Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que le Tribunal n'avait pas commis d'erreur de proc¨¦dure dans sa gestion de l'affaire qui aurait affect¨¦ l'issue de l'affaire. L'appelant a eu une occasion significative de pr¨¦senter sa d¨¦fense et de remettre en question la v¨¦racit¨¦ des d¨¦clarations port¨¦es contre lui. Les t¨¦moins suppl¨¦mentaires qu¡¯il souhaitait faire compara?tre n¡¯auraient gu¨¨re ¨¦t¨¦ d¡¯une grande utilit¨¦ pour sa cause.

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que le Tribunal avait conclu ¨¤ juste titre que le comportement all¨¦gu¨¦ ¨¦tait ¨¦tabli par des preuves claires et convaincantes et que les actes de l'appelant, ¨¤ savoir le fait de...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not commit an error of procedure in its case management that affected the outcome of the case. The Appellant had a meaningful opportunity to mount a defense and to question the veracity of the statements against him. The additional witnesses that he wished to call would have been of little assistance to his case.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly concluded that the alleged conduct was established by clear and convincing evidence and that the Appellant¡¯s actions, i.e., making inappropriate comments of a sexual nature in social settings, amounted to sexual...

L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a observ¨¦ qu¡¯aucune des parties n¡¯avait demand¨¦ si la requ¨ºte d¡¯AAQ ¨¦tait recevable devant le Tribunal. L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a n¨¦anmoins estim¨¦ que, s'agissant d'une question de comp¨¦tence, elle ¨¦tait oblig¨¦e de la soulever elle-m¨ºme. L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a not¨¦ qu¡¯en vertu de l¡¯article 2(1)(a) du Statut du TDNU, le membre du personnel ¨¦tait tenu d¡¯identifier une d¨¦cision administrative qui serait pr¨¦sum¨¦e non conforme aux conditions d¡¯engagement ou au contrat de travail. En outre, selon une jurisprudence constante, la d¨¦cision administrative doit avoir un effet ¨¤ la fois direct et n¨¦gatif sur l'emploi du...

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que le Tribunal a commis une erreur de proc¨¦dure telle qu'elle a affect¨¦ l'issue de l'affaire en ne tenant pas d'audience et en s'appuyant de mani¨¨re significative sur le rapport d'enqu¨ºte de l'OAIS pour corroborer la v¨¦racit¨¦ des ¨¦v¨¦nements all¨¦gu¨¦s par le plaignant, alors qu'il n'y avait pas d'audience. Les t¨¦moins directs de la mauvaise conduite all¨¦gu¨¦e et tous les t¨¦moins sur lesquels se sont appuy¨¦s les enqu¨ºteurs de l'OAIS ont obtenu leurs preuves et informations aupr¨¨s du plaignant. ? ce titre, l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a conclu que leurs ¨¦l¨¦ments de preuve ¨¦taient des preuves par ou?...

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...

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

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a constat¨¦ que le fonctionnaire n'avait cit¨¦ aucune disposition de l'article 2(1) du Statut de l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT et n'avait pas indiqu¨¦ si des erreurs commises par le DT de l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA dans son affaire concernaient sa comp¨¦tence, la proc¨¦dure, une question de droit ou une question de fait. L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que le recours ¨¦tait vici¨¦ et, par cons¨¦quent, irrecevable.

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a n¨¦anmoins r¨¦it¨¦r¨¦ sa jurisprudence sur certaines des questions soulev¨¦es et a approuv¨¦ la mani¨¨re dont le DT de l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA avait d¨¦termin¨¦ le montant de l'indemnisation en...

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

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the staff member did not cite any provision of Article 2(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute and did not indicate whether any errors by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT in his case related to its jurisdiction, the procedure, a question of law or a question of fact. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was defective and consequently not receivable.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, nevertheless, reiterated its jurisprudence on some of the issues raised, and agreed with the way the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT had determined the amount of in-lieu compensation. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also agreed with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s...

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...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT committed an error of procedure such that it affected the outcome of the case in not holding an oral hearing and relying significantly on the OAIS investigation report to corroborate the truth of the events alleged by the Complainant, when there was no direct witnesses to the alleged misconduct and all the witnesses relied upon by the OAIS investigators obtained their evidence and information from the Complainant. As such, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that their evidence was hearsay evidence and that the prejudice to the Appellant in admitting and relying upon this evidence...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that neither party had raised whether AAQ¡¯s application was receivable before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT nonetheless held that because this was a jurisdictional question, it was obliged to raise the issue itself. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that pursuant to Article 2(1)(a) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute, the staff member was obliged to identify an administrative decision that was alleged to be in non-compliance with the terms of appointment or contract of employment. Further, pursuant to established case law, the administrative decision must have both a direct and adverse effect on the employment of the...

