Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Le TANU a estim¨¦ que le juge du TNDU n'¨¦tait pas tenu d'indiquer sa position sur les preuves, d'autant plus que toutes les preuves n'avaient pas encore ¨¦t¨¦ pr¨¦sent¨¦es.

Compte tenu de divers ¨¦l¨¦ments, notamment le rapport d'enqu¨ºte, les ¨¦changes de messages WhatsApp et les aveux de l'ancien membre du personnel, le TANU a jug¨¦ cr¨¦dible le r¨¦cit des ¨¦v¨¦nements fait par le plaignant. Il a conclu que le comportement pr¨¦sum¨¦ de l'ancien membre du personnel, qui aurait appel¨¦ la plaignante dans sa chambre le 1er ao?t 2020 et lui aurait demand¨¦ de venir dans son lit, ¨¦tait ¨¦tabli par des preuves...

Le TANU a not¨¦ que l'agent n'avait pas demand¨¦ la r¨¦vision de la d¨¦cision du Comit¨¦ des pensions du personnel des Nations Unies ni fait appel aupr¨¨s du Comit¨¦ permanent, mais qu'il avait plut?t d¨¦pos¨¦ une demande d'¨¦valuation de la gestion et s'¨¦tait ensuite adress¨¦ au TÄ¢¹½ÊÓƵD. Le TANU a estim¨¦ que, de ce fait, il n'avait pas suivi la proc¨¦dure appropri¨¦e. Le TANU a estim¨¦ qu'il n'existait pas d'autorit¨¦ pour recevoir une demande du Tribunal du contentieux administratif concernant une d¨¦cision en mati¨¨re de pension. Le TANU a conclu que le Tribunal n'avait pas commis d'erreur lorsqu'il avait jug¨¦...

Le TANU a estim¨¦ que le Bureau de l'inspecteur g¨¦n¨¦ral (IGO) et l'administration n'avaient pas correctement pris en compte les facteurs pertinents port¨¦s ¨¤ leur attention au cours de l'enqu¨ºte sur les fautes commises par l'agent. En particulier, ils n'ont pas pris en compte le contexte m¨¦dical dans lequel la faute a ¨¦t¨¦ commise, qui aurait pu ¨ºtre disculpatoire pour l'agent. Le TANU a constat¨¦ qu'ils n'avaient pas examin¨¦ et appr¨¦ci¨¦ les effets potentiels de la tumeur c¨¦r¨¦brale et/ou du traitement de l'agent sur certains aspects de ses relations interpersonnelles avec d'autres membres du...

Le TANU a observ¨¦ que deux ¨¦changes de courriels entre Mme Nimusiima et un ancien membre du personnel du HCR (AM) ¨¦taient la seule preuve documentaire offerte pour ¨¦tablir la culpabilit¨¦ de Mme Nimusiima dans l'¨¦mission d'une lettre de r¨¦installation frauduleuse en ¨¦change d'un pot-de-vin.

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT avait conclu que ces ¨¦changes de courriels montraient que Mme Nimusiima avait agi de concert avec AM, mais qu'ils ¨¦taient n¨¦anmoins "¨¦quivoques" (peu clairs/vagues), "purement circonstanciels" et ne prouvaient pas avec une forte probabilit¨¦ qu'AM avait envoy¨¦ la lettre de r¨¦installation frauduleuse...

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 not¨¦ que l'agent avait t¨¦l¨¦travaill¨¦ depuis son pays d'origine pendant toute l'ann¨¦e universitaire. Le TANU a estim¨¦ que le versement de l'allocation pour frais d'¨¦tudes exigeait la pr¨¦sence physique de l'agent ¨¤ son lieu d'affectation officiel et que ce versement devait ¨ºtre suspendu ou ajust¨¦ pour la p¨¦riode pendant laquelle l'agent t¨¦l¨¦travaillait en dehors de son lieu d'affectation officiel.

Le TANU a estim¨¦ que l'agent ne pouvait pas invoquer un moyen de d¨¦fense selon lequel l'administration ¨¦tait emp¨ºch¨¦e de s'appuyer sur les dispositions applicables dans son interpr¨¦tation...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that two e-mail exchanges between Ms. Nimusiima and a former Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR staff member (AM) were the only documentary evidence offered to establish Ms. Nimusiima¡¯s culpability in issuing a fraudulent resettlement letter in exchange for a bribe.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had concluded that these e-mail exchanges showed that Ms. Nimusiima acted in concert with AM, but that they were nonetheless ¡°equivocal¡± (unclear/vague), ¡°purely circumstantial¡± and did not prove with high probability that AM had sent the fraudulent resettlement letter to the Complainant (the alleged refugee).

