Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Le TANU a estim¨¦ que l'ancien membre du personnel n'avait pas fourni d'¨¦l¨¦ments prouvant qu'il avait droit ¨¤ une indemnisation pour le pr¨¦judice subi. En particulier, le TANU a estim¨¦ qu'aucune preuve n'avait ¨¦t¨¦ fournie pour ¨¦tablir un lien entre l'ill¨¦galit¨¦ commise et le pr¨¦judice subi par l'ancienne employ¨¦e en cons¨¦quence. Le TANU a soulign¨¦ que le rapport m¨¦dical pr¨¦sent¨¦ par l'ancienne employ¨¦e indiquait qu'elle se plaignait d'un manque de sommeil et de maux de t¨ºte "depuis plusieurs ann¨¦es" et que ces sympt?mes correspondaient ¨¤ un ¨¦tat pathologique diagnostiqu¨¦ ant¨¦rieurement.

En...

Le TANU a not¨¦ que l'agent avait demand¨¦ ¨¤ ¨ºtre reclass¨¦ au grade HL7 dans son courriel du 2 janvier 2017 et que ses communications ult¨¦rieures avaient ¨¦t¨¦ des r¨¦it¨¦rations de cette demande.

Le TANU a estim¨¦ que l'administration devait compenser la perte r¨¦elle de revenus subie par l'agent ¨¤ partir du moment o¨´ son reclassement aurait d? ¨ºtre mis en ?uvre. Le TANU a estim¨¦ que le DT de l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵWRA avait consid¨¦r¨¦ ¨¤ juste titre que le d¨¦lai de six mois ¨¦tait raisonnable. Le TANU a conclu que le DT de l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA n'avait pas commis d'erreur de droit ou de fait en d¨¦cidant que la diff¨¦rence de salaire...

Le TANU a estim¨¦ que le Tribunal avait agi dans le cadre de son pouvoir discr¨¦tionnaire en rendant l'arr¨ºt contest¨¦ sans tenir d'audience, d'autant plus que la question ¨¤ examiner ¨¦tait celle de la recevabilit¨¦. Le TANU a ¨¦galement estim¨¦ que le TANU n'avait pas commis d'erreur en ne donnant pas ¨¤ l'agent la possibilit¨¦ de commenter la r¨¦ponse du Secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral, ¨¦tant donn¨¦ qu'il n'avait pas d¨¦pos¨¦ de requ¨ºte en vue d'obtenir des conclusions suppl¨¦mentaires.

Le TANU a estim¨¦ que le TANU avait correctement identifi¨¦ que la d¨¦cision contest¨¦e ¨¦tait la d¨¦cision de l'administration de ne pas...

Le TANU a not¨¦ que le Tribunal du contentieux administratif avait rendu l'ordonnance contest¨¦e faisant droit ¨¤ la demande de prorogation du d¨¦lai de d¨¦p?t de la requ¨ºte sans que la partie l¨¦s¨¦e ait ¨¦t¨¦ entendue et sans ¨ºtre habilit¨¦ ¨¤ le faire. Le TANU a estim¨¦ que le Tribunal du contentieux administratif ne s'¨¦tait pas techniquement conform¨¦ ¨¤ ses propres instructions pratiques en rendant l'ordonnance et qu'il avait peut-¨ºtre strictement viol¨¦ les principes de justice naturelle et de proc¨¦dure r¨¦guli¨¨re en ne donnant pas au Secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral un pr¨¦avis suffisant de la requ¨ºte et la...

Le TANU a estim¨¦ qu'en demandant ¨¤ la direction d'¨¦valuer le r¨¦sultat n¨¦gatif de la proc¨¦dure de reclassement, l'agent n'avait pas respect¨¦ les r¨¨gles de proc¨¦dure. Il aurait d? faire appel de la d¨¦cision contest¨¦e, comme le pr¨¦voient les sections 5 et 6 de l'instruction administrative ST/AI/1998/9 (Syst¨¨me de classement des postes). La demande de l'agent n'¨¦tant pas recevable, le TANU a estim¨¦ qu'il ne pouvait pas examiner ses observations et ses preuves suppl¨¦mentaires concernant le fond de l'affaire. Le TANU a rejet¨¦ la demande d'indemnisation de l'agent ¨¤ la lumi¨¨re de sa d¨¦cision de...

