Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s conclusion on the receivability of the application but suggested that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT should have applied a different methodology for determining it.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member did not have standing before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT regarding claims made in his former capacity as an individual contractor, and thus this claim failed on ratione personae grounds. The other claims made in his former capacity as staff member failed on ratione materiae grounds. He failed to prove that a specific request had been made to the Administration for certification of service. Absent any...

M. Ronved a fait appel.

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a rejet¨¦ l'appel et confirm¨¦ le jugement du Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT.

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que le Tribunal avait commis une erreur en jugeant la requ¨ºte irrecevable en ce qui concerne le refus d'une promotion temporaire ¨¤ la classe P-4. La d¨¦cision contest¨¦e devant le Tribunal du contentieux administratif ¨¦tait la d¨¦cision de proroger le SPA, que l'appelant a contest¨¦e en temps utile devant le MEU et le Tribunal du contentieux administratif du Tribunal. La prolongation du PSA et le refus d'accorder une promotion ¨¦taient les deux faces d'une m¨ºme d¨¦cision, avec les m¨ºmes d¨¦lais pour le...

Mr. Ronved appealed.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding the application not receivable with respect to the refusal of a temporary promotion to the P-4 level.? The contested decision before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was the decision to extend the SPA, which the Appellant timely challenged before the MEU and the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT.? The extension of the SPA and the denial to grant a promotion were two sides of the same decision, with the same time limits for management evaluation.? Therefore, the request for management evaluation of both decisions was...

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a examin¨¦ un appel du Secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral.

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que l'administration de l'examen ¨¦crit sur les affaires de s¨¦curit¨¦ dans la pr¨¦sente affaire n'avait pas respect¨¦ les normes minimales d¨¦taill¨¦es dans Chhikara. L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a not¨¦ que l'Administration avait d'abord administr¨¦ le test, analys¨¦ les r¨¦sultats, et qu'ensuite seulement elle avait d¨¦cid¨¦ que certaines questions devaient ¨ºtre ¨¦limin¨¦es de l'examen. L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que la suppression inopin¨¦e et ex post de questions de l'examen ¨¦crit, apr¨¨s que celui-ci ait d¨¦j¨¤ ¨¦t¨¦ corrig¨¦, violait ¨¤ premi¨¨re vue l'obligation d'administrer...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the administration of the written security affairs exam in the present case had not met the minimum standards detailed in Chhikara. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Administration had first administered the test, analyzed the results, and only then had decided that certain questions should be eliminated from consideration. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the unannounced and ex post deletion of questions from the written examination, after it had already been marked, on its very face violated the obligation to administer the test in a...

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

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que le raisonnement suivi par le DT de l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA pour refuser une audience parce que le fonctionnaire n'avait pas ¨¦tabli que son recours ¨¦tait recevable ¨¦tait ex post facto et, par cons¨¦quent, erron¨¦.

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a constat¨¦ qu'il y avait une erreur dans le calcul de l'indemnit¨¦ par le DT de l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA en remplacement de l'annulation de la d¨¦cision de non-s¨¦lection, car il n'y avait aucune preuve pour ¨¦tayer la conclusion selon laquelle l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA l'aurait jug¨¦ inapte ¨¤ occuper ce poste ¨¤ la fin de la p¨¦riode. p¨¦riode de probation.

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que l'absence de discussion sur la gestion de l'affaire et d'audience devant le TCNU ne constituait pas une erreur de proc¨¦dure.

Le TANU a estim¨¦ que le Tribunal n'avait pas commis d'erreur en admettant et en examinant le m¨¦morandum d'all¨¦gations de mauvaise conduite, car celui-ci avait ¨¦t¨¦ utilis¨¦ par l'Administration uniquement pour v¨¦rifier que les circonstances justifiant le placement du requ¨¦rant en ALWP existaient.

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a ¨¦galement constat¨¦ que le rapport d'enqu¨ºte du BSCI ne faisait pas r¨¦f¨¦rence aux communications entre l'appelant et son conseil, ni aux ¨¦changes au...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the absence of a case management discussion and an oral hearing before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was not a procedural error.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in admitting and considering the memorandum of allegations of misconduct, as it was used by the Administration only to verify that circumstances warranting the placement of the Appellant on ALWP occurred. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also found that the OIOS Investigation Report did not refer to the communications between the Appellant and his counsel, nor to exchanges during a mediation process, but only considered the Appellant¡¯s objective...

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

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s reasoning for refusing an oral hearing because the staff member failed to establish that her appeal was receivable, was ex post facto and, thereby, erroneous.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that there was an error in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s calculation of compensation in lieu of rescission of the non-selection decision as there was no evidence to support the conclusion that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA would have found her unsuitable for the role at the end of the probationary period.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was of the view that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s methodology of fixing...

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que la DT de l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA n'avait pas commis d'erreur en accordant une indemnit¨¦ compensatrice. Elle a examin¨¦ ¨¤ juste titre les chances de M. Fanous d¡¯¨ºtre s¨¦lectionn¨¦ pour le poste lorsqu¡¯elle a d¨¦clar¨¦ qu¡¯elle consid¨¦rait qu¡¯il n¡¯y avait aucune garantie d¡¯une s¨¦lection future. La DT de l¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA a appliqu¨¦ un montant forfaitaire sp¨¦cifique au contexte. Elle a pris en compte la probabilit¨¦ de s¨¦lection et le salaire de M. Fanous ¨¤ l¡¯¨¦poque. Elle a rendu une d¨¦cision qui ¨¦tait juste et juste dans le cas pr¨¦sent, mais a ¨¦galement adopt¨¦ une approche fond¨¦e sur des principes qui a pris...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not err in its award of in-lieu compensation. It appropriately considered Mr. Fanous¡¯ chance of selection for the post when it stated that it considered there was no guarantee of a future selection. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT applied a context-specific lump sum amount. It considered the likelihood of selection and Mr. Fanous¡¯ salary at the time. It made a determination that was fair and just in the present case but also took a principled approach that considered all relevant considerations.

