Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that the Administration had shown that Mr. Mirella¡¯s candidature was given full and fair consideration which satisfies the presumption of regularity, and that Mr. Mirella has not proven through clear and convincing evidence that he was denied a fair chance. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT reviewed Mr. Mirella¡¯s contention that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding that his exclusion from the shortlist was in compliance with Section 7.4 of ST/AI/2010/3 (Staff selection system). Specifically, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT evaluated Mr. Mirella¡¯s argument that the Hiring Manager erroneously found that he did not meet the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that since the Appellant¡¯s son has a disability, he was entitled to receive benefits only under the special education grant scheme ST/AI/2018/2 (Special education grant and related benefit for children with a disability) and not under the regular education grant scheme ST/AI/2018/1/Rev.1 (Education grant and related benefits). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that since the Appellant¡¯s son was not boarding during the academic year of 2019-2020 and continued to reside at the parental home, the Appellant was not eligible for any boarding allowance under ST/AI/2018/2.

Even if ST/AI/2018/1/Rev.1 was...

M. Mousa a fait appel. En ce qui concerne la demande de M. Mousa pour une audience orale, l¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a jug¨¦ qu¡¯il n¡¯avait pas fourni une raison imp¨¦rieuse pour laquelle une audience orale devait ¨ºtre accord¨¦e dans le pr¨¦sent appel. Comme l'affaire traite de la question de la r¨¦ception Ratione Materiae, une audience orale n'est pas n¨¦cessaire et n'aiderait pas ¨¤ l'¨¦limination rapide et ¨¦quitable de l'affaire "au sens de l'article 18, paragraphe 1, des r¨¨gles de proc¨¦dure de l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT. L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a ¨¦galement constat¨¦ que l'appel de M. Mousa ne faisait r¨¦f¨¦rence ¨¤ aucun des motifs d'appel mentionn¨¦s ¨¤ l...

Mr. Mousa appealed. As regards Mr. Mousa¡¯s request for an oral hearing, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that he did not provide a compelling reason why an oral hearing should be granted in this appeal. As the case deals with the issue of receivability ratione materiae, an oral hearing is not necessary and would not ¡°assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case¡± within the meaning of Article 18(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT¡¯s Rules of Procedure. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also found that Mr. Mousa¡¯s appeal did not refer to any of the grounds of appeal mentioned in Article 2(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. The only submission regarding the...

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a consid¨¦r¨¦ un appel du Secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral des Nations Unies. L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a jug¨¦ que sa t?che consistait ¨¤ examiner si tout ou partie des frais, pour lesquels M. Awad a demand¨¦ le remboursement, constituait des d¨¦penses admissibles, soit comme des ?frais li¨¦s aux inscriptions? ou des ?frais de scolarit¨¦?. Le libell¨¦ de la section 3.1 (a) et (b) de ST / AI / 2018/1 / Rev.1, leur contexte syst¨¦matique avec d'autres dispositions de ST / AI / 2018/1 / Rev.1, les objectifs de l'Assembl¨¦e g¨¦n¨¦rale Et la jurisprudence r¨¦cente d'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT devrait ¨ºtre prise en compte. L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a constat¨¦ qu'il n'y avait...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General of the United Nations. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that its task was to review whether any or all the fees, for which Mr. Awad requested reimbursement, constituted admissible expenses, either as ¡°enrolment-related fees¡± or ¡°tuition¡±. The wording of Section 3.1(a) and (b) of ST/AI/2018/1/Rev.1, their systematic context with other provisions of ST/AI/2018/1/Rev.1, the goals of the General Assembly and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT¡¯s recent jurisprudence should be taken into account. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that there was no ¡°plain meaning of enrollment¡±. While the word ¡°enrolment¡±, in...

La demande de r¨¦vision de M. Mukeba n'a pas rempli les crit¨¨res stricts et exceptionnels ¨¦tablis par l'article 11 du statut.

