Â鶹´«Ã½

Unat a jug¨¦ que UNDT ne s'est pas tromp¨¦ lorsqu'il a jug¨¦ que ST / AI / 2017 ¨¦tait le cadre juridique directeur applicable ¨¤ l'affaire. Unat a jug¨¦ cette repr¨¦sentation conjointe par Un-Women, o¨´ l'appelant actuellement servi, et Unmik, o¨´ les ¨¦v¨¦nements en litige se sont produits, a ¨¦t¨¦ justifi¨¦. Unat a jug¨¦ que les circonstances justifiaient ¨¦galement l'octroi d'une occasion de compl¨¦ter la r¨¦ponse initiale (et un droit correspondant de r¨¦pondre). Unat a jug¨¦ que, ¨¦tant donn¨¦ que l'appelant n'avait pas contest¨¦ la repr¨¦sentation conjointe avant UNT ¨¤ l'¨¦poque et ayant eu la possibilit¨¦ de...

UNAT held that UNDT did not err when it held that ST/AI/2017 was the governing legal framework applicable to the case. UNAT held that joint representation by UN-Women, where the Appellant currently served, and UNMIK, where the events in dispute occurred, was justified. UNAT held that the circumstances also justified the granting of an opportunity to supplement the initial reply (and a corresponding right to reply). UNAT held that, given that the Appellant had not contested the joint representation before UNDT at the time and having been afforded the opportunity to answer the supplementary...

Non n'¨¦tant pas d'accord. Premi¨¨rement, le tribunal a estim¨¦ que le JAB ne s'est pas engag¨¦ dans une analyse critique des faits de l'affaire et n'a pas appliqu¨¦ la loi aux faits afin de d¨¦terminer si l'exercice du pouvoir discr¨¦tionnaire ¨¦tait l¨¦gal. Unat a conclu que la d¨¦cision de JAB ¨¦tait arbitraire et ne r¨¦pondait pas aux exigences minimales de la fourniture d'une analyse raisonn¨¦e. Deuxi¨¨mement, sur les m¨¦rites, Unat a constat¨¦ que l'administration n'avait pas inform¨¦ le membre du personnel de ses lacunes en temps suffisant. Il n'a pas non plus fourni au membre du personnel des mesures...

UNAT disagreed. First, the Tribunal reasoned that the JAB did not engage in a critical analysis of the facts of the case and did not apply the law to the facts in order to ascertain whether the exercise of discretion was lawful. UNAT concluded that the JAB Decision was arbitrary and did not meet the minimum requirements of providing a reasoned analysis. Second, on the merits, UNAT found the Administration did not notify the staff member of his shortcomings in sufficient time. Neither did It provide the staff member with explicit measures against which his performance would be evaluated. Third...

M. Farhadi a fait appel. L'UNAT a rejet¨¦ l'appel.

L'UNAT a rejet¨¦ la demande d'indemnisation de M. Farhadi pour le retard de l'UNDT ¨¤ rendre son jugement dans un d¨¦lai raisonnable. L'UNAT a not¨¦ que l'article 9(1)(b) du Statut du Tribunal d'appel n'autorise le Tribunal d'appel qu'¨¤ accorder une indemnisation pour un pr¨¦judice d¨¦coulant d'une d¨¦cision administrative, et non d'un retard dans la proc¨¦dure du Tribunal.

L'UNAT a rejet¨¦ l'affirmation de M. Farhadi selon laquelle l'UNDT aurait renvers¨¦ la charge de la preuve. L'UNAT ¨¦tait convaincue que l'UNDT avait ¨¦valu¨¦ tous les ¨¦l¨¦ments de...

Mr. Farhadi appealed. UNAT dismissed the appeal. UNAT dismissed Mr. Farhadi's request for compensation for the UNDT's delay in delivering its Judgment within a reasonable timeframe. UNAT noted that Article 9(1)(b) of the Appeals Tribunal Statute authorises the Appeals Tribunal only to award compensation for harm deriving from an administrative decision, not from a delay in the UNDT¡¯s proceedings. UNAT dismissed Mr. Farhadi's contention that the UNDT shifted the burden of proof. UNAT was satisfied that the UNDT had assessed all the elements of evidence in the record and correctly found that...

Unat a estim¨¦ que UNDT avait raison lorsqu'il a constat¨¦ que l'appelant n'aurait pas d? ¨ºtre trait¨¦ diff¨¦remment des autres candidats sans justification et que la proc¨¦dure de la mani¨¨re sugg¨¦r¨¦e aurait viol¨¦ les autres droits des candidats pr¨¦s¨¦lectionn¨¦s ¨¤ une consid¨¦ration ¨¦quitable et compl¨¨te. Unat a soutenu que la seule conclusion logique ¨¤ tirer ¨¦tait que UNDT avait raison dans sa conclusion qu'il y avait une erreur regrettable dans l'ouverture temporaire de l'emploi lorsqu'elle a exempt¨¦ les candidats auparavant r¨¦chang¨¦s de toute autre ¨¦valuation, et que cette erreur a ¨¦t¨¦ rectifi¨¦e...

