Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a d¨¦cid¨¦ que des erreurs dans la mani¨¨re dont la d¨¦cision de licenciement sommaire avait ¨¦t¨¦ communiqu¨¦e au requ¨¦rant n'affectaient pas le fait que la v¨¦ritable d¨¦cision avait finalement ¨¦t¨¦ prise par la personne comp¨¦tente du Commissaire g¨¦n¨¦ral et non par une autorit¨¦ d¨¦l¨¦gu¨¦e. Il est incontestable que M. Mohammad n¡¯a pas eu la possibilit¨¦ de commenter les ¨¦l¨¦ments de preuve suppl¨¦mentaires produits contre lui apr¨¨s la r¨¦ouverture de l¡¯enqu¨ºte (deux entretiens avec la m¨¨re de l¡¯¨¦l¨¨ve B et l¡¯¨¦l¨¨ve B). Cependant, ni dans son appel ni dans sa demande initiale aupr¨¨s du DT de l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA, il...

L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a d¡¯abord examin¨¦ l¡¯all¨¦gation du Secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral selon laquelle le Tribunal avait commis une erreur en concluant que la candidature de M. Loto ¨¦tait recevable pour toute la p¨¦riode pendant laquelle il ¨¦tait en cong¨¦ temporaire. Le Secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral a soutenu que M. Loto avait contest¨¦ en temps opportun seulement une d¨¦cision initiale en mati¨¨re de cong¨¦ non pay¨¦, et non une d¨¦cision ult¨¦rieure lorsque le cong¨¦ non pay¨¦ avait ¨¦t¨¦ prolong¨¦. L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a rejet¨¦ l¡¯argument du Secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral sur la recevabilit¨¦, estimant que celui-ci ¨¦tait forclos de le soulever en appel. L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a...

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que l'appelante ne s'¨¦tait pas acquitt¨¦e de sa charge de travail et n'avait pas d¨¦montr¨¦ que le DT de l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA avait commis l'une des erreurs d¨¦crites ¨¤ l'article 2(1) du Statut de l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT. Elle a conclu que l'Appelant avait relanc¨¦ des arguments qui avaient ¨¦chou¨¦ devant le Tribunal du contentieux administratif de l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA et avait exprim¨¦ son d¨¦saccord g¨¦n¨¦ral avec le jugement attaqu¨¦. L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que la d¨¦cision contest¨¦e constituait un exercice valide et licite du pouvoir discr¨¦tionnaire de l¡¯Agence. Elle a constat¨¦ que l¡¯Agence avait examin¨¦ et examin¨¦ la demande de...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT first reviewed the Secretary-General¡¯s claim that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding that Mr. Loto¡¯s application was receivable with respect to the entire period for which he was on ALWOP. The Secretary-General contended that Mr. Loto had timely challenged only an initial ALWOP decision, and not a subsequent decision when the ALWOP was extended. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the Secretary-General¡¯s receivability argument, finding that the Secretary-General was estopped from raising it on appeal. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that Mr. Loto had filed a request for management evaluation of the second ALWOP decision...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT endorsed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s holding that the decision to issue a press release in response to allegations that OHCHR had endangered the lives of Chinese human rights defenders who attended the Human Rights Council in Geneva in March 2013 fell within the discretion of the Organization and was a managerial prerogative. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the specific part of it which concerned the issue of the provision of names of Chinese human rights activists to the Chinese government fell outside the scope of its judicial review due to the general nature of its content and to the fact that it embodied a...

As a preliminary matter, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the fact that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT might have repeated some or most of the Respondent¡¯s arguments and language in its judgment would not be sufficient to undermine the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s considerations or determinations.

Regarding the scope of the appeal, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that since the remedy claimed in the appeal does not aim for the rescission of the reassignment, but the placement into a P-5 or D-1 post commensurate with the Appellant¡¯s skills, training, qualifications, and experience for which she has applied and which was not the subject of her initial application, the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that because the termination had been rescinded and Mr. Mukhopadhyay had been reinstated further to the First Judgment, the appeal of the Second Judgment had become moot as there could be no entitlement to termination notice pursuant to the applicable Regulations and Rules. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT thus granted the Secretary-General's appeal and reversed the Second Judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found not receivable Mr. Mukhopadhyay¡¯s cross-appeal requesting an award for consequential damages, compensation for moral damages and costs. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that he had made these claims for the first time on appeal and was...

The Secretary-General filed an appeal.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the finding that there was no causal link between the protected activity of Ms. Fosse and the detrimental behaviour of the Executive Secretary was a finding that a reasonable administrator could make. The conclusion that there was no causal link was based on the OIOS¡¯s investigation, its engagement with other staff, the documentary information evidencing the essentially undisputed problematic relationship between Ms. Fosse and the Executive Secretary, the perceived poor performance of Ms. Fosse, and Ms. Fosse¡¯s insistence on working only...

Mr. Moulana appealed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵATnoted that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT dismissed Mr. Moulana's application on the grounds of insufficient evidence, whereas he had not been afforded the opportunity to provide the evidence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, by failing to address the Appellant¡¯s requests for the production of documents, including ignoring his motion, violated the Appellant¡¯s due process rights and deprived him of the opportunity to have his motion assessed and possibly granted, following which he could have submitted the pieces of evidence which the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found he failed to provide. Therefore...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly found that Ms. Hanjoury was informed on 1 March 2020 that she no longer had FS-5 Administrative Assistant Roster status. This 1 March 2020 email was clear notification of her roster status and the latest date that Ms. Hanjoury knew or reasonably should have known of the challenged decision, based on objective elements that both parties could accurately determine. As a result, Ms. Hanjoury¡¯s request for management evaluation on 6 June 2021 was beyond the 60-day deadline and therefore her application to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was not receivable ratione materiae.

