Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Mme Mkhabela a fait appel.

En ce qui concerne la recevabilit¨¦ ratione temporis, l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que le RC ne pouvait pas ¨ºtre consid¨¦r¨¦ comme ayant l¨¦galement prolong¨¦ les d¨¦lais de d¨¦p?t d'une demande de contr?le hi¨¦rarchique. Outre le fait qu¡¯il n¡¯existe aucune preuve d¡¯une telle promesse, la v¨¦rit¨¦ est que le CR ne disposait pas d¡¯un tel pouvoir, qui est uniquement conf¨¦r¨¦ au Secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral, comme le prescrit l¡¯article 11.2(c) du R¨¨glement du personnel. De m¨ºme, l'affirmation de Mme Mkhabela selon laquelle elle n'a pas ¨¦t¨¦ inform¨¦e des raisons ou de la d¨¦cision de s'¨¦carter du plan de...

Ms. Mkhabela appealed.

As regards receivability ratione temporis, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the RC could not be seen as having lawfully extended the time limits to file a management evaluation request. Apart from the fact that there is no evidence of such a promise, the truth is that the RC did not have such authority, which is only bestowed upon the Secretary-General, as prescribed by Staff Rule 11.2(c). Likewise, Ms. Mkhabela¡¯s claim that she was not apprised of the reasons or decision to deviate from the Transition Plan is without merit, as she is not entitled to be made aware of reasons behind...

Le Tribunal du contentieux administratif ¨¦tait confront¨¦ ¨¤ deux versions inconciliables de l'affaire et il lui fallait donc s'assurer de la cr¨¦dibilit¨¦ et de la fiabilit¨¦ des diff¨¦rents t¨¦moins factuels et des probabilit¨¦s. Cette t?che a ¨¦t¨¦ rendue particuli¨¨rement difficile pour le Tribunal du contentieux administratif dans la mesure o¨´ les t¨¦moins concern¨¦s n'ont pas pr¨¦sent¨¦ leurs d¨¦positions en personne. En l¡¯esp¨¨ce, les ¨¦l¨¦ments de preuve pr¨¦sent¨¦s par le Secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral ¨¦taient d¡¯une nature et d¡¯une valeur extr¨ºmement limit¨¦es. Le Secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral s¡¯est appuy¨¦ exclusivement sur le...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was faced with two irreconcilable versions of the case, and thus it was necessary for the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to satisfy itself on the credibility and reliability of the various factual witnesses and probabilities. This task was made especially difficult for the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT since the relevant witnesses did not present their evidence in person. In this case, the evidence presented by the Secretary-General was of an exceedingly limited nature and value. The Secretary-General relied exclusively on the contents of the written report of the OIOS investigation, which was entirely hearsay and, in some instances...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the JAB made considerable internal changes in its law to satisfy the requirements of Article 2(10) of the Appeals Tribunal Statute. It found that the JAB no longer provided only advice or mere recommendations to the ISA Secretary-General, but rather final decisions and, therefore, was a neutral first instance process.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the plain reading of the facts left no doubt that: i) at the time when the contested decision was taken, there was no willingness of abandonment of post by the Appellant; ii) despite his poor mental health condition that was medically...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no reason why the Appeals Tribunal should intervene and modify the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s findings, which were both reasonable and equitable. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that while the hiring of the casual workers was not part of Mr. Saleh¡¯s official duties, Mr. Saleh coordinated and supervised the work of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR implementing partner which was responsible for hiring at the warehouse, and Mr. Saleh also had the function of overseeing the warehousing operations. Given these responsibilities, as well as his previous intense involvement in the setting up and management of the warehouse, which...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Applicant¡¯s application for revision did not comply with the requirements set out in Article 11(1) of the Appeals Tribunal Statute and Article 24 of the Appeals Tribunal Rules of Procedure. Indeed, it concluded that there was no fact discovered after the issuance of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment, which was unknown to the Appeals Tribunal and to the Applicant. Rather, it found that his submissions basically repeat or add to the same arguments which were previously assessed by the Agency, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT and the Appeals Tribunal. It concluded that the only new arguments advanced by...

