Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a tout d¡¯abord pr¨¦cis¨¦ que le recours ne visait pas la deuxi¨¨me sanction, l¡¯ancien fonctionnaire n¡¯ayant pas form¨¦ de recours contre celle-ci dans les d¨¦lais impartis, mais visait plut?t ¨¤ garantir l¡¯exactitude de son dossier personnel aupr¨¨s des Nations Unies. ? cet ¨¦gard, l¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que l¡¯Administration avait commis une erreur en s¡¯appuyant sur les conclusions disciplinaires
ant¨¦rieures et les premi¨¨res sanctions pour d¨¦terminer la deuxi¨¨me sanction. Elle a estim¨¦ que, lorsque l¡¯Administration a examin¨¦ et d¨¦cid¨¦ de la deuxi¨¨me sanction, elle avait connaissance, ou devait ¨ºtre...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT first clarified that the appeal was not directed against the second sanction, given the former staff member¡¯s failure to appeal that sanction in a timely manner, but rather concerned ensuring that his personal records with the United Nations were accurate.In this regard, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Administration¡¯s reliance on the previous disciplinary findings and first sanctions in determining the second sanction was erroneous. It held that when the Administration considered and decided the second sanction, the former staff member¡¯s pending Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT appeal regarding the first sanctions...

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...

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...

L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que les questions soulev¨¦es en appel portaient sur le point de savoir si le Tribunal des litiges de l¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA avait commis une erreur en concluant que les faits de faute avaient ¨¦t¨¦ ¨¦tablis selon la norme de la preuve claire et convaincante, s¡¯il avait commis une erreur en concluant que le comportement constituait une faute grave, et s¡¯il avait commis une erreur en confirmant la proportionnalit¨¦ de la sanction disciplinaire consistant en la cessation de service sans indemnit¨¦ de licenciement. Il a rappel¨¦ que son r?le n¡¯¨¦tait pas de proc¨¦der ¨¤ un r¨¦examen de novo, mais de...

L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que les questions soulev¨¦es en appel portaient sur les points suivants : le TND avait-il commis une erreur en
d¨¦clarant la requ¨ºte irrecevable au motif que la demande d¡¯¨¦valuation de la direction n¡¯avait pas ¨¦t¨¦ formul¨¦e dans le d¨¦lai
obligatoire de 60 jours ? Avait-il commis une erreur en d¨¦terminant la date de notification de la d¨¦cision administrative contest¨¦e? Et les conclusions relatives ¨¤ la perte d¡¯objet ou aux violations all¨¦gu¨¦es des garanties proc¨¦durales avaient-elles une incidence sur l¡¯issue de l¡¯affaire ? Elle a rappel¨¦ que son r?le en appel se limite ¨¤...

L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que les questions soulev¨¦es en appel portaient sur les points suivants : le Tribunal administratif des Nations unies (Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵTD) avait-il commis une erreur en concluant que le Secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral avait l¨¦galement exerc¨¦ son pouvoir discr¨¦tionnaire en annulant l¡¯offre d¡¯emploi ? Recrutement ¨¤ partir de la liste de r¨¦serve ? ; cette d¨¦cision reposait-elle sur des motifs rationnels et
raisonnables ; et l¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵTD avait-il commis une erreur en rejetant les all¨¦gations du fonctionnaire relatives ¨¤ une discrimination, ¨¤ un motif ill¨¦gitime ou ¨¤ une irr¨¦gularit¨¦ de proc¨¦dure?

L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que...

L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que les questions soulev¨¦es en appel portaient sur les points suivants : le TND avait-il commis une erreur en concluant que le fonctionnaire avait b¨¦n¨¦fici¨¦ d¡¯un examen complet et ¨¦quitable de sa candidature au poste temporaire vacant ? Avait-il commis une erreur en concluant que la d¨¦cision de non-s¨¦lection n¡¯¨¦tait entach¨¦e d¡¯aucun parti pris, d¡¯aucune discrimination ni d¡¯aucune autre consid¨¦ration ¨¦trang¨¨re ¨¤ l¡¯affaire ? Et avait-il commis une erreur en d¨¦clarant certains griefs irrecevables au motif que le fonctionnaire n¡¯avait pas demand¨¦ d¡¯¨¦valuation de la direction ? Elle...

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 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...

L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que l¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT n¡¯avait pas commis d¡¯erreur en concluant que la requ¨ºte de l¡¯ancienne employ¨¦e n¡¯¨¦tait pas recevable.

En ce qui concerne les griefs de l¡¯ancienne fonctionnaire relatifs au vol pr¨¦sum¨¦ de son salaire, ¨¤ l¡¯absence pr¨¦sum¨¦e de fondement juridique pour le recouvrement de son indemnit¨¦ de fin de service et ¨¤ la retenue ill¨¦gale pr¨¦sum¨¦e de cette indemnit¨¦, l¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a
estim¨¦ que ces griefs n¡¯¨¦taient pas recevables ratione materiae, car elle n¡¯avait pas demand¨¦ l¡¯¨¦valuation par la direction des
d¨¦cisions contest¨¦es dans le d¨¦lai r¨¦glementaire. ? cet ¨¦gard, l¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a en outre...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in finding that the former staff member¡¯s application was not receivable.

Regarding the former staff member¡¯s claims concerning the alleged theft of her wages, the alleged lack of a legal basis for the recovery of her final pay, and the alleged illegal withholding of her final pay, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that these claims were not receivable ratione materiae, because she failed to request management evaluation of the contested decisions within the statutory time limit.In this regard, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further held that her ignorance or misunderstanding of the law...

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 held that the issues on appeal were whether the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding that the staff member received full and fair consideration for the Temporary Job Opening, whether it erred in concluding that the non?selection decision was untainted by bias, discrimination, or other extraneous considerations, and whether it erred in declaring certain claims not receivable for failure to request management evaluation. It recalled that its role on appeal is not to conduct a de novo review, but to determine whether the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT committed an error of law, fact, or procedure resulting in an unreasonable...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the issues on appeal were whether the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding that the Secretary-General lawfully exercised his discretion in cancelling the Recruit from Roster Job Opening, whether the decision was supported by a rational and reasonable basis, and whether the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in rejecting the staff member¡¯s allegations of discrimination, improper motive, or procedural irregularity.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly applied established jurisprudence on staff selection, including the principle that the Administration is not obliged to complete a recruitment exercise once...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the issues on appeal were whether the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding the application not receivable for failure to request management evaluation within the mandatory 60?day time limit, whether it erred in identifying the date of notification of the contested administrative decision, and whether any findings on mootness or alleged due process violations affected the outcome. It recalled that its role on appeal is limited to determining whether the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT committed an error of law, fact, or procedure resulting in an unreasonable decision.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly identified...

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...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the issues on appeal were whether the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA Dispute Tribunal erred in finding that the facts of misconduct were established to the clear and convincing evidence standard, whether it erred in concluding that the conduct constituted serious misconduct, and whether it erred in affirming the proportionality of the disciplinary sanction of separation from service without termination indemnity. It recalled that its role is not to conduct a de novo review, but to determine whether the first?instance tribunal committed an error of law, fact, or procedure resulting in an unreasonable...

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 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...