Mr. Mukeba's application for revision did not fulfil the strict and exceptional criteria established by Article 11 of the Statute.

La seule question en appel est de savoir si les ordonnances du jugement de l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵD sur la r¨¦mun¨¦ration et la r¨¦mun¨¦ration des pr¨¦judices moraux sont exemptes d'erreurs. Dans la pr¨¦sente affaire, l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵT a pris en compte les circonstances sp¨¦cifiques de l'affaire, en particulier l'anciennet¨¦ de M. Yavuz, le type de nomination d¨¦tenu et la possibilit¨¦ de renouvellement de la nomination dans un poste encore requis par l'administration et d¨¦finie une compensation en lieu de trois mois. M. Yavuz se plaint que l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT aurait ¨¦galement d? consid¨¦rer la nature de l'irr¨¦gularit¨¦ et la gravit¨¦ des violations...

The only issue on appeal is whether the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment¡¯s orders on in-lieu compensation and compensation for moral harm are free of error. In the present case, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT took into account the specific circumstances of the case, in particular the seniority of Mr. Yavuz, the type of appointment held, and the chance of renewal of the appointment in a position still required by the Administration and set an in-lieu compensation of three months. Mr. Yavuz complains that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT should also have considered the nature of the irregularity and the seriousness of the breaches of his rights and the...

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT a trouv¨¦ la d¨¦cision non renouvelable ill¨¦gale parce que le secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral n'a pas montr¨¦ qu'il ¨¦tait motiv¨¦ par un manque de fonds. Bien que l¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵD ait commis plusieurs erreurs de droit, sa principale conclusion n¡¯est pas mise en doute par l¡¯appel du Secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral. Par cons¨¦quent, ¨¤ cet ¨¦gard, l¡¯appel du Secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral ne peut r¨¦ussir. L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT conclut que Unhabitat a accept¨¦ silencieusement l'¨¦tat de la r¨¦affectation de M. El-Awar est erron¨¦. Un r¨¦affectation est une d¨¦cision administrative, un acte unilat¨¦ral impos¨¦ au membre du personnel par l'administration. Ce n'est pas...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found the non-renewal decision unlawful because the Secretary-General did not show that it was motivated by a lack of funds. Although the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT committed several errors of law, its main finding is not put into doubt by the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal. Therefore, in this respect, the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal cannot succeed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT's finding that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ-Habitat silently accepted Mr. El-Awar's condition of reassignment is erroneous. A reassignment is an administrative decision, a unilateral act imposed on the staff member by the Administration. It is not a contract which can be bargained or...

Unat a consid¨¦r¨¦ un appel du secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral. Unat a jug¨¦ que la situation de Mme Caucci diff¨¦rait du jugement Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT ¨¤ Tran Nguyen (Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT / 2015/002) et, par cons¨¦quent, il ¨¦tait erron¨¦ pour l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT d'appliquer une telle jurisprudence pour constater que Mme Caucci avait un privil¨¨ge g¨¦n¨¦ral de service avec moins pendant et apr¨¨s et apr¨¨s et apr¨¨s et apr¨¨s et apr¨¨s et apr¨¨s et apr¨¨s et apr¨¨s et apr¨¨s et apr¨¨s et apr¨¨s et apr¨¨s et apr¨¨s et apr¨¨s et apr¨¨s et apr¨¨s et apr¨¨s et apr¨¨s Son service avec DPO. L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a jug¨¦ que les droits des membres du personnel de Secondment en vertu de l'accord d...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ms. Caucci¡¯s situation differed from the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment in Tran Nguyen (Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2015/002) and therefore it was erroneous for the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to apply such jurisprudence to find that Ms. Caucci had a general service lien with MINUSMA during and after her service with DPO. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the rights of staff members on secondment under the Inter-Organization Agreement concerning Transfer, Secondment or Loan of Staff among the Organizations applying the United Nations Common System of Salaries and Allowance, which was at issue in Tran Nguyen...

