Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Le TANU a estim¨¦ que M. Almasri ne remplissait pas les conditions requises pour la r¨¦vision de l'arr¨ºt ant¨¦rieur du TANU. Le principal grief de M. Almasri ¨¦tait que la r¨¦paration qui lui avait ¨¦t¨¦ accord¨¦e ne l'avait pas rendu ¨¦ligible ¨¤ une meilleure pension de retraite sur la base d'un service r¨¦put¨¦ plus long et d'ant¨¦c¨¦dents en mati¨¨re de cotisations.

Le TANU a constat¨¦ que M. Almasri n'avait avanc¨¦ aucun fait nouveau qui aurait ¨¦t¨¦ inconnu de lui ou du TANU ¨¤ l'¨¦poque de l'arr¨ºt pr¨¦c¨¦dent, ni aucun fait qui aurait ¨¦t¨¦ d¨¦cisif dans la prise de d¨¦cision s'il avait ¨¦t¨¦ connu. Au contraire...

Le TANU a estim¨¦ que l'invocation par le requ¨¦rant de l'article 2 du statut du TANU pour sa demande de r¨¦vision ¨¦tait malavis¨¦e et, en tant que telle, n'¨¦tait pas recevable et manquait de fondement. Le TANU a n¨¦anmoins examin¨¦ sa demande de r¨¦vision dans le cadre juridique appropri¨¦, ¨¤ savoir l'article 11 du statut du TANU et l'article 24 du r¨¨glement int¨¦rieur du TANU.

Le TANU a estim¨¦ que, hormis le fait que la demande avait ¨¦t¨¦ d¨¦pos¨¦e dans un d¨¦lai d'un an ¨¤ compter de l'arr¨ºt du TANU en question, la demande de r¨¦vision ne r¨¦pondait ¨¤ aucune des exigences statutaires. Aucun fait d¨¦couvert...

Le TANU a not¨¦ que l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT n'avait pas commis d'erreur lorsqu'elle avait ¨¦tabli que l'agent avait utilis¨¦ de mani¨¨re inappropri¨¦e l'ordinateur portable fourni par son employeur pour acc¨¦der ¨¤ des sites web sexuellement explicites et qu'il s'¨¦tait livr¨¦ ¨¤ de multiples reprises ¨¤ des activit¨¦s ext¨¦rieures non autoris¨¦es. Le TANU a estim¨¦ qu'il n'avait pas obtenu l'autorisation de continuer ¨¤ ¨ºtre l'actionnaire majoritaire et le directeur d'une soci¨¦t¨¦.

Le TANU a estim¨¦ que l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT n'avait pas commis d'erreur en estimant que l'activit¨¦ de l'agent constituait une faute. Le TANU a estim¨¦ que les...

Le TANU a estim¨¦ que le DT de l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA avait identifi¨¦ ¨¤ juste titre que la norme de preuve pour placer l'agent en ALWOP ¨¦tait qu'il y ait des soup?ons raisonnables ou des motifs raisonnables de croire que l'agent avait commis la faute all¨¦gu¨¦e.

Le TANU a rejet¨¦ l'argument de l'agent selon lequel le retrait par son ex-femme de la plainte d¨¦pos¨¦e contre lui devant une juridiction nationale aurait d? mettre un terme ¨¤ toutes les enqu¨ºtes men¨¦es ¨¤ son encontre. Le TANU a not¨¦ que le tribunal national avait fourni les dossiers de l'affaire ¨¤ l'Agence et que celle-ci, apr¨¨s une ¨¦valuation compl¨¨te...

Le TANU a confirm¨¦ la d¨¦termination par le DT de l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA des chances de s¨¦lection de l'ancien membre du personnel pour le poste ¨¤ un quart pour des raisons alternatives. Le TANU a estim¨¦ que le DT de l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA avait correctement pris en compte la possibilit¨¦ que l'Office ait pu pr¨¦senter d'autres candidats sur une base d'¨¦quivalence lors d'un second examen apr¨¨s la phase de pr¨¦s¨¦lection. En particulier, le Tribunal arbitral de l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA a estim¨¦ que, ¨¦tant donn¨¦ que le nombre suffisant de candidats pour un exercice de mise en concurrence se situe normalement entre trois et cinq candidats par poste...

