Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly concluded that the former staff member committed misconduct by repeatedly violating, over more than a year and a half, the rules prohibiting his wife from staying overnight with him in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵMISS compound of a non-family duty station, without authorization or payment of the required accommodation fees, despite multiple warnings and a prior reprimand.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also confirmed that, during a counselling session, the former staff member threatened to kill his wife and any staff member to protect their marriage and his perceived right to cohabitation. It agreed...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in concluding that the staff member¡¯s application was not receivable. It found that the staff member did, in fact, challenge an administrative decision which she claimed was in non-compliance with her terms of employment. Consequently, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had jurisdiction to decide whether or not to order the conduct of an investigation or take other courses of action concerning the staff member¡¯s allegations and complaints. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that, by instead finding the staff member¡¯s application not receivable, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT acted in contravention of Section 5.6 of...

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵITAR n'¨¦tait pas tenu de mettre fin ¨¤ l'engagement du fonctionnaire en vertu du paragraphe 9 c) de la circulaire AC/Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵITAR/2019/05, qui lui aurait donn¨¦ droit ¨¤ une indemnit¨¦ de licenciement. L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵITAR ¨¦tait en droit de le placer en SLWOP conform¨¦ment au paragraphe 9 f), afin de pouvoir r¨¦gler la question du financement de son poste avec le donateur. Le TDPNU n'a pas commis d'erreur en concluant que l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵITAR avait exerc¨¦ son pouvoir discr¨¦tionnaire de mani¨¨re appropri¨¦e, l¨¦gale et raisonnable.

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a ¨¦galement confirm¨¦ la conclusion du TDPNU selon laquelle l'ancien...

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que la d¨¦cision contest¨¦e ¨¦tait une d¨¦cision de cessation de service li¨¦e ¨¤ l'expiration d'un contrat, et non une d¨¦cision de licenciement fond¨¦e sur la suppression d'un poste ou une r¨¦duction des effectifs. L'ancien fonctionnaire n'entrait pas dans la cat¨¦gorie des fonctionnaires ayant le droit d'¨ºtre pris en consid¨¦ration de mani¨¨re pr¨¦f¨¦rentielle pour le maintien en fonction et l'Administration n'avait pas l'obligation de lui trouver un autre poste appropri¨¦ ¨¤ la suite de la suppression ou du reclassement de son poste.

Le TÄ¢¹½ÊÓƵI a observ¨¦ que, bien que l'ancien fonctionnaire...

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ qu'il incombait au fonctionnaire de prouver que le fait que le Secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral n'ait pas r¨¦agi aux politiques discriminatoires du pays h?te et ¨¤ la tentative pr¨¦sum¨¦e des autorit¨¦s charg¨¦es de l'application de la loi de ce pays h?te de le recruter constituait une d¨¦cision unilat¨¦rale prise par l'Administration, qui s'appliquait ¨¤ lui individuellement et avait des cons¨¦quences juridiques directes sur ses conditions d'engagement ou son contrat de travail. Le TFP a estim¨¦ que le fonctionnaire ne pouvait pas s'acquitter de cette charge, car ces questions relevaient du domaine de...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵITAR was not obligated to terminate the staff member¡¯s appointment under paragraph 9(c) of AC/Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵITAR/2019/05, which would have provided him with a termination indemnity. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵITAR was within its rights to place him on SLWOP pursuant to paragraph 9(f), to enable it to resolve the issue of funding with the donor for financing the staff member¡¯s position. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in finding that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵITAR exercised its discretion properly, lawfully and reasonably.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that the former staff member had not met his burden of proof that he had...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the contested decision was a separation decision hinged on expiration of an appointment, and not a termination decision based on abolition of post or reduction of staff. The former staff member did not fall within the category of staff with the right to be considered on a preferential basis for retention and the Administration did not have an obligation to find him an alternative and suitable position following the abolition or reclassification exercise.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that although the former staff member was informed in his non-renewal letter that he would be placed on...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member bore the burden of proving that the Secretary-General¡¯s failures to address both the discriminatory policies of the host country and the alleged attempt of the law enforcement authorities of that host country to recruit him, constituted unilateral decisions taken by the Administration, which applied to him individually, and had direct legal consequences on his terms of appointment or contract of employment. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member could not meet this burden because these issues fell within the realm of diplomacy, are subject to the rules of...

