Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

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

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que le Tribunal n'avait pas commis d'erreur de fait en n'ayant pas consid¨¦r¨¦ la cessation de service, mentionn¨¦e dans l'avis de cessation de service, comme le motif de la d¨¦cision contest¨¦e ; la mention de la retraite n¡¯avait aucune incidence sur la cessation de service du fonctionnaire. L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que la lettre l'informant de l'expiration de son engagement de dur¨¦e d¨¦termin¨¦e ¨¦tait conforme ¨¤ la suppression du poste qu'elle occupait.

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a not¨¦ que le contr?le judiciaire dans le contexte d'une suspension d...

? titre pr¨¦liminaire, l¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a rejet¨¦ la demande d¡¯audience de M. Qassem. L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que les questions factuelles et juridiques soulev¨¦es par l'appel avaient ¨¦t¨¦ clairement d¨¦finies par les parties et qu'en outre, une audience orale ne ? contribuerait pas ¨¤ r¨¦gler l'affaire de mani¨¨re rapide et ¨¦quitable ?.

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que, puisque l'engagement de dur¨¦e d¨¦termin¨¦e de M. Qassem avait ¨¦t¨¦ prolong¨¦ au-del¨¤ du 31 mars 2020, sans effet donn¨¦ ¨¤ la d¨¦cision administrative initiale de ne pas renouveler son engagement au-del¨¤ de cette date, le Tribunal n'avait pas commis d'erreur en concluant...

As a preliminary matter, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed Mr. Qassem¡¯s request for an oral hearing. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the factual and legal issues arising from the appeal had been clearly defined by the parties and moreover, an oral hearing would not ¡°assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case¡±.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that since Mr. Qassem¡¯s fixed-term appointment was extended beyond 31 March 2020, with no effect given to the initial administrative decision not to renew his employment beyond this date, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in finding that the application was moot since the administrative decision...

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

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not erred in fact when it had not considered separation on retirement, mentioned in the separation notice, to be the reason for the contested decision; the mention of retirement had no import on the staff member¡¯s separation. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was of the view that the letter informing her of the expiry of her fixed-term appointment was in line with the abolition of the post she encumbered.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that judicial review in the context of suspension of action is different from the review conducted by the Tribunal...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing, finding that that the issues were well-defined and required no further development through an oral hearing.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s application for review of the response to his request for management evaluation of his non-selection was not receivable ratione materiae as it did not produce direct legal consequences for him and was, therefore, not a reviewable administrative decision.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also found that the Appellant was informed of the outcome of his request for a management evaluation regarding his non-selection...

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que la r¨¦paration demand¨¦e dans la requ¨ºte concernait une question qui n'avait pas ¨¦t¨¦ soulev¨¦e auparavant devant l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT ou l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, ¨¤ savoir le recouvrement d'un montant d¨¦j¨¤ pay¨¦ ¨¤ titre de d¨¦pense admissible selon une ¨¦chelle mobile.

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ qu'il n'y avait rien de flou ou d'ambigu dans le sens ou la port¨¦e du jugement ant¨¦rieur, les termes de l'ordonnance ¨¦tant clairs. L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a not¨¦ qu¡¯il n¡¯¨¦tait pas n¨¦cessaire d¡¯interpr¨¦ter le jugement ant¨¦rieur pour en clarifier le sens, et qu¡¯il n¡¯existait pas non plus de doutes raisonnables sur ce qui constituait la d¨¦cision de...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the relief sought in the application concerned an issue not previously raised before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT or the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, being the recovery of an amount already paid as an admissible expense on a sliding scale.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was nothing in the meaning or scope of the prior Judgment that was unclear or ambiguous, the terms of the order were clear. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted there was no need to interpret the prior Judgment to clarify its meaning, nor were there reasonable doubts about what constituted the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT¡¯s decision or the reasons for it.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was of the view that there was also...

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a examin¨¦ trois recours du requ¨¦rant.

