Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Le 19 mai 2024, l¡¯agent est revenu ¨¤ son lieu d¡¯affectation apr¨¨s un cong¨¦ de repos et de r¨¦cup¨¦ration (R&R). La p¨¦riode de service ouvrant droit ¨¤ ce cong¨¦ ¨¦tait de 28 jours et il pouvait pr¨¦tendre ¨¤ un nouveau cong¨¦ R&R ¨¤ compter du 16 juin 2024. Il a quitt¨¦ son lieu d¡¯affectation le 13 juin 2024. Il a demand¨¦ un cong¨¦ de repos et de r¨¦cup¨¦ration pour la p¨¦riode du 23 au 27 juin 2024.

L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a not¨¦ que le fonctionnaire avait quitt¨¦ son lieu d¡¯affectation en partant du principe que les jours suivants, du 14 au 22 juin 2024, qui comprenaient ¨¤ la fois des jours ch?m¨¦s, des jours f¨¦ri¨¦s...

L¡¯agent a d¨¦pos¨¦ une demande d¡¯indemnisation pour un accident du travail. La Commission consultative des demandes
d¡¯indemnisation a jug¨¦ sa demande prescrite. Elle a demand¨¦ ¨¤ la Commission consultative de r¨¦examiner sa demande et a joint un nouveau formulaire de demande, sur lequel figurait une nouvelle date d¡¯accident. Elle a ensuite d¨¦pos¨¦ de nombreuses demandes et requ¨ºtes en r¨¦examen des d¨¦cisions all¨¦gu¨¦es et des ? non-d¨¦cisions ? concernant le traitement de sa demande.

Le Tribunal administratif des Nations unies (Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT) a not¨¦ qu¡¯il avait d¨¦j¨¤ rendu un arr¨ºt dans lequel il avait jug¨¦ que...

L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que le DT de l¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA avait commis une erreur de droit et de fait, aboutissant ¨¤ une d¨¦cision manifestement
d¨¦raisonnable, en omettant de prendre d?ment en consid¨¦ration l¡¯article 66 de la directive de l¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA relative au personnel de
terrain n¡ã PD/A/4/Partie II/Rev. 7/Section I, qui vise ¨¤ garantir l¡¯¨¦quilibre entre les sexes, et lorsqu¡¯il a pris en compte, ¨¤ tort, la
recommandation concernant le troisi¨¨me candidat, ce qui l¡¯a conduit ¨¤ fixer ¨¤ tort les chances de s¨¦lection de Mme Al Dawoud ¨¤ 50 % au lieu de 100 %. L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que la section 66 exprime une pr¨¦f¨¦rence pour...

On 19 May 2024, the staff member returned to his duty station from Rest and Recuperation (R&R). The period of qualifying service for the R&R entitlement was 28 days and he was eligible for another R&R from 16 June 2024. He left the duty station on 13 June 2024. He requested R&R for 23-27 June 2024.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the staff member had left the duty station with the expectation that the following days of 14-22 June 2024, which constituted a combination of non-working days, United Nations Official holidays, and annual leave, would not interrupt or suspend, but contribute to his qualifying...

The staff member submitted a claim for compensation for an injury attributable to the performance of official duties. The Advisory Board on Compensation Claims found her claim time-barred. She requested the Advisory Board to reconsider her claim and attached a new claim form, which stated a new date of the injury. She subsequently filed many claims and requests for reviews of alleged decisions and ¡°non decisions¡± concerning the processing of her claim.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that it had rendered its prior Judgment in which it held that the staff member¡¯s application challenging alleged decisions and...

The staff member, who was serving in Khartoum, was evacuated when civil war erupted in Sudan. He submitted a claim for compensation for loss of personal effects attributable to service.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that by denying the staff member¡¯s request for referral to mediation the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had lawfully exercised its case management discretion and had not committed an error of procedure.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not erred when it identified the staff member¡¯s argument as a challenge to the policy of the Organization but had erred when it held that it did not have jurisdiction to incidentally examine...

The staff member, who was serving in Khartoum, was evacuated when civil war erupted in Sudan. She submitted a claim for compensation for loss of personal effects attributable to service.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not erred, such as to affect the decision of the case, when it rejected the parties¡¯ joint motion to refer their case to mediation.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not erred when it identified the staff member¡¯s argument as a challenge to the policy of the Organization but had erred when it held that it did not have jurisdiction to incidentally examine the consistency of...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred in law and in fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision, when it failed to properly consider Section 66 of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA Area Personnel Directive No. PD/A/4/Part II/Rev. 7/Section I, which is geared toward ensuring gender balance, and when it took the irrelevant consideration of the recommendation of the third candidate into account, leading it to erroneously set Ms. Al Dawoud¡¯s chances for selection at 50 per cent instead of 100 per cent. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Section 66 expresses a preference for selection of candidates who are in the under-represented...

