Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Le TANU a not¨¦ que la requ¨¦rante avait d¨¦pos¨¦ la demande de r¨¦vision quelque trois mois apr¨¨s avoir pris connaissance des faits d¨¦cisifs identifi¨¦s dans la demande. Le TANU a estim¨¦ que la demande avait ¨¦t¨¦ d¨¦pos¨¦e au-del¨¤ du d¨¦lai de 30 jours et qu'elle n'¨¦tait donc pas recevable.

Le TANU a constat¨¦ qu'en tout ¨¦tat de cause, l'un des documents n'existait pas au moment de l'arr¨ºt du TANU. Le TANU a ¨¦galement not¨¦ que le document n'avait pas ¨¦t¨¦ d¨¦cisif pour parvenir ¨¤ une d¨¦cision dans l'appel et que, pour cette raison, la demande constituait une tentative de r¨¦examen de l'appel. Le TANU a...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the applicant had filed the application for revision some three months after she became aware of the decisive facts as identified in the application. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application had been filed beyond the 30-day time limit and was, therefore, not receivable.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that, in any event, one of the documents had not been in existence at the time of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also noted that the document had not been decisive in reaching a decision in the appeal and, for this reason, the application was an attempt to re-litigate the appeal. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded...

Mme Ocokoru a interjet¨¦ appel.

Le Tribunal d'appel a rejet¨¦ l'appel. Le Tribunal d'appel a estim¨¦ que Mme Ocokoru n'avait pas d¨¦pos¨¦ son recours dans le d¨¦lai applicable conform¨¦ment ¨¤ l'article 7(1) du Statut du TANU et n'avait pas demand¨¦ de suspension, de renonciation ou de prorogation des d¨¦lais. Le TANU a conclu que le recours ¨¦tait donc prescrit et non recevable ratione temporis.

Le Tribunal d'appel a estim¨¦ qu'en tout ¨¦tat de cause, le TANU n'avait pas commis d'erreur en d¨¦clarant la requ¨ºte irrecevable ratione materiae au motif que les arguments soulev¨¦s par Mme Ocokoru avaient d¨¦j¨¤...

Ms. Ocokoru filed an appeal.

The Appeals Tribunal dismissed the appeal. The Appeals Tribunal found that Ms. Ocokoru had failed to file her appeal within the applicable time limit pursuant to Article 7(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute and had failed to request a suspension, waiver or extension of the time limits. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that the appeal was therefore time-barred and not receivable ratione temporis.

The Appeals Tribunal found that, in any event, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in finding the application not receivable ratione materiae on grounds that the arguments raised by Ms. Ocokoru had already...

? titre pr¨¦liminaire, la Commission d'appel a estim¨¦ que M. Radu n'avait pas d¨¦montr¨¦ l'existence de circonstances exceptionnelles ¨¤ l'appui de sa demande d'anonymat et a donc rejet¨¦ sa demande.
La Commission d'appel a rejet¨¦ l'appel de M. Radu concernant la d¨¦cision n¡ã 1 de la Commission d'appel. La Commission d'appel a estim¨¦ que m¨ºme si le R¨¨glement du personnel devait ¨ºtre interpr¨¦t¨¦ comme exigeant la consultation de la clinique m¨¦dicale ¨¤ ce moment-l¨¤, le fait que l'Organisation n'ait pas respect¨¦ le R¨¨glement du personnel n'aurait pas rendu la d¨¦cision nulle ab initio.
En ce qui...

As a preliminary matter, the Appeals Tribunal found that Mr. Radu had failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances to support his request for anonymity and accordingly dismissed his request.

The Appeals Board dismissed Mr. Radu¡¯s appeal in relation to Appeals Board Decision No. 1. The Appeals Tribunal found that even if the Staff Rule was to be interpreted as to require consultation with the Medical Clinic at that time, the Organization¡¯s failure to abide by the Staff Rule would not render the decision void ab initio.

Turning to the appeal against Appeals Board Decision No. 2 to...

