Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

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...

L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ qu¡¯une partie l¨¦s¨¦e par le rejet d¡¯une mesure provisoire peut, et doit g¨¦n¨¦ralement, attendre que l¡¯affaire soit
d¨¦finitivement tranch¨¦e avant d¡¯interjeter appel.

L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a jug¨¦ qu¡¯une d¨¦cision relative ¨¤ une mesure provisoire peut faire l¡¯objet d¡¯un r¨¦examen s¡¯il est d¨¦montr¨¦ que le tribunal de premi¨¨re instance, ¨¤ savoir le JAB, a outrepass¨¦ sa comp¨¦tence.

L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a not¨¦ que le JAB est express¨¦ment habilit¨¦ par le r¨¨glement du personnel de l¡¯ISA ¨¤ d¨¦cider si la suspension d¡¯une mesure administrative est appropri¨¦e, ce qui rel¨¨ve de sa comp¨¦tence et de sa juridiction.

L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that a party aggrieved by denial of interim relief can and generally must wait until the matter is finally resolved before filing an appeal.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that a decision regarding interim relief may be reviewable if it can be shown that the first instance tribunal, the JAB, exceeded its jurisdiction or competence.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the JAB is specifically empowered by the ISA Staff Rules to decide whether suspension of an administrative action is appropriate, which is within its competence and jurisdiction.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that there was no basis for its intervention in the...

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 l¡¯ancien membre du personnel n¡¯avait pas demand¨¦ d¡¯audience orale au cours de la proc¨¦dure devant l¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT et ne pouvait donc pas ¨ºtre autoris¨¦ ¨¤ le faire en appel. L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, en tant qu¡¯instance charg¨¦e d¡¯appr¨¦cier les faits, ne peut ¨ºtre contourn¨¦e.

L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT n¡¯a constat¨¦ aucune erreur dans la conclusion de l¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT selon laquelle les griefs formul¨¦s par l¡¯ancien membre du
personnel apr¨¨s sa cessation de service sortaient du champ de comp¨¦tence de cette derni¨¨re et n¡¯¨¦taient pas recevables, faute de
demande pr¨¦alable et introduite dans les d¨¦lais en vue d¡¯une ¨¦valuation par la...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the former staff member did not request an oral hearing during proceedings before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and thus cannot be allowed to do so on appeal. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT as the trier of fact cannot be bypassed.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no error in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that the former staff member¡¯s post-separation grievances were beyond its scope of adjudication and not receivable because there was no prior and timely request for management evaluation. The sanction for non-compliance with this mandatory internal procedure is the non-receivability of the application challenging the contested decision.

The...

L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que les questions soulev¨¦es en appel portaient sur le point de savoir si l¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT avait manifestement outrepass¨¦ sa juridiction ou sa comp¨¦tence en rendant les ordonnances interlocutoires contest¨¦es relatives ¨¤ la gestion de l¡¯instance, et si les
erreurs de proc¨¦dure all¨¦gu¨¦es ¨¦taient effectivement irr¨¦m¨¦diables par un jugement d¨¦finitif ou manifestement d¨¦raisonnables au point de justifier un r¨¦examen interlocutoire. Elle a rappel¨¦ que les recours contre des ordonnances interlocutoires ne sont
recevables que dans des circonstances rares et exceptionnelles, et que les questions...

L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que les questions soulev¨¦es en appel portaient sur le point de savoir si l¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT avait commis une erreur en
refusant d¡¯accorder l¡¯anonymat au membre du personnel dans le cadre d¡¯une proc¨¦dure contestant une r¨¦primande ¨¦crite, s¡¯il avait mal appliqu¨¦ la jurisprudence r¨¦gissant l¡¯anonymisation, et si une telle erreur justifiait un r¨¦examen interlocutoire. Elle a rappel¨¦ que les recours interlocutoires ne sont recevables que dans des circonstances rares et exceptionnelles, notamment lorsqu¡¯une erreur ne peut ¨ºtre corrig¨¦e par un jugement d¨¦finitif et qu¡¯il serait manifestement...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the issues on appeal were whether the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in refusing to grant anonymity to the staff member in proceedings challenging a written reprimand, whether it misapplied the jurisprudence governing anonymization, and whether such an error justified interlocutory review. It recalled that interlocutory appeals are receivable only in rare and exceptional circumstances, including where an error is irremediable by a final judgment and it would be manifestly unreasonable for the impugned order to remain in effect.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT committed an error of law by...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the issues on appeal were whether the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had clearly exceeded its jurisdiction or competence in issuing the impugned interlocutory case?management orders, and whether any alleged procedural errors were effectively irremediable by a final judgment or manifestly unreasonable so as to justify interlocutory review. It recalled that appeals against interlocutory orders are receivable only in rare and exceptional circumstances, and that matters relating to evidence, procedure, and trial conduct fall within the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s broad case?management discretion.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT...

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a not¨¦ que le fonctionnaire figurait en t¨ºte de la liste des candidats recommand¨¦s, mais a estim¨¦ que le Haut-Commissaire n'¨¦tait pas tenu de le s¨¦lectionner, car tous les candidats figurant sur la liste avaient ¨¦t¨¦ jug¨¦s aptes ¨¤ exercer les fonctions du poste.

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a conclu que le fonctionnaire n'avait pas fourni, dans son recours, de raison convaincante expliquant pourquoi et comment une audience devant le TFP aurait pu influencer la d¨¦cision rendue dans cette affaire.