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT n'avait pas commis d'erreur en rejetant la demande d'audience orale de la fonctionnaire, car le dossier ¨¦tait ? complet ? et il n'y avait ? aucun diff¨¦rend irr¨¦conciliable entre les parties quant aux faits ?.

Le TÄ¢¹½ÊÓƵAS a estim¨¦ que le placement de la fonctionnaire en cong¨¦ administratif ¨¦tait justifi¨¦, ¨¦tant donn¨¦ qu'elle avait re?u les noms des membres du comit¨¦ d'enqu¨ºte charg¨¦ d'enqu¨ºter sur sa faute pr¨¦sum¨¦e et qu'elle ¨¦tait en mesure d'approuver le contrat de consultant de l'un de ces membres, ce qui cr¨¦ait un conflit d'int¨¦r¨ºts et un risque r¨¦el d'ing¨¦rence dans...

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que le fonctionnaire connaissait tous les faits pertinents et avait ¨¦t¨¦ suffisamment inform¨¦ et d?ment notifi¨¦ de la d¨¦cision contest¨¦e au plus tard le 18 mai 2023 afin de pouvoir d¨¦poser une demande d'¨¦valuation de la direction dans les d¨¦lais impartis. Or, le fonctionnaire n'a d¨¦pos¨¦ sa demande d'¨¦valuation de la direction que le 16 septembre 2023, soit apr¨¨s l'expiration du d¨¦lai de 60 jours.

Le TÄ¢¹½ÊÓƵI a observ¨¦ que l'objet des ¨¦changes de courriels en ao?t 2023 entre l'Administration et le fonctionnaire ¨¦tait des demandes de ? clarification ? du fondement d'une d¨¦cision...

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a observ¨¦ que M. Ponce-Gonzalez tentait de persuader le Tribunal d'appel qu'un fonctionnaire qui pr¨¦tendait avoir d¨¦l¨¦gu¨¦ le pouvoir de prendre des d¨¦cisions en mati¨¨re d'embauche n'avait en fait pas ce pouvoir. M. Ponce-Gonzalez a affirm¨¦ disposer de nouveaux documents ¨¤ l'appui de son argumentation.

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que les nouveaux faits d¨¦couverts ne r¨¦pondaient pas ¨¤ l'exigence l¨¦gale d'avoir une incidence d¨¦cisive sur l'issue du pr¨¦c¨¦dent recours et que, par cons¨¦quent, la demande de r¨¦vision ne satisfaisait pas au crit¨¨re l¨¦gal strict pr¨¦vu ¨¤ l'article 11(1) du Statut de l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a observ¨¦ que M. Ponce-Gonzalez tentait de persuader le Tribunal d'appel qu'un fonctionnaire qui pr¨¦tendait avoir d¨¦l¨¦gu¨¦ le pouvoir de prendre des d¨¦cisions en mati¨¨re d'embauche n'avait en fait pas ce pouvoir. M. Ponce-Gonzalez a affirm¨¦ disposer de nouveaux documents ¨¤ l'appui de son argumentation.

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que les nouveaux faits d¨¦couverts ne r¨¦pondaient pas ¨¤ l'exigence l¨¦gale d'avoir une incidence d¨¦cisive sur l'issue du pr¨¦c¨¦dent recours et que, par cons¨¦quent, la demande de r¨¦vision ne satisfaisait pas au crit¨¨re l¨¦gal strict pr¨¦vu ¨¤ l'article 11(1) du Statut de l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT et...

Le TÄ¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que le TDPNU avait commis une erreur en ne pronon?ant pas la r¨¦paration pr¨¦vue ¨¤ l'article 10(5)(a) du Statut du TDPNU apr¨¨s avoir conclu que la d¨¦cision disciplinaire ¨¦tait ill¨¦gale. Le TDPNU a commis une erreur en refusant d'annuler la d¨¦cision contest¨¦e au motif que le fonctionnaire avait abus¨¦ de la proc¨¦dure judiciaire. Le TÄ¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a renvoy¨¦ l'affaire devant le TDPNU afin qu'il statue sur la r¨¦paration appropri¨¦e.