With regard to...

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 noted that the staff member had telecommuted from his home country for the entire academic year. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that payment of the educational grant required the physical presence of the staff member at their official duty station, with such payment to be suspended or adjusted for the period that they were telecommuting from outside the official duty station.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was not open to the staff member to rely on a defence that the Administration be estopped from relying on the applicable provisions in its interpretation of the circumstances under which the education...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the essence of the administrative decision had been that the staff member was not entitled to cashed-up unused annual leave from a second appointment taken up within 12 months of relinquishing a first appointment after which such leave had been commutated.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that the staff member¡¯s request for management evaluation referred to the Administration¡¯s alleged ¡°continued failure¡± to compensate him the commutation of annual leave. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the reference reinforced a conclusion that it had been the consistent decision conveyed to him over several months...

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...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted the staff member had not requested a review of the decision by the United Nations Staff Pension Committee or filed an appeal to the Standing Committee, but rather had filed a request for management evaluation and then had applied to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that, as such, he had not followed proper procedure. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no authority for receiving an application by the Dispute Tribunal with regards to a pension decision. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not erred when it held that it did not have jurisdiction to undertake a judicial review of the contested...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judge was not obligated to indicate their inclination on the evidence, especially since all evidence had not yet been presented.

Considering various elements, including the Investigation Report, the WhatsApp message exchanges, and the former staff member¡¯s admissions, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found the Complainant¡¯s account of events credible. It concluded that the former staff member¡¯s alleged conduct of calling the Complainant to his room on 1 August 2020 and asking her to come to his bed was established by clear and convincing evidence and amounted to sexual harassment. It...

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 TANU a estim¨¦ que les faits sur lesquels l'agent s'appuyait dans sa demande de r¨¦vision ¨¦taient tous post¨¦rieurs ¨¤ l'arr¨ºt du TANU et ne pouvaient donc pas servir de base ¨¤ la r¨¦vision ou au r¨¦examen des conclusions ant¨¦rieures du TANU. En particulier, le TANU a estim¨¦ que le dossier m¨¦dical de l'agent, indiquant un changement de son ¨¦tat de sant¨¦ apr¨¨s le prononc¨¦ de l'arr¨ºt du TANU, ne constituait pas un motif de r¨¦vision.

Toutefois, le TANU a acc¨¦d¨¦ ¨¤ la demande d'anonymat de l'agent pour le pr¨¦sent arr¨ºt uniquement, compte tenu de la port¨¦e limit¨¦e des questions soulev¨¦es et des...

Le TANU a estim¨¦ que la demande de r¨¦vision de l'agent ne r¨¦pondait pas aux exigences statutaires ¨¦nonc¨¦es ¨¤ l'article 11, paragraphe 1, du statut du TANU. Le TANU a conclu que les arguments de l'agent reprenaient essentiellement ceux qu'il avait d¨¦j¨¤ avanc¨¦s devant le TANU et le TNDU. Par cons¨¦quent, le TANU a estim¨¦ que sa demande de r¨¦vision ¨¦quivalait ¨¤ une demande de r¨¦examen par le TANU de son pr¨¦c¨¦dent recours infructueux. En outre, le TANU a observ¨¦ que les observations du requ¨¦rant contenaient un certain nombre d'accusations injustes et inappropri¨¦es ¨¤ l'encontre des personnes qui...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member's application for revision failed to meet the statutory requirements outlined in Article 11(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that the staff member's arguments essentially reiterated those he previously advanced before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT and the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. As a result, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that his application for revision amounted to a request for the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT to reconsider his previous unsuccessful appeal. Moreover, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that the applicant's submissions contained a number of unfair and inappropriate accusations against persons who had dealt with his case, and...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the facts upon which the staff member relied in his application for revision all post-dated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment and therefore could not serve as a basis for revising or reconsidering the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT¡¯s prior conclusions. In particular, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the staff member¡¯s medical record, indicating a change in his condition after the issuance of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment, did not constitute grounds for revising it.

However, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT granted the staff member¡¯s request for anonymity for the present Judgment only, given the limited scope of the issues raised and the specific facts...

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...