Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly found that the contested decision was lawful. It concluded that the preliminary assessment of the former staff member¡¯s complaint revealed no sufficient grounds to indicate that his FRO¡¯s alleged unsatisfactory conduct could amount to misconduct, and, as a result, there was no likelihood that an investigation would reveal sufficient evidence to further pursue the matter as a disciplinary case.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly identified the decision subject to judicial review and properly considered and rejected, as a preliminary matter, Mr...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA Dispute Tribunal did not err in concluding that the former staff member¡¯s misconduct was established and that the disciplinary measure of separation from service, with compensation in lieu of notice and without termination indemnity, was proportionate under the Agency¡¯s regulatory framework. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT emphasized that fraud and collusive practices are considered areas of high concern and that misconduct committed by a person in a position of trust, such as a member of the Provident Fund Loans Committee, warrants a severe sanction.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT determined that it had been demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that the former staff member committed serious misconduct by: i) failing to return to the United Nations Federal Credit Union (Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFCU) funds of USD 587,428.65 that were erroneously credited to her account and to which she was not entitled; ii) failing to comply with a judgment issued by the High Court of Zambia (High Court Judgment), which ordered her to return the aforementioned funds to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFCU; and iii) submitting false documentation and/or misrepresenting facts during the investigation conducted by the Office...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Mr. Slayyeh did not file a proper appeal of the impugned Judgment but rather was bringing a new claim for compensation that had not been submitted to the Dispute Tribunal. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that he could not introduce on appeal an issue not previously presented to the first instance tribunal as it is a violation of the due process rights of the other party and does not comply with the two-tier system of administration of justice.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the remedies available under Article 10(5) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT Statute allow the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT to rescind the contested decision or order...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in concluding that the former staff member¡¯s application was not receivable ratione materiae because he did not attempt to resolve the dispute through the office of the United Nations Funds and Programmes Ombudsman, as explicitly required by the Settlement Agreement to which he had expressly agreed. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the terms of the Settlement Agreement remained binding and enforceable on the parties, and that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT committed no error in holding the parties to its terms.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in determining that the...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF had conducted the selection process in a manner fully consistent with its administrative legal framework, including having provided detailed reasons for considering the staff member unsuitable for the post. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that his candidature had received full and fair consideration, and he had not shown through clear and convincing evidence that he had been denied a fair chance of selection. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that there was no evidence of bias or ill-motive against him.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was of the view that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF¡¯s failure to notify the staff member of the non-selection...

Le TÄ¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a not¨¦ que la fonctionnaire avait d¨¦pos¨¦ de nombreuses plaintes et demandes confuses qui avaient fait l'objet de divers examens par l'Unit¨¦ d'¨¦valuation de la gestion, le TFP et le TÄ¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, qui visaient tous essentiellement ¨¤ garantir que l'Administration continue de lui verser des prestations pour raisons m¨¦dicales apr¨¨s l'expiration de son engagement ¨¤ dur¨¦e d¨¦termin¨¦e.

Le TÄ¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que ses observations ne permettaient pas d'identifier avec pr¨¦cision une d¨¦cision administrative sp¨¦cifique susceptible d'¨ºtre r¨¦examin¨¦e. Le TÄ¢¹½ÊÓƵI a estim¨¦ que les pr¨¦tendues non-d¨¦cisions ou d¨¦cisions...

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que l'analyse faite par le TUDT du cadre juridique applicable r¨¦gissant l'allocation d'¨¦tudes, en particulier les frais admissibles au remboursement, ¨¦tait erron¨¦e et que le TUDT avait outrepass¨¦ sa comp¨¦tence en jugeant ill¨¦gale la promulgation de l'instruction administrative modifi¨¦e. L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que le TUDT n'avait pas fourni les motifs, les faits et les dispositions juridiques sur lesquels il avait fond¨¦ son jugement.

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que les frais qui ¨¦taient clairement destin¨¦s ¨¤ couvrir des activit¨¦s extrascolaires ou des services g¨¦n¨¦raux non acad¨¦miques, et qui n...

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT n'avait pas commis d'erreur en concluant que la mesure transitoire ¨C accordant 10 semaines de cong¨¦ sp¨¦cial avec salaire int¨¦gral (SLWFP) uniquement aux m¨¨res qui ¨¦taient encore en cong¨¦ de maternit¨¦ au 1er janvier 2023 ¨C n'¨¦tait pas ill¨¦galement discriminatoire.

Elle a estim¨¦ que, m¨ºme si l'on pouvait faire valoir que le fait de privil¨¦gier les m¨¨res biologiques par rapport aux p¨¨res dans les dispositions transitoires entre l'ancien et le nouveau r¨¦gime de cong¨¦ parental ¨¦tait discriminatoire, cela ne constituait pas une discrimination ill¨¦gale pour deux raisons : i)...

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT n'avait pas commis d'erreur en concluant qu'il avait ¨¦t¨¦ prouv¨¦ par des ¨¦l¨¦ments clairs et convaincants que la fonctionnaire s'¨¦tait livr¨¦e ¨¤ du harc¨¨lement et ¨¤ des abus de pouvoir, avait utilis¨¦ son poste ¨¤ des fins personnelles pour nuire ¨¤ la situation d'un coll¨¨gue, avait divulgu¨¦ des informations sensibles, n'avait pas signal¨¦ les ¨¦ventuels fautes professionnelles d'autres personnes, avait utilis¨¦ une adresse ¨¦lectronique personnelle en violation des dispositions applicables et avait ¨¦chang¨¦ des messages inappropri¨¦s au sujet de coll¨¨gues.

Le TÄ¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que...

