Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in refusing to call an expert witness to demonstrate that the former staff member¡¯s personal information had been improperly leaked by other Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF staff members with access to Vision, a system that stores Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF staff information.The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the investigators¡¯ conclusion that it was not possible to identify the staff member, if any, who had leaked the former staff member¡¯s personal information to a third party stood unrefuted. It further found that it had not been shown that, had the investigators sought third-party expert assistance, they...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in law in its interpretation of Staff Rule 10.1(b) and properly held that ¡°financial loss¡± requires a demonstrable and quantifiable monetary detriment to the Organization, directly caused by the staff member¡¯s wilful, reckless, or grossly negligent misconduct, and not offset by equivalent or greater value received.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the Secretary-General¡¯s argument that any unauthorized use of funds constitutes ¡°financial loss¡±, holding that this conflates misconduct with loss.Accordingly, it held that the failure to follow procurement procedures...

As to the appeal of Order No. 46 (GVA/2025) dismissing Mr. Turcanu¡¯s motion seeking the suspension of the contested decision pending judicial review of his substantive application, the Appeals Tribunal recalled that pursuant to Article 10(2) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute and Article 14 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Rules, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT may not suspend the implementation of a contested decision in cases of appointment, promotion or termination. It also recalled that a decision not to renew an appointment was a matter concerned with the ¡°appointment¡± of a staff member. The Appeals Tribunal concluded that under the terms of...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT committed an error of law by misapplying the jurisprudence on anonymization and, in particular, by failing to consider the nature of the matter before it and its impact on the former staff member, as well as by failing to distinguish between the different considerations applicable to the anonymization of the identity of perpetrators, as opposed to complainants or witnesses.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that the former staff member was a complainant in respect of alleged sexual misconduct and, accordingly, the allegations raised by her were of a uniquely sensitive and...

Le fonctionnaire, qui occupait le poste de charg¨¦ adjoint des droits de l¡¯homme de classe P-2, a postul¨¦ au poste de charg¨¦ des droits de l¡¯homme de classe P-4. Le responsable du recrutement a proc¨¦d¨¦ ¨¤ un examen sur dossier des candidatures et a, ¨¤ l¡¯issue de celui-ci, d¨¦cid¨¦ de ne pas retenir le fonctionnaire. En cons¨¦quence, sa candidature n¡¯a pas ¨¦t¨¦ retenue dans le cadre du
processus de s¨¦lection.

L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a not¨¦ que le Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT avait jug¨¦ impossible de d¨¦terminer si le document produit par le Secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral, refl¨¦tant
l¡¯¨¦valuation par l¡¯Administration des comp¨¦tences, de l¡¯exp¨¦rience et de...

The staff member, who served as an Associate Human Rights Officer at the P-2 level, applied for the Human Rights Officer post at the P-4 level. The hiring manager conducted a desk review of the job applications and, as a result, decided not to shortlist the staff member. Accordingly, his candidacy did not proceed in the selection process.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had found it impossible to determine whether the document produced by the Secretary-General, reflecting the Administration¡¯s assessment of the staff member¡¯s skills, experience and suitability, constituted a ¡°contemporaneous...

Le Tribunal administratif des Nations unies (Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT) a estim¨¦ que le directeur technique de l¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA n¡¯avait pas commis d¡¯erreur en concluant que la requ¨ºte de l¡¯ancien membre du personnel n¡¯¨¦tait pas recevable ratione materiae. L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a jug¨¦ que le Bureau des affaires internes et de la surveillance (DIOS) ne disposait d¡¯aucun pouvoir d¨¦cisionnel quant au fond de sa plainte pour repr¨¦sailles et qu¡¯il avait men¨¦ son enqu¨ºte uniquement dans le cadre de la proc¨¦dure d¡¯enqu¨ºte, ce qui ne constituait pas une d¨¦cision
administrative susceptible de recours.

De m¨ºme, le TNA a estim¨¦ que la conclusion du...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not err in finding that the former staff member¡¯s application was not receivable ratione materiae.The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that DIOS had no decision-making authority in addressing the substance of his complaint of retaliation and that it undertook its investigation merely as a step in the investigative process that did not amount to a reviewable administrative decision.

Similarly, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ethics Office¡¯s determination that it had not been established that retaliation had occurred, and its subsequent closure of the file without further investigation...

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 la proc¨¦dure neutre de premi¨¨re instance mise en place par l¡¯OMI, ¨¤ savoir le SAB, ¨¦tait correctement
constitu¨¦e et r¨¦pondait aux exigences de l¡¯article 2, paragraphe 10, du Statut de l¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT. L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a rejet¨¦ l¡¯argument selon lequel le SAB manquait de neutralit¨¦. L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a ¨¦galement estim¨¦ que le SAB avait ¨¦tabli un compte rendu ¨¦crit suffisant de sa d¨¦cision.

L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que le SAB avait agi dans les limites de sa juridiction et de sa comp¨¦tence lorsqu¡¯il avait r¨¦examin¨¦ la d¨¦cision du Secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral sur recommandation de l¡¯ABCC. Le SAB avait tenu d?ment compte du...

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 the neutral first instance process established by the IMO, i.e., the SAB, was properly constituted and met the requirements of Article 2(10) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the argument that the SAB lacked neutrality. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also found that the SAB produced a sufficient written record of its Decision.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the SAB acted within the bounds of its jurisdiction and competence when it reviewed the decision of the Secretary-General on the recommendation of the ABCC. The SAB had close regard to the fact that the ABCC reached its determination on the medical...