Le Tribunal d'appel a estim¨¦ que la raret¨¦ des commentaires positifs, compar¨¦e ¨¤ l'¨¦crasante majorit¨¦ des commentaires n¨¦gatifs, faisait de l'¨¦valuation des performances de Mme Haydar une ? d¨¦cision administrative ? ayant un impact n¨¦gatif direct sur son emploi. Le Tribunal d'appel a donc estim¨¦ que l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT n'avait pas commis d'erreur en jugeant sa demande recevable.
S'agissant du bien-fond¨¦ de la demande, le Tribunal d'appel a estim¨¦ qu'en qualifiant les performances de Mme Haydar de ? satisfaisant aux attentes en mati¨¨re de performances ?, l'administration l'avait emp¨ºch¨¦e de contester l...

The Appeals Tribunal found that the paucity of positive comments, compared with the overwhelmingly negative comments rendered Ms. Haydar¡¯s performance evaluation an ¡°administrative decision¡± with a direct adverse impact on her employment. The Appeals Tribunal thus found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in finding her application receivable.

Turning to the merits of the application, the Appeals Tribunal found that by characterizing Ms. Haydar¡¯s performance as ¡°successfully meets performance expectations¡±, the Administration precluded her from contesting the appraisal through the rebuttal process...

Le Tribunal d'appel a estim¨¦ que l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT avait ¨¤ juste titre rejet¨¦ la demande de M. Salon comme irrecevable au motif qu'il n'avait pas ¨¦tabli qu'une d¨¦cision administrative susceptible de recours avait ¨¦t¨¦ prise par l'Organisation et qu'en tout ¨¦tat de cause, il n'avait pas demand¨¦ d'¨¦valuation de la gestion.

The Appeals Tribunal found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly dismissed Mr. Salon¡¯s application as not receivable on grounds that he had failed to establish that an appealable administrative decision had been taken by the Organization and that in any event, he had failed to request management evaluation.

Le TANU a examin¨¦ l'¨¦l¨¦ment central du dossier de l'agent, ¨¤ savoir qu'il poss¨¦dait les qualifications acad¨¦miques n¨¦cessaires pour le poste, ce qui n'¨¦tait pas le cas du candidat s¨¦lectionn¨¦. Le TANU a conclu que les sp¨¦cifications en mati¨¨re d'¨¦ducation figurant dans l'avis de vacance de poste constituaient un seuil minimum, mais pas le facteur d¨¦terminant de la s¨¦lection. Le TANU a estim¨¦ que l'agent et le candidat s¨¦lectionn¨¦ poss¨¦daient tous deux les qualifications acad¨¦miques requises, m¨ºme s'ils les avaient obtenues par des moyens diff¨¦rents. Le TANU a rejet¨¦ l'argument selon lequel...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the central tenet of the staff member¡¯s case, which was that he held the necessary academic qualifications for the role, but that the selected candidate did not. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that the educational specifications in the job vacancy announcement were a minimum threshold, but not the determining factor in the selection. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that both the staff member and the selected candidate met the threshold academic qualifications, even though they obtained them by different means. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the claim that the ITLOS should not have taken into account that the...

Le Tribunal d'appel a estim¨¦ que le TDFNU n'avait pas commis d'erreur en consid¨¦rant que le responsable du recrutement avait correctement ¨¦valu¨¦ que les certificats que la candidate s¨¦lectionn¨¦e avait mentionn¨¦s dans sa notice personnelle ¨¦taient ¨¦quivalents ¨¤ une certification Lean Six Sigma (LSS). L'une des exigences en mati¨¨re de formation pour le poste ¨¦tait la certification LSS ou une ? certification ¨¦quivalente ?. En l'esp¨¨ce, le Tribunal a conclu ¨¤ juste titre que le responsable du recrutement avait correctement ¨¦valu¨¦ que les certificats que la candidate s¨¦lectionn¨¦e avait mentionn¨¦s...

The Appeals Tribunal found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in holding that the Hiring Manager had correctly assessed that the certificates the selected candidate had listed in her Personal History Profile (PHP) were equivalent to a Lean Six Sigma (LSS) Certification. One of the educational requirements for the position was the LSS certification or an ¡°equivalent certification¡±. In the present case, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly concluded that the Hiring Manager had properly assessed that the certificates the selected candidate had listed in her PHP were equivalent to an LSS certification, as required for...