Le TANU a estim¨¦ que l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT avait correctement appliqu¨¦ le cadre juridique r¨¦gissant la r¨¦siliation d'un engagement pour performances insatisfaisantes. Le TANU a constat¨¦ que l'agent connaissait le niveau de performance requis pour son poste et qu'il avait b¨¦n¨¦fici¨¦ d'une possibilit¨¦ ¨¦quitable de satisfaire ¨¤ ce niveau. Le TANU a observ¨¦ qu'il avait re?u la mention "r¨¦pond partiellement aux attentes" pour deux cycles de performance, et la mention "ne r¨¦pond pas aux attentes" pour le cycle de performance le plus r¨¦cent. Il avait ¨¦galement fait l'objet d'un plan d'am¨¦lioration des...

Le TANU a estim¨¦ qu'en l'absence de preuve d'un abus manifeste de proc¨¦dure par le Commissaire g¨¦n¨¦ral devant le Tribunal du contentieux administratif de l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA, ou de constatation par le Tribunal du contentieux administratif de l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA d'un tel abus de proc¨¦dure, les ordonnances relatives aux frais de justice rendues par le Tribunal du contentieux administratif n'¨¦taient pas conformes aux dispositions de l'article 10 du statut du Tribunal du contentieux administratif de l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA et ¨¦taient donc injustifi¨¦es et ne pouvaient pas ¨ºtre maintenues. De plus, si le TANU a consid¨¦r¨¦ que les frais de...

Le TANU a rejet¨¦ la demande de r¨¦vision, estimant qu'aucun des faits nouveaux all¨¦gu¨¦s n'¨¦tait un "fait nouveau" au sens de l'article 11, paragraphe 1, du statut du TANU. Les faits nouveaux all¨¦gu¨¦s ¨¦taient soit survenus apr¨¨s le prononc¨¦ de l'arr¨ºt du TANU, soit connus du Tribunal d'appel, soit des questions de droit.

Le TANU a accueilli la demande de correction en partie, dans la mesure o¨´ il a accept¨¦ l'argument de Mme Raschdorf selon lequel une erreur s'est produite au paragraphe 44 de l'arr¨ºt du TANU, o¨´ le TANU a fait r¨¦f¨¦rence ¨¤ tort au Comit¨¦ consultatif pour les demandes d...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the application for revision, finding that none of the alleged new facts were ¡°new facts¡± for the purpose of Article 11(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. The alleged new facts either occurred after the issuance of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment, were known to the Appeals Tribunal, or matters of law.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT granted the application for correction in part, to the extent that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ms. Raschdorf's argument that an error arose in paragraph 44 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment where the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT wrongly referred to the Advisory Board on Compensation Claims instead of the Pension Fund.

Finally, the...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that with no evidence of a manifest abuse of proceedings by the Commissioner-General before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT, nor any finding by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT of such an abuse of proceedings, the legal cost orders made by the Dispute Tribunal did not accord with the terms of Article 10 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT Statute and were therefore unjustified and could not be sustained. Moreover, if the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered that the legal costs were awarded by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT under Article 10(5)(b) (which was not apparent from the Judgment), there existed no basis to justify such an order given the evidence before the Dispute...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT properly applied the legal framework governing the termination of appointments for unsatisfactory performance. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the staff member was aware of the required performance standard for his post and that he had been given a fair opportunity to meet this standard. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that he had received ¡°partially meets performance expectations¡± for two performance cycles, and ¡°does not meet expectations¡± for the most recent performance cycle. He had also been placed on a performance improvement plan, but failed to meet all of the objectives of the PIP...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that in light of multiple competing requests for lateral transfer, the staff member had not been one of the candidates who was recommended and selected for the position because her responsibilities had been different from the duties of the requested position, and the Agency sought candidates more familiar with those duties.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that under the relevant legal provisions governing lateral transfers, read together and not in isolation, the Agency had been authorized to base its assessment on the candidates¡¯ suitability for the post instead of seniority, compelling reasons...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that by requesting management evaluation of the negative outcome of the reclassification process, the staff member breached procedural prerequisites. Instead, he should have appealed the contested decision as laid down in Sections 5 and 6 of ST/AI/1998/9 (System for the classification of posts). As the staff member¡¯s application was not receivable, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that it could not consider his submissions and additional evidence concerning the merits of the case. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the staff member¡¯s request for compensation in light of its decision to affirm the impugned...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT acted within its discretion by issuing the impugned Judgment without holding an oral hearing, especially as the issue for consideration was one of receivability. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in failing to give the staff member an opportunity to comment on the Secretary-General¡¯s reply as he did not file a motion for additional pleadings.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly identified that the contested decision was the Administration¡¯s decision not to reclassify his position.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member should have appealed the...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the former staff member failed to provide evidence to prove entitlement to compensation for harm suffered. In particular, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that no evidence was submitted proving a nexus between the illegality committed and any harm suffered by the former staff member as a result. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT highlighted that the medical report submitted by the former staff member recorded that she had complained of lack of sleep and headaches ¡°for several years¡± and that such symptoms were consistent with a previous diagnosed medical condition.