Le TANU a not¨¦ que l'agent avait fait partie du personnel dont les engagements ¨¤ dur¨¦e d¨¦termin¨¦e n'avaient pas ¨¦t¨¦ renouvel¨¦s en raison de la fermeture de la mission de la MINUAD.

En ce qui concerne son coll¨¨gue qui a ¨¦t¨¦ r¨¦affect¨¦ lat¨¦ralement au si¨¨ge et qui est donc rest¨¦ en service, le TANU a constat¨¦ que la r¨¦affectation ¨¦tait directement li¨¦e au fait incontest¨¦ que le coll¨¨gue ne pouvait pas ¨ºtre rapatri¨¦ en Afghanistan pour des raisons de s?ret¨¦ et de s¨¦curit¨¦. Le TANU a estim¨¦ que si la l¨¦galit¨¦ de la d¨¦cision de r¨¦affectation n'avait pas ¨¦t¨¦ soumise ¨¤ son appr¨¦ciation, il n'¨¦tait pas...

? titre pr¨¦liminaire, le Tribunal d'appel a rejet¨¦ les demandes d'audience des appelants au motif qu'une audience ne serait pas rapide et qu'¨¤ la lumi¨¨re des observations ¨¦crites d¨¦taill¨¦es, il n'y aurait rien ¨¤ gagner ¨¤ entendre les avocats des appelants en personne.

Le Tribunal d'appel a estim¨¦ qu'en l'absence d'une promesse expresse de renouvellement des engagements ¨¤ dur¨¦e d¨¦termin¨¦e des requ¨¦rants, ces derniers n'avaient pas d'esp¨¦rance l¨¦gitime de renouvellement de leurs contrats ¨¤ dur¨¦e d¨¦termin¨¦e. Les d¨¦clarations donnant des assurances aux membres du personnel de l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOPS n'ont pas ¨¦t¨¦...

As a preliminary matter, the Appeals Tribunal dismissed the Appellants' requests for an oral hearing on grounds that an oral hearing would not be expeditious and that in light of comprehensive written submissions nothing would be gained from hearing the Appellants¡¯ counsel in person.

The Appeals Tribunal found that in the absence of an express promise of renewal of the Appellants¡¯ fixed-term appointments, the Appellants did not have a legitimate expectation of renewal of their fixed-term contracts. The statements giving assurances to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOPS staff members were not made by a Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOPS official with...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT rightly identified that the standard of proof for placing the staff member on ALWOP was whether there was reasonable suspicion or reasonable grounds to believe that the staff member had committed the alleged misconduct.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the staff member¡¯s argument that his ex-wife¡¯s withdrawal of the complaint against him in a national court should have stopped all investigations against him. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the national court had provided the case records to the Agency, and the Agency, following its complete assessment of the situation, can proceed with...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not erred when it established that the staff member had improperly used his employer-issued laptop to access sexually-explicit websites and engaged in multiple instances of unauthorized outside activities. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that he had not obtained approval to continue being the majority shareholder and director of a company.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was of the view that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not erred when it found that the staff member¡¯s activity constituted misconduct. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that his contributions to the overall running of the business were material. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the applicant¡¯s reliance on Article 2 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute for his application for revision was misguided and as such, was not receivable and lacked merit. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT nonetheless reviewed his application for revision under the appropriate legal framework, which is in Article 11 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute and Article 24 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Rules of Procedure.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that other than the application being filed within one year of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment at issue, the application for revision did not comply with any of the statutory requirements. There was no fact discovered after the issuance...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s determination of the former staff member¡¯s chances of selection for the position at one-fourth on alternative grounds. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT appropriately considered the possibility that the Agency could have introduced additional candidates on an equivalency basis during a second review after the shortlisting phase. In particular, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT held that, since the sufficient number of candidates for a competitive exercise was normally between three to five candidates per vacancy, it was reasonable to expect that the Agency would have brought more...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr. Almasri did not fulfil the requirements for revision of the prior Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment. Mr. Almasri¡¯s primary complaint was that the remedy awarded to him failed to make him eligible for a better retirement pension based on a longer deemed service and contribution history.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that no new fact was advanced by Mr. Almasri that had been unknown either to him or the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT at the time of the prior Judgment, nor one that would have been decisive in reaching the decision had it been known. Instead, it was Mr. Almasri¡¯s negligence that brought about his factual ignorance...