Le TANU a not¨¦ que l'implication de l'agent dans la fraude ¨¤ la subvention locative commise par deux demandeurs avait ¨¦t¨¦ ¨¦tablie par des preuves claires et convaincantes : l'administration avait d¨¦montr¨¦ que le montant r¨¦el pay¨¦ ¨¤ l'agent au titre du loyer mensuel n'¨¦tait pas le montant indiqu¨¦ sur le bail. En outre, le TANU a estim¨¦ que l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT avait correctement d¨¦termin¨¦ qu'il avait incit¨¦ l'un des demandeurs ¨¤ pr¨¦senter une demande frauduleuse de subvention pour les honoraires d'un agent immobilier.
Le TANU a estim¨¦ que m¨ºme si le fonctionnaire n'avait pas b¨¦n¨¦fici¨¦ personnellement ou...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the staff member¡¯s involvement in rental subsidy fraud by two claimants had been established by clear and convincing evidence: the Administration had demonstrated that the actual amount paid to the staff member in monthly rent was not the amount shown on the lease. In addition, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly determined that he had instigated one of the claimants to submit a fraudulent claim for the subsidy for real estate agent¡¯s fees.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that even if the staff member had not benefitted personally or directly from the fraudulent subsidies, the...

Le TANU a estim¨¦ que le TÄ¢¹½ÊÓƵDT avait rejet¨¦ ¨¤ juste titre la demande de Mme Yu au motif qu'elle n'¨¦tait pas recevable ratione temporis. Le TANU a soulign¨¦ qu'¨¦tant donn¨¦ que le poste de Mme Yu ¨¦tait bas¨¦ en Europe occidentale, les d¨¦lais statutaires doivent ¨ºtre calcul¨¦s en fonction de l'heure de Gen¨¨ve, o¨´ le TANU est situ¨¦, et que Mme Yu avait donc d¨¦pass¨¦ le d¨¦lai d'un jour.

Le TANU a rejet¨¦ les nouveaux arguments et ¨¦l¨¦ments de preuve relatifs au processus de m¨¦diation qui lui ¨¦taient soumis pour la premi¨¨re fois. M¨ºme s'ils ¨¦taient pris en compte, le TANU a conclu que la m¨¦diation ne...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had appropriately dismissed Ms. Yu¡¯s application as not receivable ratione temporis. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT emphasized that because Ms. Yu¡¯s position was based in Western Europe, the statutory time limits must be calculated based on Geneva time where the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT is located, and therefore, Ms. Yu missed the deadline by one day.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the new arguments and evidence related to the mediation process submitted to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT for the first time. Even if these were considered, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that the mediation did not pertain to the contested decision and therefore did not...

Le TANU a rejet¨¦ les nouveaux arguments et ¨¦l¨¦ments de preuve soumis pour la premi¨¨re fois au Tribunal d'appel, qui visaient ¨¤ d¨¦montrer que M. El-Anani n'avait pas lu la pi¨¨ce jointe du courriel communiquant la sanction disciplinaire.
Le TANU a confirm¨¦ que les deux enregistrements de notification Microsoft Outlook reconnus par M. El-Anani indiquaient que la d¨¦cision contest¨¦e lui avait ¨¦t¨¦ remise et qu'il l'avait lue le 28 mars 2023 et qu'il ¨¦tait donc tenu de d¨¦poser sa demande aupr¨¨s du TANU au plus tard le 26 juin 2023. ?tant donn¨¦ que M. Al-Anani n'a d¨¦pos¨¦ sa demande que le 28 juin 2023...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the new arguments and evidence submitted to the Appeals Tribunal for the first time that were aimed to show that Mr. El-Anani had not read the attachment of the e-mail that communicated the disciplinary sanction.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT confirmed that, the two Microsoft Outlook notification records acknowledged by Mr. El-Anani indicated that the contested decision had been delivered to and read by him on 28 March 2023 and that he was therefore required to file his application with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT by no later than 26 June 2023. Since Mr. Al-Anani did not file the application until 28 June 2023...