Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT avait correctement appliqu¨¦ les crit¨¨res de contr?le juridictionnel pr¨¦vus ¨¤ l'article 2(1)(b) de son statut. Il a estim¨¦ que les faits constitutifs de la faute avaient ¨¦t¨¦ ¨¦tablis par des preuves claires et convaincantes, notamment des t¨¦moignages directs de r¨¦fugi¨¦s, des preuves documentaires corroborantes et des ou?-dire, et que l'ancien membre du personnel avait sollicit¨¦ ¨¤ plusieurs reprises entre 2010 et 2019 des pots-de-vin aupr¨¨s de r¨¦fugi¨¦s en ¨¦change d'une aide ¨¤ la r¨¦installation et d'autres services du HCR. Il a estim¨¦ que les faits ¨¦tablis constituaient...

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que la d¨¦cision de maintenir la note de performance ? C ¨C R¨¦pond partiellement aux attentes ? attribu¨¦e au fonctionnaire constituait une d¨¦cision administrative susceptible de recours ayant un effet juridique direct sur son emploi. Elle a fait remarquer que, dans le cadre juridique applicable, une note ? R¨¦pond partiellement aux attentes ? justifie la d¨¦cision de ne pas accorder d'augmentation salariale et que celle-ci doit ¨ºtre suspendue dans l'attente des r¨¦sultats d'un PIP. Le TÄ¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a consid¨¦r¨¦ que ces cons¨¦quences constituaient des effets d¨¦favorables r¨¦sultant directement...

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que le Tribunal du contentieux de l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA n'avait pas commis d'erreur en concluant que la faute de l'ancien membre du personnel ¨¦tait ¨¦tablie et que la mesure disciplinaire de licenciement, assortie d'une indemnit¨¦ tenant lieu de pr¨¦avis et sans indemnit¨¦ de licenciement, ¨¦tait proportionn¨¦e au regard du cadre r¨¦glementaire de l'Agence. Le TÄ¢¹½ÊÓƵU a soulign¨¦ que la fraude et les pratiques collusoires sont consid¨¦r¨¦es comme des domaines tr¨¨s pr¨¦occupants et que la faute commise par une personne occupant un poste de confiance, tel qu'un membre du Comit¨¦ des pr¨ºts du Fonds de...

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a not¨¦ que plusieurs mois apr¨¨s le d¨¦c¨¨s du participant au Fonds, l'appelant avait produit des formulaires Pens.A/2 visant ¨¤ modifier la d¨¦signation du b¨¦n¨¦ficiaire du r¨¨glement r¨¦siduel, sign¨¦s d'une empreinte digitale et non de la signature du participant. L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a ¨¦galement pris note des preuves m¨¦dicales attestant des signes de d¨¦mence du participant.

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a conclu que l'appelant n'avait fourni aucune preuve ¨¤ l'appui de l'affirmation selon laquelle les capacit¨¦s mentales du participant s'¨¦taient am¨¦lior¨¦es au moment o¨´ il avait appos¨¦ son empreinte digitale sur les formulaires...

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a d¨¦termin¨¦ qu'il avait ¨¦t¨¦ d¨¦montr¨¦ par des preuves claires et convaincantes que l'ancienne employ¨¦e avait commis une faute grave en : i) ne restituant pas ¨¤ la coop¨¦rative de cr¨¦dit f¨¦d¨¦rale des Nations Unies (Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFCU) des fonds d'un montant de 587 428,65 dollars am¨¦ricains qui avaient ¨¦t¨¦ cr¨¦dit¨¦s par erreur sur son compte et auxquels elle n'avait pas droit ; ii) n'ayant pas respect¨¦ un jugement rendu par la Haute Cour de Zambie (jugement de la Haute Cour), qui lui ordonnait de restituer les fonds susmentionn¨¦s ¨¤ l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFCU ; et iii) ayant pr¨¦sent¨¦ de faux documents et/ou d¨¦form¨¦ les...

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT avait commis une erreur en concluant que les performances de l'ancienne fonctionnaire n'avaient pas ¨¦t¨¦ ¨¦valu¨¦es de mani¨¨re ¨¦quitable et objective. Il a constat¨¦ qu'elle savait que son accord de t¨¦l¨¦travail ¨¦tait temporaire et qu'elle s'¨¦tait n¨¦anmoins pr¨¦sent¨¦e ¨¤ son lieu d'affectation aux Fidji quelques mois plus tard seulement. Il a soulign¨¦ que son retard dans la demande de paiement d'une indemnit¨¦ forfaitaire de voyage et dans la demande de visa pour sa m¨¨re ne justifiait pas son absence de pr¨¦sentation en temps voulu. Le TÄ¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a confirm¨¦ que, pour ¨¦valuer...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in concluding that the contested decision by the OAI to close the staff member¡¯s complaint was lawful. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Administration acted reasonably in determining that the allegations lacked sufficient evidence to warrant an investigation and that the assessment process complied with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP¡¯s legal framework.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly rejected the staff member¡¯s procedural arguments, including claims of bias and denial of witness testimony. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT emphasized that the proposed witnesses could not have altered the established...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that months after the death of the participant in the Fund, the Appellant had produced Pens.A/2 forms purporting to change the designation of the beneficiary of the residual settlement, executed by a thumbprint and not the participant¡¯s signature. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also noted the medical evidence of signs of the participant¡¯s dementia.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Appellant had provided no evidence to support the contention that the participant¡¯s mental capacity had improved by the time of thumbprinting the later forms. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Fund had not erred when it found those forms...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT had appropriately concluded that Mr. Issa failed to submit a timely Request for Decision Review regarding the first of three months¡¯ non-payment of his salary. However, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, since each non-payment constitutes a separate administrative decision, Mr. Issa's Request for Decision Review regarding the second- and third-months¡¯ non-payment was timely, rendering his application partially receivable.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further concluded however, that since Mr. Issa disregarded a directive circulated before his annual leave (when he was able to check his e-mail)...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered whether the interlocutory appeal was receivable because ABA had not been given an opportunity to be heard on the issue of the protective measures for V01 at the proposed hearing at the time the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT issued the first Order. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that this was not grounds to grant the interlocutory appeal, because ABA¡¯s arguments were heard by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT when he filed his motion for reconsideration.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not exceed its competence or jurisdiction when it issued these case management orders. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was also not persuaded by ABA¡¯s argument that the violation...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT first considered the staff member¡¯s request for an oral hearing, and decided it was not necessary for the expeditious and fair disposal of his case.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that when the only persons present in a physical assault are the perpetrator and the victim, an oral hearing may be useful for reaching credibility findings. However, in this case, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the staff member and his counsel agreed that they had no witnesses to present at an oral hearing and preferred to rely on the investigation report. In these circumstances, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in not holding an oral hearing...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the administrative decision concerning reimbursements to the staff member took effect in law on 7 May 2019, when he received the wire transfer from the Organization. The reasons for this reimbursement amount were discussed with him shortly before the wire transfer was made. Although explanations of the underlying calculations were repeated in subsequent email exchanges with the staff member, those repetitions were not additional or new administrative decisions that were open to challenge by the staff member, thereby resetting the statute of limitations.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that...

