Â鶹´«Ã½

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

UNAT 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 UNAT concluded that the UNDT Judgment must be vacated. AAD said her actions did not amount to misconduct and sought a...

L'UNAT a rejet¨¦ la demande de rectification du jugement de M. Zaqqout au motif que M. Zaqqout avait tent¨¦ de relancer son affaire au lieu de d¨¦montrer des erreurs de la nature de celles cens¨¦es ¨ºtre couvertes par l'article 11(2), et qu'il n'avait pas expliqu¨¦ les erreurs importantes retard dans la demande de correction des erreurs all¨¦gu¨¦es.

L'UNAT a ¨¦galement rejet¨¦ la demande de r¨¦vision du jugement pr¨¦sent¨¦e par M. Zaqqout. L'UNAT a estim¨¦ qu'il s'agissait de la deuxi¨¨me demande de r¨¦vision d¨¦pos¨¦e par M. Zaqqout dans cette affaire, il lui ¨¦tait demand¨¦ de d¨¦montrer des circonstances...

UNAT dismissed Mr. Zaqqout's application for correction of judgment on the grounds that Mr. Zaqqout attempted to relitigate his case instead of demonstrating mistakes in the nature of those intended to be covered by Article 11(2), and he had failed to explain the significant delay in applying to correct the alleged errors.

UNAT also dismissed Mr. Zaqqout's application for revision of judgment. UNAT found that this being the second application for revision Mr. Zaqqout had filed in this case, he was required to demonstrate exceptional circumstances, a test he did not meet; and that even if the...

M. Hassan a fait appel du jugement du Tribunal.

L'UNAT a estim¨¦ que l'appelant n'avait pas d¨¦montr¨¦ que le Tribunal avait commis une erreur en concluant que sa requ¨ºte n'¨¦tait pas recevable ratione personae. L'UNAT a conclu qu'au moment de la d¨¦cision de non-s¨¦lection contest¨¦e, le requ¨¦rant avait cess¨¦ ses fonctions depuis plus d'un an et n'¨¦tait plus membre du personnel. Il s'agissait d'un candidat externe qui n'avait pas qualit¨¦ pour contester la d¨¦cision de ne pas le s¨¦lectionner pour le nouveau poste d'associ¨¦ ¨¤ la r¨¦installation, dans la mesure o¨´ la d¨¦cision n'affectait pas ses anciens...

Mr. Hassan appealed the UNDT judgment.

The UNAT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate that the UNDT erred in finding that his application was not receivable ratione personae. UNAT concluded that at the time of the contested non-selection decision, the Appellant had been separated from service for more than a year and was no longer a staff member. He was an external candidate with no standing to challenge the decision not to select him for the new position of Resettlement Associate, as the decision was not affecting his former terms of appointment. Moreover, there was no offer of...

L'UNAT a examin¨¦ un appel de M. Dorji.

L'UNAT 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'UNAT a rejet¨¦ l'appel et a confirm¨¦ le jugement n¡ã UNDT/2021...

The UNAT considered an appeal by Mr. Dorji.

The UNAT 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 UNDT 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 UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed Judgment No. UNDT/2021...

UNAT considered an appeal by Mr. Loubani. UNAT held that while a preliminary assessment [regarding potential evidence by witnesses nominated by Mr. Loubani to be interviewed] should have been made by the investigators, this was done by UNRWA DT, and the evidence found to be so inadequate as to be safely ignored.

Mr. Loubani had an opportunity to present this evidence before UNRWA DT, so that its proper assessment meant that his due process right was allowed, albeit belatedly. It would have made no difference to the outcome had the investigators done so. The investigators would have reached...

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

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

The Secretary-General appealed the UNDT Judgment.

The UNAT found that the UNDT 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 UNDT 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 UNDP and Ms. Lekoetje (landlord...

UNAT considered an appeal by Ms. Banaj against Judgment No. UNDT/2021/030.

UNAT 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...

L¡¯UNAT a d¡¯abord r¨¦pondu ¨¤ la demande d¡¯audience du membre du personnel. Le fonctionnaire souhaitait pr¨¦senter au Tribunal des preuves m¨¦dicales prouvant son incapacit¨¦ m¨¦dicale. Le TANU a rejet¨¦ cet argument, soulignant que l'appel ¨¦tait une r¨¦vision du jugement du Tribunal du Tribunal sur la base des ¨¦l¨¦ments de preuve pr¨¦sent¨¦s au Tribunal et que le fonctionnaire n'avait pas demand¨¦ ¨¤ pr¨¦senter de nouveaux ¨¦l¨¦ments de preuve. L'UNAT a ¨¦galement rejet¨¦ les arguments selon lesquels le fonctionnaire pourrait profiter de l'audience pour expliquer diverses politiques ou pour proposer une...

The UNAT first addressed the staff member¡¯s request for an oral hearing. The staff member wished to present medical evidence to the Tribunal to prove his medical incapacitation. The UNAT rejected this argument, noting that the appeal was a review of the UNDT judgment based on the evidence presented to the UNDT, and the staff member had not applied to present new evidence. The UNAT also rejected the arguments that the staff member could use the oral hearing to explain various policies or to advance an amicable resolution with the Administration. The request for the oral hearing was denied. ...