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

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that, in his appeal, the staff member failed to state the grounds of appeal, identify the defects of the impugned judgment and demonstrate on which grounds it was erroneous.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that, in reaching its conclusion, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT found that the staff member admittedly did not submit a request for decision review. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not err when it found that the staff member¡¯s application was on that basis not receivable ratione materiae.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed Judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA/DT/2022/022.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a jug¨¦ que le m¨¦morandum contest¨¦ n'¨¦tait pas une d¨¦cision administrative car l'appelant n'a pas identifi¨¦ comment elle affectait ses conditions ou conditions de nomination. Unat a jug¨¦ que le m¨¦morandum contest¨¦ concernait une d¨¦l¨¦gation g¨¦n¨¦rale de l'autorit¨¦ et, par cons¨¦quent, ¨¦tait une d¨¦cision de demande g¨¦n¨¦rale.

Le Tribunal d'appel a constat¨¦ que l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT avait commis une erreur en droit en appliquant le cadre juridique inappropri¨¦, le cadre juridique pertinent n'¨¦tant pas ST / SGB / 2008/5, mais le cadre disciplinaire de l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFPA et la politique de harc¨¨lement de l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFPA. L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a expliqu¨¦ que l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFPA, ¨¦tant l'un des fonds administr¨¦s s¨¦par¨¦ment de l'organisation, a son propre cadre juridique et n'est pas r¨¦glement¨¦ par les ¨¦missions administratives g¨¦n¨¦rales du Secr¨¦tariat telles que ST / SGB / 2008/5, sauf indication contraire ou sauf si elle n'a express¨¦ment pas ¨¦t¨¦ express¨¦ment accept¨¦ leur...

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a jug¨¦ que la plainte de harc¨¨lement sexuel d¨¦pos¨¦ par le membre du personnel contre ses anciens superviseurs (Fro et SRO) a conduit ¨¤ des enqu¨ºtes dont les rapports ont ¨¦t¨¦ la base des processus disciplinaires et des sanctions contre les deux personnes, ainsi qu'une mesure administrative suppl¨¦mentaire contre son ancienne ancienne Sro. L'administration a agi rapidement, lorsqu'elle est officieusement inform¨¦e des actes r¨¦pr¨¦hensibles, en pla?ant le membre du personnel en cong¨¦ de maladie certifi¨¦ pendant environ deux mois, avant de la r¨¦affecter ¨¤ sa demande ¨¤ un nouveau lieu de...

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a rejet¨¦ l'appel de M. Ponce-Gonzalez. L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a rejet¨¦ l'argument de M. Ponce-Gonzalez sur l'appr¨¦hension de la partialit¨¦ du responsable du recrutement affirmant qu'il y avait un motif inappropri¨¦ pour l'¨¦liminer injustement. Le tribunal d'appel a constat¨¦ que le simple fait que le responsable du recrutement ¨¦tait impliqu¨¦ dans deux exercices de s¨¦lection dans lesquels M. Ponce-Gonzalez n'a pas ¨¦t¨¦ r¨¦ussi n'a pas indiqu¨¦ de partialit¨¦, mais plut?t un exercice r¨¦gulier de la routine de l'administration de s¨¦lectionner les candidats ¨¤ des postes annonc¨¦s. L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a en outre constat¨¦ que l...

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a rejet¨¦ l'appel. Il a jug¨¦ que l¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT avait commis une erreur dans son examen de l¡¯¨¦valuation par l¡¯administration de l¡¯exp¨¦rience de M. Ponce-Gonzalez contre les crit¨¨res d¡¯¨¦valuation; L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT a ¨¦galement commis une erreur lorsqu'elle a annul¨¦ l'annulation du processus de s¨¦lection, invalidant la raison ¨¦tant alors ¨¦tant donn¨¦ que ?aucun des candidats r¨¦chang¨¦s n'avait r¨¦pondu ¨¤ tous les crit¨¨res requis et souhaitables de l'ouverture de l'emploi?, et concluant que ?au moins l'un des Les candidats r¨¦chang¨¦s (le demandeur) ont respect¨¦ et d¨¦pass¨¦ tous les crit¨¨res ?. Ce faisant, le Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵT a...