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que l'ordonnance contest¨¦e ¨¦tait une ordonnance interlocutoire et ne relevait manifestement pas de sa comp¨¦tence.

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que le requ¨¦rant n'avait pas pr¨¦sent¨¦ de documents prouvant qu'il ¨¦tait membre du personnel des Nations Unies et qu'il n'avait aucun statut juridique devant le Tribunal. L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a not¨¦ que rien ne prouvait qu'une offre d'engagement lui avait ¨¦t¨¦ adress¨¦e pour l'un ou l'autre poste. Deuxi¨¨mement, il n¡¯a pas accompli les formalit¨¦s pr¨¦alables au recrutement pour les deux postes. Troisi¨¨mement, il n'a pas...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered three appeals by the applicant.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the impugned Order was an interlocutory order and was obviously beyond the competence of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the applicant had not submitted documents to prove being a United Nations staff member and that he had no legal standing before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that there was no evidence of an offer of appointment having been issued to him for either post. Second, he failed to complete the pre-recruitment formalities for both posts. Third, he failed to confirm, within a reasonable time, his interest and...

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a rejet¨¦ l'affirmation de M. Neupane selon laquelle l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT avait commis une erreur en estimant qu'il contestait la d¨¦cision de r¨¦affectation alors qu'en fait il contestait l'absence d'habilitation du Comit¨¦ central de contr?le des missions et d'inscription sur la liste pour le poste r¨¦affect¨¦. La requ¨ºte ¨¦tait assez floue et portait principalement sur la question de la r¨¦gularit¨¦ de la d¨¦cision de r¨¦affectation qui ¨¦tait conforme ¨¤ la demande de contr?le hi¨¦rarchique de M. Neupane contestant directement et clairement sa r¨¦affectation. La question de l¡¯inscription sur la liste n¡¯a ¨¦t¨¦...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed Mr. Neupane's contention that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred when it found that he was contesting the reassignment decision when in fact he was contesting the lack of his Field Central Review Board clearance and roster membership for the reassigned post. The application was quite unclear, and focused mainly on the question of regularity of the reassignment decision which was in line with Mr. Neupane¡¯s request for management evaluation challenging directly and clearly his reassignment. The issue of rostering was raised only as an argument to prove the alleged procedural irregularity of Mr...

M. Nastase a fait appel du jugement du Tribunal.

Le TANU a confirm¨¦ la conclusion du TDNU selon laquelle il n'avait pas ¨¦t¨¦ ¨¦tabli par des preuves que la d¨¦cision administrative de classer sa plainte ¨¦tait motiv¨¦e par un parti pris ¨¤ son encontre et ¨¦tait donc ill¨¦gale.

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a rejet¨¦ l'affirmation de M. Nastase selon laquelle le Tribunal avait commis une erreur en concluant que le fait qu'en 2019, M. Nastase avait d¨¦pos¨¦ une plainte contre le CIOS pour mauvaise conduite n'avait aucun rapport avec ses probl¨¨mes de performance. L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que ces ¨¦v¨¦nements ne faisant pas partie de sa...

Mr. Nastase appealed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT's finding that it had not been established by evidence that the administrative decision to close his complaint was actuated by bias against him and was therefore unlawful.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed Mr. Nastase's contention that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding that the fact that in 2019, Mr. Nastase had filed a complaint against the CIOS alleging misconduct was unrelated to his performance issues. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that because these events were not part of his complaint of harassment and abuse of authority in relation to his performance...

? titre pr¨¦liminaire, l¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a acc¨¦d¨¦ ¨¤ la demande d¡¯anonymat d¡¯AAM. Consid¨¦rant que le jugement contenait des d¨¦tails m¨¦dicaux concernant AAM, l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a jug¨¦ n¨¦cessaire de prot¨¦ger ses informations confidentielles.