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que M. Slayyeh n'avait pas form¨¦ de recours en bonne et due forme contre le jugement contest¨¦, mais qu'il avait plut?t introduit une nouvelle demande d'indemnisation qui n'avait pas ¨¦t¨¦ soumise au Tribunal du contentieux. L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a jug¨¦ qu'il ne pouvait pas soulever en appel une question qui n'avait pas ¨¦t¨¦ pr¨¦sent¨¦e au tribunal de premi¨¨re instance, car cela constituait une violation des droits de l'autre partie ¨¤ une proc¨¦dure r¨¦guli¨¨re et n'¨¦tait pas conforme au syst¨¨me ¨¤ deux niveaux d'administration de la justice.

Le TÄ¢¹½ÊÓƵU a estim¨¦ que les recours disponibles en vertu de l...

Le TÄ¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF avait men¨¦ le processus de s¨¦lection dans le respect total de son cadre juridique administratif, notamment en fournissant des motifs d¨¦taill¨¦s pour justifier le rejet de la candidature du fonctionnaire. Le TÄ¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que sa candidature avait fait l'objet d'un examen complet et ¨¦quitable et qu'il n'avait pas d¨¦montr¨¦, ¨¤ l'aide d'¨¦l¨¦ments de preuve clairs et convaincants, qu'il avait ¨¦t¨¦ priv¨¦ d'une chance ¨¦quitable d'¨ºtre s¨¦lectionn¨¦. Le TÄ¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a not¨¦ qu'il n'y avait aucune preuve de partialit¨¦ ou de mauvaise intention ¨¤ son ¨¦gard.

Le TÄ¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que le fait...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in concluding that the former staff member¡¯s application was not receivable because most of the contested decisions were either time-barred, res judicata, or did not constitute appealable administrative decisions. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Advisory Board on Compensation Claims (ABCC) correctly determined that the claim for compensation under Appendix D remained time-barred under Article 2.1(b) and that the requirements for waiver under Article 2.1(e) were not met, as there was no evidence of incapacity preventing timely filing. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further held that...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in concluding that the staff member¡¯s actions did not constitute misconduct. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that it had been established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the staff member had failed to cooperate with an investigation conducted by the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS), which concerned another staff member under investigation for misrepresenting his place of accommodation.

It found that the staff member had deliberately withheld information and provided generic, vague, and misleading responses during his initial OIOS interview regarding the...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member¡¯s application was not receivable, as his placement on the overtime Priority Two List, rather than the Priority One List, and the consequent non-assignment of overtime to him on 10 April 2023, did not violate any regulations, rules or administrative issuances. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the staff member had no contractual right, nor ¡°de facto entitlement¡± to perform overtime work or to select his own overtime schedule. On the contrary, it recalled that the allocation of overtime is discretionary with management. Furthermore, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that the...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA Dispute Tribunal did not err in concluding that the former staff member¡¯s misconduct was established and that the disciplinary measure of separation from service, with compensation in lieu of notice and without termination indemnity, was proportionate under the Agency¡¯s regulatory framework. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT emphasized that fraud and collusive practices are considered areas of high concern and that misconduct committed by a person in a position of trust, such as a member of the Provident Fund Loans Committee, warrants a severe sanction.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly applied the judicial review tests under Article 2(1)(b) of its Statute. It found that the facts of misconduct were established by clear and convincing evidence, including direct testimony from refugees, corroborating documentary evidence, and hearsay, and that the former staff member had solicited bribes from refugees on multiple occasions between 2010 and 2019 in exchange for assistance with resettlement and other Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR services. It held that the established facts legally amounted to serious misconduct and that the sanction of dismissal was proportionate...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT determined that it had been demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that the former staff member committed serious misconduct by: i) failing to return to the United Nations Federal Credit Union (Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFCU) funds of USD 587,428.65 that were erroneously credited to her account and to which she was not entitled; ii) failing to comply with a judgment issued by the High Court of Zambia (High Court Judgment), which ordered her to return the aforementioned funds to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFCU; and iii) submitting false documentation and/or misrepresenting facts during the investigation conducted by the Office...