦tait clairement connu de M. Issa, ce qui rendait sa demande irrecevable pour ce seul motif.

Le TÄ¢¹½ÊÓƵC a not¨¦ que M. Issa ne pr¨¦sente pas, ni ne pr¨¦tend m¨ºme poss¨¦der, de preuve qu'il s'est effectivement conform¨¦ aux directives de l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA...

The Tribunal found that Mr. Issa¡¯s application does not satisfy the stringent prerequisites for receivability under the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute, namely, that the decisive fact he now relies upon, that all Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA offices in the West Bank field were closed completely, was unknown to the Appeals Tribunal and to himself, prior to the Judgment. This was plainly known to Mr. Issa, rendering his application non-receivable on this ground alone.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that Mr. Issa does not present, or even purport to possess, evidence that he in fact had complied with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA¡¯s directives to advise the Agency of his...

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a d'abord examin¨¦ la demande d'audience orale pr¨¦sent¨¦e par le fonctionnaire et a d¨¦cid¨¦ qu'elle n'¨¦tait pas n¨¦cessaire pour le r¨¨glement rapide et ¨¦quitable de son affaire.

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a fait observer que lorsque les seules personnes pr¨¦sentes lors d'une agression physique sont l'auteur et la victime, une audience orale peut ¨ºtre utile pour ¨¦tablir la cr¨¦dibilit¨¦ des t¨¦moignages. Toutefois, dans le cas pr¨¦sent, le TCSN a not¨¦ que le fonctionnaire et son conseil avaient convenu qu'ils n'avaient aucun t¨¦moin ¨¤ pr¨¦senter lors d'une audience orale et pr¨¦f¨¦raient s'en remettre au rapport d...

Le Tribunal d'appel a fait droit aux appels du Secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral, rejet¨¦ l'appel de M. Heurtematte et infirm¨¦ les jugements du TFP.
Le Tribunal d'appel a estim¨¦ que les motifs largement sp¨¦culatifs invoqu¨¦s par le TFP pour conclure ¨¤ l'existence d'arri¨¨re-pens¨¦es de la part d'ONU Femmes n'¨¦taient pas justifi¨¦s, surtout si on les compare aux raisons imp¨¦rieuses qui ont motiv¨¦ la suppression du poste ¨¤ l'¨¦poque, ¨¤ savoir le fait qu'ONU Femmes n'avait plus de bureau physique au Panama, que le personnel travaillait ¨¤ domicile et que les v¨¦hicules avaient ¨¦t¨¦ vendus. Le TFP est all¨¦ trop loin en...

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 granted the Secretary-General¡¯s appeals, dismissed Mr. Heurtematte¡¯s appeal and reversed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgments.

The Appeals Tribunal found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s largely speculative grounds for concluding ulterior motives by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Women were not justified, especially when compared to the compelling contemporaneous reasons for the abolition, i.e. the fact that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Women no longer had a physical office in Panama, that the staff was working from home, and that the motor vehicles had been sold. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT went too far in reaching its own speculative conclusions why and how Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Women...