Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a d¡¯abord r¨¦pondu ¨¤ la demande d¡¯audience du membre du personnel. Le fonctionnaire souhaitait pr¨¦senter au Tribunal des preuves m¨¦dicales prouvant son incapacit¨¦ m¨¦dicale. Le TANU a rejet¨¦ cet argument, soulignant que l'appel ¨¦tait une r¨¦vision du jugement du Tribunal du Tribunal sur la base des ¨¦l¨¦ments de preuve pr¨¦sent¨¦s au Tribunal et que le fonctionnaire n'avait pas demand¨¦ ¨¤ pr¨¦senter de nouveaux ¨¦l¨¦ments de preuve. L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a ¨¦galement rejet¨¦ les arguments selon lesquels le fonctionnaire pourrait profiter de l'audience pour expliquer diverses politiques ou pour proposer une...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT first addressed the staff member¡¯s request for an oral hearing. The staff member wished to present medical evidence to the Tribunal to prove his medical incapacitation. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected this argument, noting that the appeal was a review of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment based on the evidence presented to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, and the staff member had not applied to present new evidence. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also rejected the arguments that the staff member could use the oral hearing to explain various policies or to advance an amicable resolution with the Administration. The request for the oral hearing was denied. ...

La premi¨¨re conclusion du Tribunal d'appel est que le Tribunal a eu raison de consid¨¦rer que l'article 17(d) de la Politique de rapatriement n'est pas en conflit avec l'article 3.19(g) du R¨¨glement du personnel et que, par cons¨¦quent, les deux ensembles de dispositions doivent ¨ºtre interpr¨¦t¨¦s ensemble de mani¨¨re coh¨¦rente. .

Nous jugeons ¨¦galement correct le raisonnement du TDNU selon lequel l'application de l'article 17(d) de la Politique de rapatriement du PNUD n'est pas limit¨¦e aux membres du personnel du PNUD, car elle cherche ¨¤ rapprocher les paiements effectu¨¦s aux membres du personnel...

The Appeals Tribunal¡¯s first finding is that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct in its holding that Section 17(d) of the Repatriation Policy is not in conflict with Staff Rule 3.19 (g) and, thus, the two sets of provisions fall to be read together coherently.

We also find correct the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s reasoning that the application of Section 17(d) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP Repatriation Policy is not limited to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP staff members as it seeks to reconcile payments made to staff members within the United Nations system, irrespectively of the fact that the spouse is a Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP staff member too or not, avoiding in any case to duplicate...

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a examin¨¦ un appel de Mme Mukomah.

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que l'affirmation de Mme Mukomah selon laquelle elle ¨¦tait l'¨¦pouse du d¨¦funt participant au moment de son d¨¦c¨¨s et avait donc droit, sur cette base, ¨¤ une prestation de veuvage en vertu de l'article 34 des statuts de la Caisse, n'¨¦tait pas fond¨¦e sur la base des ¨¦l¨¦ments de preuve pr¨¦sent¨¦s devant elle. l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT.

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ qu'il n'y avait pas suffisamment de preuves prouvant que le d¨¦funt participant et Mme Mukomah avaient l¨¦galement conclu une (deuxi¨¨me) union l¨¦galement reconnue par l'autorit¨¦ comp¨¦tente du Kenya, conf¨¦rant des...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Ms. Mukomah.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ms. Mukomah¡¯s submission that she was the spouse of the late participant at the time of his death and is therefore entitled on that basis to a widow¡¯s benefit under Article 34 of the Fund¡¯s Regulations, was not sustainable based on the evidence before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that there was insufficient evidence proving that the late participant and Ms. Mukomah lawfully entered a (second) union legally recognized by the competent authority of Kenya conferring similar legal effects as a marriage in relation to pension rights...

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que les faits pr¨¦tendument inconnus que M. Al Dirawi a d¨¦taill¨¦s dans sa demande de r¨¦vision du jugement de l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT se concentrent sur les constatations et les conclusions du jugement de l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT avec lesquelles il n'est pas d'accord. Notamment, ces questions ont ¨¦t¨¦ examin¨¦es dans l'appel initial et M. Al Dirawi pr¨¦sente essentiellement un deuxi¨¨me appel pour une r¨¦¨¦valuation des faits dans son cas, un recours qui n'est pas disponible pour les parties une fois que le Tribunal d'appel a rendu un jugement final. L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a donc jug¨¦ que la requ¨ºte de M. Al Dirawi n'¨¦tait pas...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the supposedly unknown facts that Mr. Al Dirawi detailed in his application for revision of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment focus on findings and conclusions in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment with which he disagrees. Notably, these matters were considered in the original appeal and Mr. Al Dirawi basically submits a second appeal for a reassessment of the facts in his case, a remedy which is not available to the parties once the Appeals Tribunal has issued a final judgment. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT thus held that Mr. Al Dirawi's application was not receivable.