Le TÄ¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a confirm¨¦ la conclusion du TUD que l'ancien fonctionnaire avait manifestement abus¨¦ de la proc¨¦dure judiciaire en produisant des documents falsifi¨¦s...

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que le fonctionnaire avait d¨¦pos¨¦ son recours plus d'un an apr¨¨s le prononc¨¦ du jugement du TFP et que, m¨ºme s'il avait demand¨¦ une d¨¦rogation au d¨¦lai en raison de circonstances exceptionnelles, son recours ¨¦tait prescrit et irrecevable ratione temporis.

Le TÄ¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a n¨¦anmoins not¨¦ que la requ¨ºte d¨¦pos¨¦e par le fonctionnaire aupr¨¨s du TUDI n'¨¦tait pas recevable en vertu de la doctrine de la res judicata, car le TÄ¢¹½ÊÓƵAT avait d¨¦j¨¤ confirm¨¦ dans son jugement ant¨¦rieur un jugement du TUDI statuant sur sa contestation de la m¨ºme d¨¦cision administrative.

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que le...

Le TFP a estim¨¦ que, puisque l'indemnit¨¦ compensatoire a pour but de replacer un fonctionnaire dans la situation qui aurait ¨¦t¨¦ la sienne si l'Organisation avait respect¨¦ ses obligations contractuelles, le traitement de base net ¨¤ verser conform¨¦ment ¨¤ l'arr¨ºt du TFP ¨¦tait le traitement de base net que l'ancien fonctionnaire aurait per?u ¨¤ la date de la d¨¦cision contest¨¦e et de la cessation de ses fonctions, ¨¤ savoir le 20 mai 2021. Par cons¨¦quent, le TFP a conclu que le calcul du Secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral, qui avait retenu deux ans de salaire de base net, ¨¦tait appropri¨¦.

Le TFP a en outre estim¨¦ que...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, since the purpose of compensation in lieu is to place a staff member in the same position he or she would have been had the Organization complied with its contractual obligations, the net base salary to be paid in accordance with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment was the net base salary that the former staff member would have earned at the date of the contested decision and his separation from service, namely 20 May 2021. Therefore, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that the Secretary-General¡¯s calculation of two years¡¯ net base salary was appropriate.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further held that the deductions made for...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the staff member had filed his appeal more than a year after the issuance of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment and even if he had requested a waiver of the time limit on the basis of exceptional circumstances, his appeal was time-barred and not receivable ratione temporis.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT nevertheless noted that the staff member¡¯s application filed with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was not receivable under the doctrine of res judicata because the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT had already affirmed in its earlier judgment a Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment deciding his challenge to the same administrative decision.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the staff member sought to...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that Mr. Ponce-Gonzalez was attempting to persuade the Appeals Tribunal that an official who claimed to have delegated authority to make hiring decisions did not in fact have such authority. Mr. Ponce-Gonzalez claimed to have new documents in support of his argument.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the new facts discovered did not meet the statutory requirement for decisiveness on the outcome of the earlier appeal and hence the application for revision did not satisfy the strict statutory test under Article 11(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute, and the application was denied.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that Mr. Ponce-Gonzalez was attempting to persuade the Appeals Tribunal that an official who claimed to have delegated authority to make hiring decisions did not in fact have such authority. Mr. Ponce-Gonzalez claimed to have new documents in support of his argument.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the new facts discovered did not meet the statutory requirement for decisiveness on the outcome of the earlier appeal and hence the application for revision did not satisfy the strict statutory test under Article 11(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute, and was denied.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in denying the staff member¡¯s request for an oral hearing as the case record was ¡°comprehensive¡± and there was ¡°no irreconcilable dispute of facts between the parties.¡±

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member¡¯s placement on ALWP was justified, given that the staff member was provided with the names of the members of the fact-finding panel assigned to investigate her alleged misconduct, and that she was in a position to approve the consultancy contract of one of those members, which created a conflict of interest and a genuine risk of interference in the...