As to the costs of the appeal, since there was no...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Dispute Tribunal had issued the impugned Order granting the request to extend the time limit for filing the application without the adversely-affected party being heard and without authority to do so. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not technically complied with its own Practice Direction in issuing the Order and may have strictly violated the principles of natural justice and due process by failing to give the Secretary-General adequate notice of the motion and an opportunity to reply.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed, however, that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had accepted the staff member¡¯s averment...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the staff member had requested to be reclassified at Grade HL7 in her e-mail dated 2 January 2017 and her subsequent communications had been reiterations of that request.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Administration should compensate the actual loss of income the staff member incurred from the moment her reclassification should have been implemented. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵWRA DT had appropriately considered the time limit of six months reasonable. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT had not erred in law or fact in holding that she should be paid the difference in salary and...

Le TANU a estim¨¦ que l'agent ne remplissait pas les conditions requises pour la r¨¦vision de l'arr¨ºt ant¨¦rieur du TANU. Le TANU a constat¨¦ que l'agent n'avait avanc¨¦ aucun fait nouveau qui aurait ¨¦t¨¦ inconnu de lui ou du TANU au moment de l'arr¨ºt pr¨¦c¨¦dent, ni aucun fait qui aurait ¨¦t¨¦ d¨¦cisif pour la prise de d¨¦cision s'il avait ¨¦t¨¦ connu. Le TANU a estim¨¦ que la demande de r¨¦vision de l'agent se r¨¦sumait ¨¤ une reformulation des ¨¦l¨¦ments d¨¦j¨¤ pr¨¦sent¨¦s au TANU, qui avaient ¨¦t¨¦ examin¨¦s et rejet¨¦s, et qu'elle constituait une tentative de faire r¨¦examiner de novo le recours qui avait ¨¦t¨¦ tranch¨¦...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member did not fulfil the requirements for revision of the prior Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that no new fact was advanced by the staff member that had been unknown either to him or the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT at the time of the prior Judgment, nor one that would have been decisive in reaching the decision had it been known. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was of the view that his application for revision amounted to a restatement of the material already placed before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, which had been considered and rejected, and constituted an attempt to have the appeal, which had been disposed of, re-heard de...

Le Tribunal a souscrit ¨¤ la conclusion du Tribunal sur la recevabilit¨¦ de la demande, mais a sugg¨¦r¨¦ que le Tribunal aurait d? appliquer une m¨¦thode diff¨¦rente pour statuer sur la demande.

Le Tribunal a estim¨¦ que le fonctionnaire n¡¯avait pas qualit¨¦ pour agir devant le Tribunal en ce qui concerne les r¨¦clamations formul¨¦es en sa qualit¨¦ d¡¯entrepreneur individuel, de sorte que cette demande a ¨¦t¨¦ rejet¨¦e pour des motifs ratione personae. Les autres demandes formul¨¦es en sa qualit¨¦ d¡¯ancien fonctionnaire ont ¨¦t¨¦ rejet¨¦es pour des raisons ratione materiae. Il n¡¯a pas r¨¦ussi ¨¤ le prouver qu¡¯une...