L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ qu¡¯il y avait quatre questions ¨¤ trancher en appel : 1) la question de savoir si l¡¯appel d¡¯AAM ¨¦tait th¨¦orique/pr¨¦matur¨¦ ¨¤ la lumi¨¨re d¡¯une d¨¦cision m¨¦dicale en cours ; 2) si le Tribunal a commis une erreur en concluant que le Contr?leur avait le pouvoir d¨¦l¨¦gu¨¦ de rejeter la demande d¡¯indemnisation d¡¯AAM au titre de l¡¯Annexe D ; 3) si le Tribunal a commis une...

As a preliminary matter, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT granted AAM¡¯s request for anonymity. Considering that the Judgment set out medical details regarding AAM, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found it necessary to protect his confidential information.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that there were four issues for adjudication on appeal: 1) whether AAM¡¯s appeal was moot/premature in light of a pending medical determination; 2) whether the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding that the Controller had the delegated authority to deny AAM¡¯s claim for compensation under Appendix D; 3) whether the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding that the decision of the Controller was reasonable...

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

Le TANU a estim¨¦ que le Tribunal avait examin¨¦ la d¨¦cision disciplinaire de mani¨¨re approfondie et m¨¦thodique ; le Tribunal n¡¯a pas commis d¡¯erreur de fait ou de droit en proc¨¦dant ¨¤ l¡¯analyse de proportionnalit¨¦ et il n¡¯y a eu aucune irr¨¦gularit¨¦ dans l¡¯enqu¨ºte et la proc¨¦dure disciplinaire justifiant une intervention.

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a convenu que l'obligation de ne pas divulguer d'informations internes ne se limite pas aux informations confidentielles. L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que m¨ºme si la fonctionnaire exer?ait des fonctions de liaison avec les...

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT avait exerc¨¦ son pouvoir discr¨¦tionnaire pour proc¨¦der par jugement sommaire, sans examiner le fond de l'affaire, de mani¨¨re l¨¦gale et appropri¨¦e. Elle a estim¨¦ que de cette mani¨¨re, la DT de l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA avait agi non seulement conform¨¦ment aux principes d'¨¦conomie et d'efficacit¨¦ judiciaires, mais ¨¦galement dans l'int¨¦r¨ºt d'un r¨¨glement rapide de l'affaire. L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a constat¨¦ que le requ¨¦rant a re?u la d¨¦cision administrative contest¨¦e le 3 novembre 2009 et a d¨¦pos¨¦ sa demande aupr¨¨s du DT de l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA le 12 ao?t 2022. Il ¨¦tait donc ¨¦vident qu'il avait d¨¦pos¨¦ sa...

L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a d¡¯abord rejet¨¦ la demande d¡¯audience de M. Guenfoudi.

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a conclu qu'en tant que membre de longue date du Secr¨¦tariat, M. Guenfoudi ¨¦tait conscient des normes de performance requises pour sa fonction de traducteur verbatim. L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a ¨¦galement estim¨¦ qu'il avait eu une possibilit¨¦ ¨¦quitable de rem¨¦dier ¨¤ ses lacunes en mati¨¨re de performances, mais il a refus¨¦ de participer aux deux plans d'am¨¦lioration des performances. L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que le cadre juridique de l¡¯Organisation indiquait clairement que le licenciement ¨¦tait une mesure pr¨¦visible apr¨¨s deux ann¨¦es cons¨¦cutives de...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that as a long-serving member of the Secretariat, Mr. Guenfoudi was aware of the required standards of performance for his function as a Verbatim Translator. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also held that he had been given a fair opportunity to address his performance shortcomings, but he refused to participate in the two performance improvement plans. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Organization¡¯s legal framework was clear that termination was a foreseeable action following two consecutive years of substandard performance ratings. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also found that Mr. Guenfoudi¡¯s allegations that his...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT exercised its discretion to proceed by summary judgment, without examining the merits of the case, lawfully and appropriately. It found that in this way, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT acted not only in accordance with the principles of judicial economy and efficiency, but also in the interest of expeditious disposal of the case.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Appellant received the contested administrative decision on 3 November 2009 and filed his application with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT on 12 August 2022. Therefore, it was obvious that he filed his application more than three years after his...