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...

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...

Mme Larriera a interjet¨¦ appel.

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a d'abord examin¨¦ si Mme Larriera avait le droit de d¨¦poser une r¨¦clamation au titre de l'Annexe D. L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a conclu que - contrairement ¨¤ l'affaire des pensions - aux fins du Statut et du R¨¨glement du personnel, la loi du Br¨¦sil, l'?tat national de M. M, devait ¨ºtre la loi d¨¦terminant sa situation matrimoniale ou de partenariat domestique ¨¤ la date de son d¨¦c¨¨s aux fins de l'annexe D. Ce statut, tel que d¨¦termin¨¦ ult¨¦rieurement par un tribunal br¨¦silien comp¨¦tent, ¨¦tait que M. M et Mme Larriera ¨¦taient, ¨¤ la date de son d¨¦c¨¨s (et malgr¨¦ son mariage...

Ms. Larriera filed an appeal.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT first examined whether Ms. Larriera was entitled to file a claim under Appendix D. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that ¨C unlike the Pension case - for the purpose of the Staff Regulations and Rules, the law of Brazil, Mr. M¡¯s national state, was to be the law determining his marital or domestic partnership status as at the date of his death for Appendix D purposes. That status, as determined subsequently by a Brazilian court of competent jurisdiction, was that Mr. M and Ms. Larriera were, as at the date of his death (and despite his still extant French marriage to Ms. M) in...

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a examin¨¦ les arguments du Secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral selon lesquels Mme Lekoetje avait d¨¦j¨¤ rembours¨¦ les sommes dues ¨¤ l'Organisation lorsqu'elle a quitt¨¦ ses fonctions. L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a reconnu que Mme Lekoetje partageait la position du Secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral et a confirm¨¦ que 20 987,91 dollars avaient d¨¦j¨¤ ¨¦t¨¦ d¨¦duits de ses droits finaux.

En cons¨¦quence, l¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a accept¨¦ cette position et a interpr¨¦t¨¦ le jugement n¡ã 2022-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1227 comme exigeant le paiement par l¡¯Organisation ¨¤ Mme Lekoetje d¡¯une somme ¨¦gale ¨¤ un an de salaire de base net, mais sans aucune autre d¨¦duction.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT reviewed the submission of the Secretary-General that Ms. Lekoetje had already repaid the amounts due to the Organization when she separated from service. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT acknowledged that Ms. Lekoetje agreed with the Secretary-General¡¯s position, and confirmed that USD 20,987.91 had already been deducted from her final entitlements.

Accordingly, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT accepted this position, and interpreted Judgment No. 2022-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1227 as requiring a payment by the Organization to Ms. Lekoetje of a sum equal to one year¡¯s net base salary, but without any further deductions.

Le fait d¨¦cisif invoqu¨¦ par le Secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral pour justifier une r¨¦vision du jugement de l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT serait que M. Russo-Got a ins¨¦r¨¦ de fausses informations dans sa candidature concernant sa pr¨¦tendue exp¨¦rience avec l'OTAN. Le Secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral affirme qu'il a pris officiellement connaissance de ce fait pour la premi¨¨re fois lorsqu'il a ¨¦t¨¦ port¨¦ ¨¤ la connaissance de l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOPS apr¨¨s le prononc¨¦ du jugement de l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT.

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que les faits avanc¨¦s par le Secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral, ¨¤ savoir les informations pr¨¦tendument fausses que M. Russo-Got avait ins¨¦r¨¦es dans sa candidature, ne pouvaient...

The decisive fact relied on by the Secretary-General to justify a revision of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT judgment is said to be that Mr. Russo-Got inserted false information in his candidature regarding his alleged experience with NATO. The Secretary-General submits that he first became aware of this fact formally when it was made known to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOPS after the issuance of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the facts advanced by the Secretary-General, namely the allegedly false information Mr. Russo-Got had inserted in his candidature, could not be decisive of the Secretary-General¡¯s case and enable him to now...