As to Mr. Fanous¡¯ request for moral damages, with regard to the First and...

L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a rejet¨¦ la demande d¡¯audience de M. Turk et n¡¯a trouv¨¦ aucune erreur dans la d¨¦cision du Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT de ne pas ordonner la production de documents suppl¨¦mentaires. L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a r¨¦affirm¨¦ le cadre juridique qui pr¨¦voit que les membres du personnel n'ont aucune attente l¨¦gitime de renouvellement de leur engagement ¨¤ dur¨¦e d¨¦termin¨¦e.

L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a ¨¦galement confirm¨¦ que les tribunaux n¡¯interf¨¦reront pas avec le pouvoir discr¨¦tionnaire de l¡¯Organisation en mati¨¨re de d¨¦cisions de restructuration et qu¡¯ils n¡¯ont pas le pouvoir de r¨¦viser les d¨¦cisions de l¡¯Assembl¨¦e g¨¦n¨¦rale relatives aux questions...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT declined Mr. Turk¡¯s request for an oral hearing, and found no error in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s decision not to order the production of additional documents.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT reaffirmed the legal framework which provides that staff members have no legitimate expectation of any renewal of their fixed-term appointments. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also confirmed that the Tribunals will not interfere with the Organization¡¯s discretion in restructuring decisions, and that the Tribunals have no authority to review General Assembly decisions related to administrative and budgetary matters. In this case, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the...

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a conclu que le Tribunal du contentieux administratif s'¨¦tait inspir¨¦ des facteurs appropri¨¦s pour accorder une indemnit¨¦ compensatoire. Plus pr¨¦cis¨¦ment, le Tribunal a examin¨¦ l'anciennet¨¦ du fonctionnaire, le type de contrat qu'il occupait et les chances de se voir proposer des postes ¨¦quivalents, les motifs du licenciement et les mois de service jusqu'¨¤ l'?ge de la retraite. Compte tenu de la d¨¦f¨¦rence du TANU ¨¤ l¡¯¨¦gard du TCNU sur de telles questions, le TANU a estim¨¦ qu¡¯il ¨¦tait inutile de r¨¦examiner ces facteurs.

L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a rejet¨¦ l¡¯affirmation du Secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral selon laquelle...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that the Dispute Tribunal had been guided by the appropriate factors in making its award of compensation in lieu. Specifically, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had considered the seniority of the staff member, the type of contract he held and the chance of being offered equivalent positions, the reasons for termination, and months of service until retirement age. In light of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT¡¯s deference to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT in such matters, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found it to be an adventure in futility to re-examine these factors.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the Secretary-General¡¯s contention that the length of the Temporary Job...

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT avait commis une erreur en estimant que l'administration avait mal interpr¨¦t¨¦ l'une des exigences pour le poste annonc¨¦ dans le JO 127555, ¨¤ savoir ? l'exp¨¦rience dans la direction de grandes ¨¦quipes ?, comme exigeant une exp¨¦rience de la supervision directe de 10 personnes ou plus. L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a en outre estim¨¦ que l¡¯avis de vacance permettait une interpr¨¦tation contextuelle dans la mesure o¨´ le sens litt¨¦ral du terme ? diriger ? est tr¨¨s g¨¦n¨¦ral et ne permet pas, en soi, de comprendre exactement le sens voulu. Par cons¨¦quent, l¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ qu¡¯il ¨¦tait raisonnable pour...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in holding that the Administration misinterpreted one of the requirements for the position advertised in JO 127555, namely ¡°experience in leading large teams¡±, as requiring experience of direct supervision of 10 people or more. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further found that the vacancy announcement allowed for a such contextual interpretation as the literal meaning of ¡°lead¡± is very general and does not, by itself, allow for an exact comprehension of the intended meaning. Therefore, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was reasonable for the Administration to interpret the requirement of...

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a rejet¨¦ l'appel, sans pr¨¦judice.

L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a not¨¦ que le recours de M. Radu concernait la d¨¦cision administrative du 8 novembre 2021 concernant sa cessation de service pendant un arr¨ºt de maladie certifi¨¦.

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a en outre not¨¦ qu'un recours distinct de M. Radu, d'abord devant la Commission de recours et maintenant devant l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, concernait cette m¨ºme d¨¦cision administrative du 8 novembre 2021 sur le fond, ¨¤ savoir la mesure disciplinaire de cessation de service pour la faute all¨¦gu¨¦e ( Cas Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT n¡ã 2023-1804).

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que la d¨¦cision attaqu¨¦e de la Commission de recours dans...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal, without prejudice.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that Mr. Radu¡¯s appeal concerned the administrative decision of 8 November 2021 in respect of his separation from service during certified sick leave.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further noted that a separate appeal by Mr. Radu, first before the Appeals Board and now before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, concerned that same administrative decision of 8 November 2021 on its merits, i.e. the disciplinary measure of separation from service for the alleged misconduct (Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Case No. 2023-1804).

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the impugned Appeals Board Decision in this case was not...

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...