The UNAT first dismissed as not receivable Mr. Loto¡¯s appeal of the UNDT¡¯s Order denying his motion to strike an audio-recording and certain pleadings submitted by the Secretary-General. The UNAT held that these matters could be addressed in Mr. Loto¡¯s appeal of the judgment on the merits of his application.

The UNAT was satisfied that the UNDT correctly admitted the audio-recording of the meeting between the alleged victim, Mr. Loto and others, as the recording assisted in resolving any evidential conflict about what transpired at this meeting, in which payment to the victim was discussed...

The UNAT denied the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing. It found that it would add nothing to his case presented in writing to hear from him in person and that an oral hearing would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposition of the case.

The UNAT held that much of the submissions advanced by the Appellant did amount to a resubmission of the case put to the UNDT but which it did not accept.

The UNAT found that the WSSCC structure was closed down on 31 December 2020 at the instigation of its donors and replaced by another organisation (the Sanitation and Hygiene Fund). It...

The UNAT considered an appeal by the staff member.

The UNAT found that because of a combination of the staff member¡¯s failure to recall the events in question and of the UNDT¡¯s decision (concurred in by the parties) not to hold an in-person hearing, the UNDT had appropriately referred to the investigation report.

The UNAT was of the view that the UNDT had correctly determined the staff member¡¯s acts were sexual in nature. The staff member had, without invitation, encouragement or consent, embraced two different women in a sexual manner at a party at a staff retreat. The UNAT held that the...

L'UNAT a rejet¨¦ ¨¤ la fois l'appel et l'appel ¨¤ travers. En ce qui concerne l'appel crois¨¦ du Secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral contre la d¨¦cision de la r¨¦ception de l'UNT, l'UNAT a jug¨¦ que l'UNDT avait raison de ne pas rejeter les r¨¦clamations comme irr¨¦alisables, mais d'enqu¨ºter sur leurs m¨¦rites. En ce qui concerne les m¨¦rites, l'UNAT a not¨¦ que les prestations de d¨¦c¨¨s en vertu des r¨¨gles ne sont pas payables aux b¨¦n¨¦ficiaires nomm¨¦s par un membre du personnel, mais aux b¨¦n¨¦ficiaires d¨¦sign¨¦s tels que d¨¦finis par les r¨¨gles du personnel (c'est-¨¤-dire le conjoint survivant ou les enfants ¨¤ charge). L'UNAT...

Unat a jug¨¦ que le consentement de l'appelant ¨¤ avoir pr¨¦c¨¦d¨¦ une audience en personne n'¨¦tait pas requis, conform¨¦ment ¨¤ la r¨¨gle 22 des r¨¨gles du Conseil d'appel de l'OACI et de la r¨¨gle 111.1 du personnel de l'OACI 111.1. L'appelante a ¨¦t¨¦ inform¨¦e par le Board d'appel de l'OACI de son intention de proc¨¦der ¨¤ une d¨¦cision sommaire et elle a particip¨¦ ¨¤ ce processus en faisant des soumissions sans s'y opposer. Par cons¨¦quent, ce n'¨¦tait pas une erreur de droit pour que le conseil d'appel de l'OACI ait examin¨¦ et d¨¦cid¨¦ le jugement sommaire sans audience en personne, mais autrement en...

L'UNAT a jug¨¦ que le membre du personnel ¨¦tait responsable d'avoir convenu que l'UNDT ne devait entendre aucune preuve directe des t¨¦moins en personne, mais devrait d¨¦cider de l'affaire sur les documents soumis. En tant que tribunal inquisitoire et non uniquement contradictoire, l'UNDT aurait n¨¦anmoins pu avoir tenu une audience. L'UNAT a constat¨¦ que l'UNDT avait le droit de conclure sur les preuves du plaignant ¨¤ elle seule que le membre du personnel s'¨¦tait engag¨¦ dans une relation sexuelle avec elle. Leur relation sexuelle ¨¦tait li¨¦e ¨¤ l'emploi et donc transactionnelle. L'UNDT avait le...

L'UNAT a rejet¨¦ l'appel du Secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral et a accord¨¦ en partie l'appel de M. Rolli. L'UNAT a constat¨¦ que la r¨¦siliation de la d¨¦cision de r¨¦siliation ordonn¨¦e par le UNDT ¨¦tait ?inutile? depuis que l¡¯affaire ¨¦tait parvenue ¨¤ l¡¯UNDT, le poste de M. Rolli avait ¨¦t¨¦ aboli. L'UNAT a donc jug¨¦ que dans ces circonstances, l'indemnisation devait reposer en vertu de l'article 10, paragraphe 5, (b) et ¨ºtre pour pr¨¦judice caus¨¦ par la d¨¦cision ill¨¦gale. Les m¨¦faits qu'il a subis comprenaient la perte de sa r¨¦mun¨¦ration et de ses avantages (¨¦ducation et droits de pension), les pertes sp¨¦cifiques...