Le TANU a estim¨¦ que le DT de l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA avait commis une erreur de droit en estimant que le cadre juridique applicable permettait au jury d'entretien de proc¨¦der ¨¤ des ¨¦valuations techniques des candidats.Toutefois, le TANU a estim¨¦ que l'irr¨¦gularit¨¦ proc¨¦durale du jury, qui a organis¨¦ une deuxi¨¨me s¨¦rie d'entretiens de nature purement technique, n'¨¦tait pas suffisante pour faire droit au recours, car l'issue du processus de recrutement aurait ¨¦t¨¦ la m¨ºme.
Le TANU a estim¨¦ que le DT de l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA n'avait pas commis d'erreur en ce qui concerne l'incapacit¨¦ de l'Office ¨¤ appliquer correctement les...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT had erred in law when it found that the applicable legal framework allowed the interview panel to conduct technical assessments of the candidates. However, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the procedural irregularity of the panel having held a second round of interviews of a purely technical nature, would not suffice to grant the appeal because the outcome of the recruitment process would have been the same.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT had not erred with regards to the Agency¡¯s failure to correctly apply gender parity rules. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that gender parity had not...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the new evidence submitted for the first time on appeal, which sought to justify the late filing of the case by attributing it to the appellant¡¯s attorney¡¯s personal circumstances.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was of the opinion that staff members must generally adhere to the specified time limits. However, in this case, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had erred in fact and law in dismissing Mr. Khan¡¯s application as not receivable ratione temporis. It concluded that Mr. Khan¡¯s exceptional circumstances¡ªincluding severe flooding disrupting internet service and affecting his ability to access e...

Le TANU a estim¨¦ que le Tribunal n'avait pas commis d'erreur en concluant que la demande de l'agent n'¨¦tait pas recevable parce qu'il n'avait pas demand¨¦ l'¨¦valuation de la d¨¦cision contest¨¦e par l'encadrement dans le d¨¦lai l¨¦gal de 60 jours. Le TANU a d¨¦termin¨¦ que, puisque l'agent avait ¨¦t¨¦ inform¨¦ les 27 et 28 avril 2022 du rejet de sa demande d'¨¦valuation m¨¦dicale, il disposait d'un d¨¦lai de 60 jours ¨¤ compter de cette date pour introduire sa demande d'¨¦valuation par l'encadrement. Cependant, il n'a soumis sa demande au Groupe du contr?le hi¨¦rarchique que le 3 novembre 2022, puis au...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in finding that the staff member¡¯s application was not receivable because he failed to request management evaluation of the contested decision within the 60-day statutory time limit. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT determined that, since the staff member was notified on 27 and 28 April 2022 of the rejection of his request for medical evaluation, he had 60 days from that date to submit his request for management evaluation. However, he only submitted his request to the Management Evaluation Unit on 3 November 2022, and later to the United Nations Development Programme (Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP) on...

Le TANU a estim¨¦ que le TNDU n'avait pas commis d'erreur en concluant que la mesure disciplinaire impos¨¦e ¨¦tait l¨¦gale.
Le TANU a rejet¨¦ l'argument de l'ancien membre du personnel selon lequel la d¨¦cision de M¨¦decins sans fronti¨¨res (MSF) lui interdisant de collaborer avec l'association ¨¤ l'avenir ne pouvait ¨ºtre qualifi¨¦e de mesure disciplinaire, puisqu'elle lui avait ¨¦t¨¦ communiqu¨¦e alors qu'il n'¨¦tait plus employ¨¦ par l'association. Le TANU a estim¨¦ que cet argument n'¨¦tait pas recevable, car il avait d¨¦j¨¤ ¨¦t¨¦ pr¨¦sent¨¦ devant le TNDU.
En tout ¨¦tat de cause, le TANU a d¨¦termin¨¦ que la...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in finding that the disciplinary measure imposed was lawful.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the former staff member¡¯s argument that the decision of Doctors Without Borders (DWB) prohibiting him from collaborating with the association in the future, could not be characterized as a disciplinary measure, since it was communicated to him after he was no longer employed by the association. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that this argument was not admissible, as it had already been presented before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT.

In any event, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT determined that the decision from DWB constituted a...