Le TÄ¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que le fonctionnaire n'avait pas re?u une note de performance erron¨¦e et que le TDPI n'avait pas...

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a observ¨¦ que le Secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral avait choisi de limiter la port¨¦e de son appel aux seules conclusions du TDPI concernant deux des neuf cas de faute pr¨¦sum¨¦e commise par l'ancien fonctionnaire. L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a en outre reconnu que le Secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral soutenait que le TDPI avait commis une erreur de droit en appliquant les crit¨¨res juridiques relatifs au harc¨¨lement et au harc¨¨lement sexuel aux deux incidents.

N¨¦anmoins, le TÄ¢¹½ÊÓƵAS a estim¨¦ que pour trancher la question en appel, il ne suffisait pas d'appliquer simplement le crit¨¨re juridique correct. Pour parvenir ¨¤ une conclusion, il ne...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the staff member had been ranked first on the list of recommended candidates but held that the High Commissioner had been under no obligation to select him, since all the candidates included in the list had been deemed suitable to carry out the functions of the post.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the staff member had given no convincing reason on appeal as to why and how an oral hearing before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT would have impacted the decision of the case.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the staff member had not received a wrong performance rating and that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not misrepresented or failed to give...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that the Secretary-General elected to limit the scope of his appeal only against the findings of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT with respect to two of nine instances of alleged misconduct by the former staff member. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further acknowledged that the Secretary-General¡¯s contention was that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law when it applied the legal tests for harassment and sexual harassment to the two incidents.

Nonetheless, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that to determine the issue on appeal required more than simply an application of the correct legal test. To reach any conclusions requires more than simply regard to...

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT n'avait pas commis d'erreur en concluant que la d¨¦cision contest¨¦e de classer la plainte du fonctionnaire sans enqu¨ºte ¨¦tait l¨¦gale et raisonnable. L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que l'OIAI avait correctement ¨¦valu¨¦ les all¨¦gations et d¨¦termin¨¦ qu'elles ne reposaient pas sur des preuves ou des indices suffisants de faute professionnelle, et que les incidents d¨¦crits relevaient d'une gestion normale des performances plut?t que d'un harc¨¨lement ou d'un abus d'autorit¨¦.

Le TÄ¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a en outre estim¨¦ que le TUD avait correctement conclu que les d¨¦saccords concernant les ¨¦valuations de...

Le TNP a estim¨¦ que le Tribunal du contentieux de l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA n'avait pas commis d'erreur en concluant que la demande de l'ancien fonctionnaire concernant le calcul des prestations du Fonds de pr¨¦voyance ¨¦tait sans fondement, car l'Office avait correctement appliqu¨¦ le cadre juridique en vigueur. Le TNP a estim¨¦ qu'en vertu de l'article 106.1(16)(D)(ii) du R¨¨glement du personnel local, le dernier taux d'int¨¦r¨ºt sp¨¦cial publi¨¦ s'applique jusqu'au mois pr¨¦c¨¦dant imm¨¦diatement le paiement inclus. ?tant donn¨¦ que le paiement a ¨¦t¨¦ effectu¨¦ en ao?t 2022, l'Agence a correctement appliqu¨¦ la circulaire...

Le TNP a estim¨¦ que le Tribunal du contentieux de l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA n'avait pas commis d'erreur en concluant que la demande de l'ancien fonctionnaire concernant le calcul des prestations du Fonds de pr¨¦voyance ¨¦tait sans fondement, car l'Office avait correctement appliqu¨¦ le cadre juridique en vigueur. Le TNP a estim¨¦ qu'en vertu de l'article 106.1(16)(D)(ii) du R¨¨glement du personnel local, le dernier taux d'int¨¦r¨ºt sp¨¦cial publi¨¦ s'applique jusqu'au mois pr¨¦c¨¦dant imm¨¦diatement le paiement inclus. ?tant donn¨¦ que le paiement a ¨¦t¨¦ effectu¨¦ en ao?t 2022, l'Agence a correctement appliqu¨¦ la circulaire...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA Dispute Tribunal did not err in concluding that the former staff member¡¯s claim regarding the calculation of Provident Fund benefits was unfounded because the Agency correctly applied the governing legal framework. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that, under Area Staff Rule 106.1(16)(D)(ii), the last published special interest rate applies up to and including the month immediately preceding payment. Since the payment was made in August 2022, the Agency properly applied PF Secretariat Circular PFS/08/2022, which declared a negative special interest rate of -15.18% for January¨CJune...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA Dispute Tribunal did not err in concluding that the former staff member¡¯s claim regarding the calculation of Provident Fund benefits was unfounded because the Agency correctly applied the governing legal framework. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that, under Area Staff Rule 106.1(16)(D)(ii), the last published special interest rate applies up to and including the month immediately preceding payment. Since the payment was made in August 2022, the Agency properly applied PF Secretariat Circular PFS/08/2022, which declared a negative special interest rate of -15.18% for January¨CJune...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in concluding that the contested decision to close the staff member¡¯s complaint without investigation was lawful and reasonable. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that OIAI properly assessed the allegations and determined they lacked sufficient evidence or indicia of misconduct, and that the incidents described fell within normal performance management rather than harassment or abuse of authority.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly found that disagreements over performance ratings and the implementation of a Performance Improvement Plan do not constitute...