Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que M. Flekal, en acceptant le renvoi de la plainte pour harc¨¨lement le 3 mars 2024 en vue d¡¯une intervention de la direction, avait en substance renonc¨¦ ¨¤ son droit de saisir les tribunaux pour absence d¡¯enqu¨ºte sur ses plaintes pour harc¨¨lement, y compris pour intimidation. L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a not¨¦ qu¡¯en vertu de l¡¯instruction technique pertinente du D¨¦partement des services de contr?le interne, l¡¯intimidation ne constitue pas une cat¨¦gorie distincte de faute professionnelle, mais est consid¨¦r¨¦e comme une forme de harc¨¨lement.

L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a not¨¦ que M. Flekal avait ¨¦galement renonc¨¦ ¨¤ sa...

L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a fait remarquer que la d¨¦cision de soumettre M. Flekal ¨¤ une proc¨¦dure d¡¯OTI ne constituait qu¡¯une ¨¦tape interm¨¦diaire du processus de gestion des performances et n¡¯avait eu aucun impact direct ni aucune cons¨¦quence d¨¦favorable sur ses conditions de nomination ou son contrat de travail; il ne s¡¯agissait donc pas d¡¯une d¨¦cision administrative susceptible de recours judiciaire.

L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a constat¨¦ que M. Flekal avait ¨¦t¨¦ mis ¨¤ la retraite pour raisons m¨¦dicales, d¨¦clar¨¦ inapte au service et b¨¦n¨¦ficiait d¡¯une pension d¡¯invalidit¨¦. Il n¡¯a pas ¨¦t¨¦ mis ¨¤ la retraite de l¡¯Agence en raison du non...

Bien que le Secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral ne f?t pas partie ¨¤ l¡¯ordonnance contest¨¦e, l¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ qu¡¯il avait un int¨¦r¨ºt direct et recevable dans un recours visant ¨¤ d¨¦terminer si le TNDU est habilit¨¦ ¨¤ d¨¦cider si son repr¨¦sentant l¨¦gal doit ¨ºtre exclu de la possibilit¨¦ de compara?tre dans de futures affaires et dans des affaires sans rapport devant le TNDU. Si le TDN est habilit¨¦ ¨¤ ordonner une telle mesure, cela fait peser un risque important d¡¯atteinte ¨¤ l¡¯autorit¨¦ du Secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral de nommer des membres du personnel pour exercer des fonctions juridiques, d¡¯allouer ses ressources juridiques et...

L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que l¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT n¡¯avait pas commis d¡¯erreur dans la d¨¦finition de la port¨¦e de la demande de M. Kebede, et que son all¨¦gation de repr¨¦sailles syst¨¦miques n¡¯avait pas ¨¦t¨¦ valablement soumise ¨¤ l¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. M. Kebede n¡¯a contest¨¦ la d¨¦cision de
non-s¨¦lection que dans sa demande d¡¯¨¦valuation par la direction et dans sa requ¨ºte adress¨¦e ¨¤ l¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT.

Le TNDU a partag¨¦ l¡¯avis du Secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral selon lequel il n¡¯existait aucune preuve de fausset¨¦ mat¨¦rielle ou de d¨¦claration trompeuse de la part de l¡¯Administration ¨¤ l¡¯¨¦gard du TNDU concernant la note attribu¨¦e ¨¤ M. Kebede lors de l¡¯entretien...