The...

The Appeals Tribunal rejected AAD's request for an oral hearing because she provided no persuasive reasons in support of her request.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Dispute Tribunal erred in determining whether the established facts qualify as misconduct and whether the disciplinary sanctions were proportionate. In its Judgment, the Dispute Tribunal also erred by substituting its determination of the appropriate disciplinary sanction for that of the Administration and, as such, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment must be vacated. AAD said her actions did not amount to misconduct and sought a...

M. Jibril a fait appel.

En ce qui concerne la demande d'audience, l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que les questions factuelles et juridiques soulev¨¦es par cet appel avaient d¨¦j¨¤ ¨¦t¨¦ clairement d¨¦finies par les parties et qu'il n'¨¦tait pas n¨¦cessaire de fournir des ¨¦claircissements suppl¨¦mentaires. De plus, une audience ne contribuerait pas ¨¤ r¨¦gler l¡¯affaire de mani¨¨re rapide et ¨¦quitable, comme l¡¯exige l¡¯article 18(1) du R¨¨glement int¨¦rieur du TANU. En cons¨¦quence, la demande d'audience est rejet¨¦e.

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a convenu avec le DT de l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA que la d¨¦cision administrative contest¨¦e de placer M. Jibril en cong¨¦...

Mr. Jibril appealed.

As regards the request for an oral hearing, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the factual and legal issues arising from this appeal had already been clearly defined by the parties and there was no need for further clarification. Moreover, an oral hearing would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case, as required by Article 18(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Rules of Procedure. Accordingly, the request for an oral hearing is denied.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT that the challenged administrative decision to place Mr. Jibril on Administrative Leave With Pay (ALWP) was lawful. ...

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a examin¨¦ un appel de M. Dorji.

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que l'appel ¨¦tait d¨¦fectueux dans la mesure o¨´ il n'avait identifi¨¦ aucun des cinq moyens d'appel ¨¦nonc¨¦s ¨¤ l'article 2(1) du Statut comme constituant la base juridique de l'appel. Comme le TCNU l'a estim¨¦ ¨¤ juste titre, la d¨¦mission forc¨¦e all¨¦gu¨¦e de M. Dorji et sa s¨¦paration ult¨¦rieure de l'Organisation ont eu lieu en mars et avril 2019. La demande de contr?le hi¨¦rarchique de M. Dorji a ¨¦t¨¦ d¨¦pos¨¦e en dehors du d¨¦lai l¨¦gal de 60 jours de plus de deux ans, le 25 juin 2021.

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a rejet¨¦ l'appel et a confirm¨¦ le jugement n¡ã Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2021...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Mr. Dorji.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the appeal was defective in that it failed to identify any of the five grounds of appeal set out in Article 2(1) of the Statute as forming the legal basis of the appeal. As the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly held, Mr. Dorji¡¯s alleged coerced resignation and subsequent separation from the Organization occurred in March and April 2019. Mr. Dorji¡¯s request for management evaluation thereof was filed outside the 60-day statutory time limit by more than two years, on 25 June 2021.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed Judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2021...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr. Saleh¡¯s complaints of procedural unfairness were unsustainable for the reasons stated by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and he had not discharged the burden incumbent upon him to satisfy the Appeals Tribunal that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment was defective in that regard. He merely repeated the untenable submissions he made before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT took note that Mr. Saleh admitted to two counts of fraud. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT then held that Mr. Saleh¡¯s conduct unquestionably damaged the trust relationship and the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct to defer to the reasonable conclusion of the Administration that the damage was irreparable and...

The Secretary-General appealed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT failed to address OAI¡¯s investigation report, the acceptance of which led to Ms. Lekoetje¡¯s severance from service. The investigation report was an important evidential element which should have been, but was not, examined and analyzed by the Dispute Tribunal. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was wrong to have dismissed the allegations of misconduct against Ms. Lekoetje without considering the investigation report¡¯s evidence of them.

Because of the intertwined natures of the two relationships between Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP and Ms. Lekoetje (landlord...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that the first two claims should be dismissed. The Appellant did not provide sufficient evidence showing that her candidacy was not given full and fair consideration. Regarding the generalized complaint of harassment, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed that the application on this question was not receivable.

However, in regards to the finding that the Administration abused its authority in mishandling the Appellant¡¯s sexual harassment complaint, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was an error in procedure. The Appellant made a motion to admit additional evidence, and the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT made no ruling on this...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Ms. Banaj against Judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2021/030.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that a reallocation of duties pending the outcome of an investigation as occurred in Ms. Banaj¡¯s case is permissible as an interim measure in such circumstances, but not as the exercise of the general power of assignments available to the Secretary-General in Staff Regulation 1.2(c) [¡­] But, under Staff Rule 10.4 and the Framework relating to interim measures pending an investigation and disciplinary process, there is an alternative measure of reallocation of duties available in such cases where the...

The crucial question on appeal was whether the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT committed any error when it only referred for accountability the Chief of Investigations of OIAI but not the ED and other staff members of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no error in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment, because it was within the Dispute Tribunal¡¯s discretion to reject the applicant¡¯s request for referral. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s legal approach was correct. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT decided not to refer the ED of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF for accountability because it was not shown that she had had any influence in the handling of applicant¡¯s complaint. Ms. Dettori also did not show on...