L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que l¡¯inscription du nom de l¡¯ancien fonctionnaire dans la base de donn¨¦es ClearCheck r¨¦sultait de la d¨¦cision
d¨¦finitive de l¡¯Administration selon laquelle il avait commis des abus sexuels et du harc¨¨lement sexuel ¨¤ l¡¯encontre de la plaignante, et que, dans la mesure o¨´ cette inscription l¡¯emp¨ºchait d¡¯occuper ¨¤ l¡¯avenir un emploi au sein du syst¨¨me commun des Nations Unies, elle constituait en r¨¦alit¨¦ une mesure disciplinaire et devait ¨ºtre examin¨¦e en tant que telle.

L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que le recours du Secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral concernant le recours ¨¤ un expert en psychologie dans l...

L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a not¨¦ que, dans sa requ¨ºte, le fonctionnaire avait clairement identifi¨¦ la d¨¦cision contest¨¦e comme ¨¦tant le courriel de la Caisse des pensions l¡¯informant que ses prestations de retraite avaient d¨¦j¨¤ ¨¦t¨¦ vers¨¦es et qu¡¯il n¡¯avait droit ¨¤ aucune autre
prestation.

L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a not¨¦ qu¡¯il n¡¯avait pas demand¨¦ de r¨¦examen de la d¨¦cision ni interjet¨¦ appel devant le Comit¨¦ permanent du Conseil de la Caisse des pensions, mais qu¡¯il avait plut?t d¨¦pos¨¦ une demande d¡¯¨¦valuation par la direction, puis interjet¨¦ appel devant le Tribunal des litiges. L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que, de ce fait, il n¡¯avait pas...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that entering the former staff member's name into the ClearCheck database was because of the Administration¡¯s final determination that he sexually abused and sexually harassed the Complainant, and as the entry precludes him from any future employment in the United Nations common system, it was effectively a disciplinary measure and should be reviewed as such.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal regarding the engagement of a psychology expert in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Order No. 053 was receivable. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, by engaging an expert to ¡°analyze the facts¡± and ¡°ask...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that in his application, the staff member had clearly identified the contested decision as the Pension Fund¡¯s email which informed him that his pension benefits had already been paid and there were no further entitlements.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that he had not requested a review of the decision or filed an appeal to the Standing Committee of the Pension Board but rather had filed a request for management evaluation and then appealed to the Dispute Tribunal. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, as such, he had not followed proper procedure under the rules of the Pension Fund.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that the...

L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que le recours form¨¦ par BK contre une ordonnance de gestion de l¡¯instance ne relevait pas de la cat¨¦gorie
restreinte de cas dans lesquels l¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT aurait manifestement outrepass¨¦ sa comp¨¦tence ou ses pouvoirs en statuant sur une
question interlocutoire. Ses demandes d¡¯anonymat dans ses deux affaires port¨¦es devant l¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT ont ¨¦t¨¦ accueillies, et rien
n¡¯indique que, malgr¨¦ cet anonymat, des ¨¦l¨¦ments permettant de l¡¯identifier auraient pu ¨ºtre divulgu¨¦s dans l¡¯un quelconque des
documents accessibles au public. La d¨¦cision de l¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT de rendre un jugement d¨¦finitif n¡¯a pas non plus...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that BK¡¯s appeal of a case management order does not fall in the narrow set of cases where the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT manifestly exceeded its jurisdiction or powers in determining an interlocutory issue. His requests for anonymity in both of his Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT cases were granted, and there is no indication that despite anonymity, any identifying material could have been disclosed in any of the publicly available records. Nor did the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s decision to proceed to final judgment exceed its jurisdiction.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s denial of BK¡¯s inadequately supported requests for a stay, and proceeding to...

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...

L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que l¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT avait commis une erreur en concluant que les faits ¨¦tablis ¨¤ l¡¯origine des all¨¦gations ne constituaient pas une faute professionnelle. Elle a jug¨¦ que la participation r¨¦guli¨¨re de l¡¯ancien membre du personnel ¨¤ des ¨¦changes portant sur le partage d¡¯informations non publiques, ainsi que ses communications avec M.R., une personne s¡¯exprimant publiquement sur des questions relatives au Bureau de gestion des investissements (OIM), constituaient une divulgation non autoris¨¦e ou, ¨¤ tout le moins, une participation ¨¤ un partage non autoris¨¦ d¡¯informations non publiques.

L...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding that the established facts underlying the allegations did not amount to misconduct. It found that the former staff member's sustained participation in exchanges concerning the sharing of non-public information and his communications with M.R., an individual engaging publicly on matters pertaining to the Office of Investment Management (OIM), constituted unauthorized disclosure or, at minimum, participation in unauthorized sharing of non-public information.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in characterizing as too vague the allegation that the...