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a rejet¨¦ l'appel. L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a constat¨¦ qu'AAL avait ¨¦t¨¦ avis¨¦ de la n¨¦cessit¨¦ pour elle de retourner au poste de remise des droits, ainsi que des opportunit¨¦s suffisantes de demander des cong¨¦s de maladie. Cependant, elle n'a pas demand¨¦ de cong¨¦s de maladie, et elle n'est pas retourn¨¦e au travail, ne laissant aucune option ¨¤ l'administration autre que de la placer sur Slwop. Elle n'a pas non plus t¨¦moign¨¦ qu'il y avait des ?circonstances personnelles convaincantes? afin d'engestion de la d¨¦cision de lui permettre de continuer ¨¤ se t¨¦l¨¦charger de l'ext¨¦rieur de son poste officiel. L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a...

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a jug¨¦ que l'argument du membre du personnel selon lequel le Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵT a appliqu¨¦ la norme de preuve incorrecte n'est pas fond¨¦e, car les principaux faits de l'affaire ¨¦taient incontest¨¦s par les deux parties. Elle avait admis avoir utilis¨¦ le compte UPS des femmes de l¡¯ONU pour envoyer deux exp¨¦ditions priv¨¦es ¨¤ l'¨¦tranger, sans mentionner aucune autorisation pr¨¦alable. Les ¨¦l¨¦ments aggravants et att¨¦nuants examin¨¦s par les Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵT ¨¦taient par nature p¨¦riph¨¦riques de la sanction impos¨¦e. L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a constat¨¦ que m¨ºme s'il n'¨¦tait pas appropri¨¦ pour l'administration d'utiliser un acte pr¨¦alable d...

Le TANU a rejet¨¦ la demande d'audience du requ¨¦rant et a estim¨¦ qu'une telle audience ne contribuerait pas au r¨¨glement rapide et ¨¦quitable de l'affaire, comme l'exige l'article 18, paragraphe 1, du r¨¨glement de proc¨¦dure du TANU. Le TANU a estim¨¦ que le Tribunal n'avait pas commis d'erreur en supprimant les ¨¦l¨¦ments de preuve joints aux conclusions finales du requ¨¦rant ou en refusant d'entendre les superviseurs du requ¨¦rant en tant que t¨¦moins. Le TANU a estim¨¦ qu'il existait des preuves claires et convaincantes que l'appelant avait utilis¨¦ la carte d'exemption de TVA et la carte de cr¨¦dit...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed Mr. Ponce-Gonzalez's appeal. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed Mr. Ponce-Gonzalez¡¯s argument of apprehension of partiality of the hiring manager claiming that there was an improper motive to unfairly eliminate him. The Appeals Tribunal found that the mere fact that the hiring manager was involved in two selection exercises in which Mr. Ponce-Gonzalez was not successful did not indicate any partiality, but rather a regular exercise of the Administration¡¯s routine of selecting candidates for advertised positions. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in finding no irregularity in...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal. It held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in its consideration of the Administration¡¯s assessment of Mr. Ponce-Gonzalez¡¯s experience against the evaluation criteria; the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT also erred when it rescinded the cancellation of the selection process, invalidating the reason then given that ¡°none of the rostered candidates had met all of the required and desirable criteria of the job opening¡±, and concluding that ¡°at least one of the rostered candidates (the Applicant) met and exceeded all criteria¡±. In so doing, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT improperly appropriated the discretion of the Secretary...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that AAL was given notice of the need for her to return to the duty station, as well as sufficient opportunity to apply for sick leave. However, she did not request such sick leave, nor did she return to work, leaving no option for the Administration other than to place her on SLWOP. She also failed to provide evidence that there were ¡°compelling personal circumstances¡± so as to engender a decision to allow her to continue to telecommute from outside her official duty station. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in finding that AAL...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member¡¯s argument that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT applied the incorrect standard of proof is unsubstantiated, as the main facts of the case were undisputed by both parties. She had admitted having used Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Womens¡¯ UPS account to send two private shipments abroad, without mentioning any prior authorization. The aggravating and mitigating elements reviewed by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT were by nature peripheral to the sanction imposed. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that even if it was not appropriate for the Administration to use a prior act of possible misconduct as an aggravating factor (as it was not previously...