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a conclu qu'il existait des preuves claires et convaincantes que M. Hunt, en coordination avec des coll¨¨gues, communiquait secr¨¨tement avec un journaliste au sujet de la transaction du Fonds d'investissement, du processus d'approbation et du r?le de l'ancien repr¨¦sentant du Secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral (RSG), et qu'il avait ainsi divulgu¨¦ des informations au journaliste.

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que M. Hunt n'avait pas prouv¨¦ que son action consistant ¨¤ signaler une ¨¦ventuelle faute professionnelle au sein de la Caisse commune des pensions du personnel des Nations Unies ¨¤ des sources ext¨¦rieures ¨¦tait une...

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT avait commis une erreur en concluant que l'administration n'avait pas prouv¨¦ de mani¨¨re claire et convaincante que M. Ammar avait publi¨¦ le message sur Facebook, car le bureau de l'inspecteur g¨¦n¨¦ral (IGO) avait ¨¦cart¨¦ de mani¨¨re inappropri¨¦e la possibilit¨¦ que le compte Facebook de M. Ammar ait ¨¦t¨¦ pirat¨¦. L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que l'administration s'¨¦tait acquitt¨¦e de son obligation de prouver qu'il ¨¦tait hautement probable que M. Ammar ait publi¨¦ le commentaire et ait ainsi exprim¨¦ publiquement son soutien ¨¤ un crime d'honneur. L'administration a produit des preuves non...

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a not¨¦ que la fonctionnaire avait postul¨¦ ¨¤ diff¨¦rents postes vacants, ¨¤ diff¨¦rents moments, dans le cadre de diff¨¦rents processus de s¨¦lection, et qu'elle n'avait pas ¨¦t¨¦ retenue pour diff¨¦rentes raisons. L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT avait correctement d¨¦cid¨¦ que chacune de ces d¨¦cisions ¨¦tait distincte et qu'il n'y avait aucune preuve qu'elles ¨¦taient li¨¦es. L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ qu'elle ne s'¨¦tait pas acquitt¨¦e de la charge qui lui incombait de d¨¦montrer que le jugement contest¨¦ ¨¦tait erron¨¦.

Le TÄ¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que la candidature au poste ¨¤ Pretoria ¨¦tait manifestement hors d¨¦lai et que celle...

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que l'article 9(4) du Statut du TUDN concernant la nature du contr?le juridictionnel exerc¨¦ par le TUDN dans les affaires disciplinaires ne s'appliquait pas ¨¤ l'affaire en question, car il avait ¨¦t¨¦ adopt¨¦ apr¨¨s la tenue de l'audience. Les parties ont pr¨¦sent¨¦ leurs preuves, y compris une chronologie des faits convenus ainsi que des t¨¦moignages en direct, et ont pr¨¦sent¨¦ leurs conclusions respectives apr¨¨s l'audience, dans un cadre juridique o¨´ l'article 9(4) n'¨¦tait pas applicable et o¨´ il serait inappropri¨¦, et constituerait un d¨¦ni de proc¨¦dure r¨¦guli¨¨re, d'appliquer un...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the staff member had applied for vacancies of different posts, at different times, with different selection processes, and had not been selected for different reasons. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly decided that each of these decisions was separate and there was no evidence that they were related. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that she had not met her burden of showing that the impugned Judgment was defective.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application in respect of the post in Pretoria was clearly out of time and in respect of the post in Nairobi premature and, as such, not receivable...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was of the view that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s analysis of the applicable legal framework governing the education grant, specifically the costs admissible for reimbursement, had been erroneous and the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had exceeded its jurisdiction when it found the promulgation of the amended administrative instruction unlawful. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had failed to provide the reasons, facts and law on which it had based its Judgment.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the fees which were clearly intended to cover extra-curricular activities or general non-academic services, and were not intended to cover administrative...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not erred in finding that it had been proven by clear and convincing evidence that the staff member had engaged in harassment and abuse of authority, used her office for personal reasons to prejudice the position of a colleague, disclosed sensitive information, failed to report the possible misconduct of others, used a personal e-mail address contrary to the applicable provisions, and exchanged inappropriate messages about colleagues.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that regardless of whether she had been a whistleblower engaged in a protected activity, there was no evidence that...

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que le TDPI n'avait pas manqu¨¦ ¨¤ son obligation d'exercer sa comp¨¦tence et n'avait commis aucune erreur de proc¨¦dure. L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a conclu que le TDPI n'avait pas outrepass¨¦ son large pouvoir discr¨¦tionnaire en rejetant les objections de l'avocat du fonctionnaire lorsqu'il a autoris¨¦ le conseiller juridique du Secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral ¨¤ poser des questions suppl¨¦mentaires et que, en tout ¨¦tat de cause, la d¨¦cision du TDPI n'avait eu aucune incidence significative ou pr¨¦judiciable sur l'issue de l'affaire.

Le TÄ¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que le TND n'avait pas commis d'erreur en concluant que la photo...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that there was clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Hunt, in coordination with colleagues, was covertly communicating with a news media reporter on the Investment Fund transaction, the approval process, and the former Representative of the Secretary-General (RSG)¡¯s role and had thereby leaked information to the reporter.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr. Hunt failed to prove that his action of reporting possible misconduct within Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF to outside sources was a protected activity under the Secretary-General¡¯s Bulletin on protection against retaliation. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding that the Administration had not proven by clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Ammar made the Facebook post because the Inspector General¡¯s Office (IGO) inappropriately discounted the possibility that Mr. Ammar¡¯s Facebook account had been hacked. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Administration met its burden of establishing that it was highly probable that Mr. Ammar posted the Comment and thus publicly expressed support for an honour killing. The Administration produced uncontradicted evidence that the comment came from Mr. Ammar¡¯s Facebook account and he...