Although the Secretary-General was not a party to the impugned Order, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Secretary-General had a direct and cognizable interest in an appeal which considers whether the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT is entitled to determine whether his legal representative should be disbarred from appearing in future cases and unrelated cases before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. If the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT is empowered to order as much, it raises a significant risk of harm to the Secretary-General¡¯s authority to appoint staff members to perform legal functions, allocate its legal resources, and hold staff members accountable in accordance with the...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Mr. Flekal, by consenting to the referral of the harassment claim on 3 March 2024, for managerial action, had essentially waived the right to pursue a remedy before the Tribunals for the lack of an investigation into his complaints of harassment, including bullying. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that under the relevant technical instruction of the Department of Internal Oversight Services, bullying is not a separate category of misconduct, it is considered a kind of harassment.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that Mr. Flekal had also waived his ¡°abuse of power¡± claim because it was not pled in his...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the decision to place Mr. Flekal on an OTI process is only an intermediate step in the performance management process and has had no direct impact or adverse consequence on his terms of appointment or the contract of employment and therefore is not an administrative decision subject to judicial review.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Mr. Flekal was separated for medical reasons, declared incapacitated and awarded a disability pension. He was not separated from the Agency due to non-renewal of his fixed-term appointment. Therefore, Mr. Flekal¡¯s challenge of the 29 August 2023 decision...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in its framing of the scope of Mr. Kebede¡¯s application, and that his claim of systemic retaliation was not properly before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Mr. Kebede only contested the non-selection decision both in his request for management evaluation and application to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT agreed with the Secretary-General that there was no evidence of material falsehood or misrepresentation by the Administration to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT relating to Mr. Kebede¡¯s rating during the interview for the post. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the ¡°Partially Satisfactory¡± rating was an assessment of how Mr...

L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que toute contestation quant ¨¤ la port¨¦e d¡¯un jugement devait ¨ºtre soulev¨¦e dans le cadre d¡¯un recours form¨¦ contre le jugement au fond. M. Odat n¡¯a pas interjet¨¦ appel contre le jugement de premi¨¨re instance, ¨¤ savoir le jugement n¡ã Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA/DT/2025/001.

L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que le jugement rendu ult¨¦rieurement par le Tribunal disciplinaire de l¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA concernant sa demande
d¡¯interpr¨¦tation ne constituait pas un nouveau jugement au sens de l¡¯article 2 du Statut du Tribunal d¡¯appel, et que, par cons¨¦quent, l¡¯appel de M. Odat n¡¯¨¦tait pas recevable.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that any dissatisfaction with the meaning of a judgment should be raised in an appeal of the substantive judgment. Mr. Odat did not appeal the underlying judgment, Judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA/DT/2025/001.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s subsequent judgment on his application for interpretation was not a fresh judgment within the scope of Article 2 of the Appeals Tribunal Statute, and thus Mr. Odat¡¯s appeal was not receivable.

L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a tout d¡¯abord estim¨¦ que la d¨¦cision contest¨¦e du 17 avril 2011 ne constituait pas une d¨¦cision administrative susceptible de recours et n¡¯¨¦tait pas recevable ratione materiae, dans la mesure o¨´ elle se contentait de conseiller ¨¤ l¡¯ancien membre du personnel de se rendre au bureau du HCR le plus proche et d¡¯y demander l¡¯asile ou la r¨¦installation en tant que r¨¦fugi¨¦.

? titre subsidiaire, m¨ºme en supposant que le courriel du 17 avril 2011 ait pu constituer une d¨¦cision administrative valable et susceptible de recours, l¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que la demande de l¡¯ancien fonctionnaire resterait...

L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a constat¨¦ que Mme George avait d¨¦pos¨¦ sa demande de retour au syst¨¨me de r¨¦mun¨¦ration en dollars am¨¦ricains le 4 ao?t 2015 et que l¡¯Administration l¡¯avait rejet¨¦e le 10 novembre 2015. Malgr¨¦ cette communication claire, l¡¯ancienne fonctionnaire a continu¨¦ ¨¤ ¨¦changer des courriers avec l¡¯Administration afin d¡¯obtenir un r¨¦examen de la d¨¦cision pendant pr¨¨s de neuf ans. Elle a attendu le 9 avril 2024 pour d¨¦poser sa demande de r¨¦examen aupr¨¨s du Comit¨¦ permanent. Comme celle-ci avait ¨¦t¨¦ d¨¦pos¨¦e au-del¨¤ du d¨¦lai l¨¦gal de quatre-vingt-dix jours ¨¤ compter de la r¨¦ception de la notification...

L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que l¡¯ancien agent avait form¨¦ son recours dans le d¨¦lai l¨¦gal. Elle a relev¨¦ que, puisqu¡¯il avait d¨¦pos¨¦ sa requ¨ºte devant le TNDU en fran?ais, le d¨¦lai de 60 jours pour former son recours courait ¨¤ compter de la date de r¨¦ception de l¡¯arr¨ºt du TNDU dans cette m¨ºme langue. Comme il avait re?u l¡¯arr¨ºt du TDN en fran?ais le 11 juillet 2025 et avait form¨¦ son pourvoi le 13 ao?t 2025, l¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que celui-ci avait ¨¦t¨¦ form¨¦ dans les d¨¦lais.