Ms. Larriera sought revision of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT judgment on the grounds that new decisive facts had emerged from the French government regarding her relationship with the deceased participant of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF, Mr. M. Specifically, she maintains that the French government has endorsed the findings of a Brazilian court that she was in a ¡°stable union¡± with Mr. M., and that this has also been annotated on the death certificate of Mr. M.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that Ms. Larriera¡¯s application for revision was untimely. In addition, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that these allegedly decisive facts occurred in 2021, well after the...

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 Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment was problematic because the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT's findings seemed to be based entirely on hearsay evidence, i.e., the findings in the OIOS investigation report. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment failed to explain the evidentiary basis of its conclusion that sexual harassment was highly probable, and made no explicit or precise findings in relation to the evidence given under oath at the hearing. The failure of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to make findings about the testimony it heard made the appeal well-nigh impossible. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that there was no transcript of the hearing, and...

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

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the staff member had merely made unsubstantiated general claims about having the requisite skills and experience for his post to be retained.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was of the view that, as the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly held, the staff member had failed to discharge the evidentiary burden to rebut the presumption of regularity that arose from the minimal showing of a rational basis for the decision.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the record confirmed that there was a genuine restructuring that led to the retrenchment of 29 staff members.

The record...

After requesting additional findings of fact from the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT reconsidered an appeal by the staff member following the prior remand.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s judgment had failed to make a single mention of the nature, content or purpose of the testimony adduced under oath before it but was based entirely on hearsay evidence drawn exclusively from the investigation report and other documents. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found problematic the fact that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT made no pronouncement as to why it exclusively relied on hearsay evidence and gave no reason why the evidence was not given by the person...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing. It held that, pursuant to Article 18 of the Appeals Tribunal Rules of Procedure, an oral hearing would not be of any assistance in this case as the issue for consideration was straightforward and not complex.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Appellant¡¯s attempt to broaden the scope of the issue for consideration was untenable. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that it was clearly agreed at the case management discussion (CMD) that the issue for determination was the desired reclassification of Mr. Menon's post from the P-4 to the P-5 level and that the...

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a refus¨¦ l'appel de Mme Banyanga et a confirm¨¦ la d¨¦cision du comit¨¦ permanent. L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a constat¨¦ que Mme Banyanga n'avait pas expliqu¨¦ ad¨¦quatement les incoh¨¦rences entre ses propres informations personnelles et les informations soumises par M. Mbirange concernant son conjoint signal¨¦ (y compris que le nom ?Banyanga? ne figurait pas dans la documentation que M. Mbirange a fourni sur son conjoint). L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a ¨¦galement rejet¨¦ la d¨¦pendance de Mme Banyanga sur le certificat de mariage qu'elle a soumis, qui a montr¨¦ une pr¨¦tendue date de mariage en 1997.

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a observ¨¦ que M. Mbirange...

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a jug¨¦ que l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵT ne s'est pas commis en concluant qu'il y avait des preuves claires et convaincantes que l'appelant avait physiquement agress¨¦ un autre membre du personnel et que la mesure disciplinaire de la s¨¦paration du service, avec une indemnit¨¦ au lieu d'un avis et sans indemnit¨¦ de r¨¦siliation, ¨¦tait proportionn¨¦e ¨¤ La nature et la gravit¨¦ de l'inconduite de l'appelant. Surtout, l'appelant n'a pas ¨¦tabli un degr¨¦ de provocation qui a att¨¦nu¨¦ ses repr¨¦sailles qui ¨¦taient ¨¦galement excessives et au-del¨¤ des limites de toute d¨¦fense autoris¨¦e dans l'altercation. Les conclusions de l...

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a jug¨¦ que la recommandation de l'OAI dans son rapport d'enqu¨ºte selon laquelle des mesures disciplinaires devaient ¨ºtre prises contre le membre du personnel ne constituaient pas une d¨¦cision administrative. De plus, la recommandation d'OAI n'¨¦tait pas une ?d¨¦cision?. Il s'agissait d'une recommandation interm¨¦diaire et n'a donc pas eu d'effet direct, l¨¦gal ou n¨¦gatif. L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a constat¨¦ que, de m¨ºme, la d¨¦cision selon laquelle il n'y avait pas suffisamment de preuves pour inculper le membre du personnel d'inconduite ne constituait pas une d¨¦cision administrative car elle n'avait pas eu d...