Unat a jug¨¦ que la r¨¦clamation de l'appelant, qu'une d¨¦cision finale sur sa demande de reclassement apr¨¨s 2013 n'a ¨¦t¨¦ publi¨¦e qu'en 2019, n'a pas pu ¨ºtre envisag¨¦e car elle a ¨¦t¨¦ soulev¨¦e pour la premi¨¨re fois au niveau de l'appel. Unat a jug¨¦ que l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT a conclu correctement que l'e-mail du 12 d¨¦cembre 2014 qui l'a inform¨¦e que toutes les classifications ¨¦taient en suspens constituaient une d¨¦cision administrative car elle a rejet¨¦ sa demande de reclassement imm¨¦diat. Unat a jug¨¦ que pour permettre l'argument de l'appelant selon lequel le report ou la cong¨¦lation des demandes de...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s claim, that a final decision on her 2013 request for post reclassification was only issued in 2019, could not be considered as it was raised for the first time at the appellate level. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT correctly found that the 12 December 2014 e-mail which informed her that all classifications were on hold constituted an administrative decision because it rejected her request for immediate reclassification. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that to allow the Appellant¡¯s argument that the postponement or freezing of requests for reclassification does not constitute an...

M. Okwir a fait appel. Unat a constat¨¦ que l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT a correctement soutenu que l'OIC / OIO avait le pouvoir de prendre la d¨¦cision de ne pas enqu¨ºter sur les all¨¦gations de M. Okwir. Comme la section 4.3 de ST / SGB / 2019/2 pr¨¦voit que toutes les sous-¨¦l¨¦gations ¨¦mises par le pr¨¦d¨¦cesseur restent valides, sauf indication contraire ou modifi¨¦e par le successeur, la Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT a conclu que le simple fait que le nouvel USG / OIOS a commenc¨¦ son mandat n'a pas fait sous-¨¦l¨¦gations par le pr¨¦d¨¦cesseur invalide. Unat a conclu que le 25 octobre 2019, l'ASG / OIOS et l'USG / OIO nouvellement nomm¨¦ ¨¦taient...

Mr. Okwir appealed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly held that the OiC/OIOS had the authority to take the decision not to investigate Mr. Okwir¡¯s allegations. As Section 4.3 of ST/SGB/2019/2 provides that all subdelegations issued by the predecessor shall remain valid unless otherwise withdrawn or modified by the successor, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT concluded that the mere fact that the new USG/OIOS began her term did not make subdelegations by the predecessor invalid. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that on 25 October 2019, both the ASG/OIOS and the newly appointed USG/OIOS were competent to make the decision. The new USG...

Unat a consid¨¦r¨¦ un appel du Secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral et un appel ¨¤ l'appel de Mme Silva. Unat a jug¨¦ que Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT avait commis plusieurs erreurs de droit et de fait et la d¨¦cision de r¨¦affecter Mme Silva ¨¦tait sans d¨¦fauts proc¨¦duraux. Unat a jug¨¦ que la jurisprudence de l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT n'¨¦tablit pas le besoin de consultation pr¨¦alable pour chaque r¨¦affectation. Unat a jug¨¦ que Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT avait une compr¨¦hension incorrecte de la d¨¦cision administrative contest¨¦e. Unat a jug¨¦ que Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT avait commis une erreur lorsqu'elle a jug¨¦ que la d¨¦cision de r¨¦affectation aurait d? ¨ºtre notifi¨¦e dans l'¨¦criture formelle car elle...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by Ms. Silva. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT committed several errors of law and fact and the decision to reassign Ms. Silva was without procedural flaws. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT¡¯s jurisprudence does not establish a need for prior consultation for every reassignment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had an incorrect understanding of the contested administrative decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred when it held that the reassignment decision should have been notified in formal writing as it significantly altered Ms. Silva¡¯s terms and conditions of...