N¨¦anmoins, l¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a jug¨¦ que la requ¨ºte de l¡¯ancien fonctionnaire devant le TDN n¡¯¨¦tait pas recevable. ? cet ¨¦gard, l¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a tout d...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the former staff member filed his appeal within the statutory deadline. It noted that since he filed his application before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT in French, the 60-day time limit for filing his appeal ran from the date of receipt of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment in that same language. As he received the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment in French on 11 July 2025 and filed his appeal on 13 August 2025, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was filed in a timely manner.

Nevertheless, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the former staff member¡¯s application before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was not receivable. In this regard, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT first rejected his contention...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ms. George submitted her request to revert to the US dollar track system on 4 August 2015 and the Administration rejected it on 10 November 2015.Despite that clear communication, the former staff member continued to exchange correspondence with the Administration seeking reconsideration of the decision for almost nine years.She waited until 9 April 2024 before submitting her request for review to the Standing Committee.As it was filed beyond the statutory time limit of ninety days of receipt of notification of the contested decision, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that her request was...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT first held that the contested decision of 17 April 2011 did not constitute an appealable administrative decision and was not receivable ratione materiae, insofar as it merely advised the former staff member to go to the nearest Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR office and seek asylum or resettlement as a refugee.

Subsidiarily, even assuming that the e-mail of 17 April 2011 could have constituted a valid appealable administrative decision, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the former staff member¡¯s application would nonetheless remain not receivable on two grounds. First, he did not request management evaluation of the...

Le Tribunal a estim¨¦ que la demande de M. Issa ne remplissait pas les conditions strictes de recevabilit¨¦ pr¨¦vues par le Statut de l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, ¨¤ savoir que le fait d¨¦terminant sur lequel il s'appuie aujourd'hui, ¨¤ savoir la fermeture compl¨¨te de tous les bureaux de l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA en Cisjordanie, ¨¦tait inconnu du Tribunal d'appel et de lui-m¨ºme avant le jugement. Ce fait ¨¦tait clairement connu de M. Issa, ce qui rendait sa demande irrecevable pour ce seul motif.

Le TÄ¢¹½ÊÓƵC a not¨¦ que M. Issa ne pr¨¦sente pas, ni ne pr¨¦tend m¨ºme poss¨¦der, de preuve qu'il s'est effectivement conform¨¦ aux directives de l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA...

Le Tribunal d'appel a estim¨¦ que l'ajustement proportionnel des normes de charge de travail pour les services d'auto-r¨¦vision relevait clairement du pouvoir discr¨¦tionnaire de l'Administration. Le Tribunal d'appel s'est d¨¦clar¨¦ satisfait du fait que l'Administration avait suivi toutes les proc¨¦dures appropri¨¦es lors de la prise et de la mise en ?uvre de la d¨¦cision contest¨¦e, et que le TND avait correctement d¨¦termin¨¦ qu'il n'¨¦tait pas n¨¦cessaire de consulter la direction du personnel au niveau du d¨¦partement ou du bureau concernant une d¨¦cision administrative sp¨¦cifique susceptible d'appel.

Le...

The Tribunal found that Mr. Issa¡¯s application does not satisfy the stringent prerequisites for receivability under the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute, namely, that the decisive fact he now relies upon, that all Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA offices in the West Bank field were closed completely, was unknown to the Appeals Tribunal and to himself, prior to the Judgment. This was plainly known to Mr. Issa, rendering his application non-receivable on this ground alone.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that Mr. Issa does not present, or even purport to possess, evidence that he in fact had complied with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA¡¯s directives to advise the Agency of his...

The Appeals Tribunal found that the proportional adjustment of workload standards for self-revision services was a matter that fell squarely within the Administration¡¯s discretionary authority. The Appeals Tribunal was satisfied that the Administration followed all proper procedures when taking and implementing the contested decision, and the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT properly determined that there was no requirement for staff management consultations at the departmental or office level in relation to a specific appealable administrative decision.

The Appeals Tribunal dismissed the appeal and affirmed Judgment No...