UNAT held that UNDT was correct when it found that the Appellant should not have been treated differently from other candidates without justification and that proceeding in the manner suggested by him would have breached the other shortlisted candidates¡¯ rights to fair and full consideration. UNAT held that the only logical conclusion to be drawn was that UNDT was correct in its finding that there was a regrettable error in the temporary job opening when it exempted the previously rostered candidates from any further assessment, and that this error was later rectified when all short-listed...

M. Abdalla a d¨¦pos¨¦ une requ¨ºte en r¨¦vision et en interpr¨¦tation du jugement n¡ã 2021-UNAT-1078, all¨¦guant que le d¨¦p?t de l'appel du Secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral avait un effet suspensif sur la proc¨¦dure en cours devant le Tribunal, que par cons¨¦quent le d¨¦lai prorog¨¦ pour d¨¦poser une candidature n'aurait pas expir¨¦, et donc sa candidature finale devrait ¨ºtre re?ue ; et qu'une fois que l'UNAT avait rejet¨¦ l'appel du Secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral, il aurait d? renvoyer l'affaire pour une nouvelle d¨¦cision.

L'UNAT a constat¨¦ que M. Abdalla n'avait signal¨¦ aucune d¨¦claration ou consid¨¦ration dans le jugement de l...

Mr. Abdalla filed an application for revision and interpretation of Judgment No. 2021-UNAT-1078, claiming that the filing of the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal had a suspensive effect on the ongoing proceedings in the UNDT, that therefore the extended time limit to file an application would not have elapsed, and thus his ultimate application should be received; and that once UNAT had dismissed the Secretary-General's appeal, it should have remanded the case for further adjudication. UNAT found that Mr. Abdalla had failed to point to any statement or consideration in the UNAT Judgment which would...

UNAT a consid¨¦r¨¦ un appel du Secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral limit¨¦ ¨¤ la contestion de la r¨¦compense par UNDT de trois mois de salaire de base nette en compensation pour dommages aux perspectives de carri¨¨re de Mme Haroun. Unat a jug¨¦ que UNDT avait commis une erreur de droit en accordant une compensation pour dommages aux perspectives de carri¨¨re sur la base de la s¨¦paration de Mme Haroun du service. UNAT a not¨¦ que la s¨¦paration du service ¨¦tait le seul motif d'attribution de la r¨¦mun¨¦ration pour dommages aux perspectives de carri¨¨re, mais qu'il n'y avait aucune preuve dans le dossier concernant les...

Unat consid¨¦rait l'appel de l'appelant. UNAT a examin¨¦ les crit¨¨res expos¨¦s ¨¤ l'article 2 du statut de l'UNAT pour d¨¦terminer si des erreurs de droit et des faits pr¨¦sum¨¦s ont entra?n¨¦ une d¨¦cision manifestement d¨¦raisonnable. UNAT a constat¨¦ qu'il n'y avait aucune preuve que la d¨¦cision d'abolir le poste encombr¨¦ par l'appelant ¨¦tait ill¨¦gale. Unat a ¨¦galement constat¨¦ que la d¨¦cision de l'UNRWA DT ¨¦tait correctement bas¨¦e sur la loi applicable et les preuves disponibles. ? cette fin, Unat a jug¨¦ que l'appelant n'avait pas ¨¦tabli que l'UNRWA DT avait commis une erreur, que ce soit de droit...

Unat a jug¨¦ que l'appelant n'avait pas pr¨¦sent¨¦ des preuves suffisantes pour ¨¦tayer sa r¨¦clamation et d¨¦montrer une incapacit¨¦ pendant le d¨¦lai pertinent. Unat ¨¦tait convaincu que l'AJAB avait examin¨¦ toutes les preuves pertinentes aux questions. UNAT a rejet¨¦ l'appel et a confirm¨¦ la d¨¦cision du secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral de l'OACI.

En tant que question pr¨¦liminaire, en r¨¦ponse ¨¤ la demande de mesures provisoires de l'appelant, dans laquelle elle a demand¨¦ que le Secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral ait respect¨¦ le jugement de l'UNT ¨¤ mesure qu'il n'avait pas ¨¦t¨¦ en appel, inatter demand¨¦ avant UNT. Sur la requ¨ºte de l¡¯appelant pour faire preuve d¡¯affirmation et de preuves, Unat a not¨¦ que l¡¯appelante compl¨¦tait son appel et a rejet¨¦ la requ¨ºte. Sur le fond, Unat a jug¨¦ que l'appel ¨¦tait limit¨¦ ¨¤ la demande d'indemnisation suppl¨¦mentaire, conform¨¦ment au document de la procuration de l'appelant, et que toutes ses autres r¨¦clamations n...

Le TANU a estim¨¦ que la raison pour laquelle l'UNDT a d¨¦cid¨¦ de ne pas annuler la d¨¦cision contest¨¦e, ¨¤ savoir le temps ¨¦coul¨¦, n'¨¦tait pas suffisamment justifi¨¦e. Le TANU a estim¨¦ que, compte tenu des ill¨¦galit¨¦s flagrantes dans la conduite de la proc¨¦dure de s¨¦lection constat¨¦es par le TANU, l'annulation de la d¨¦cision contest¨¦e ¨¦tait obligatoire et ne pouvait ¨ºtre ¨¦vit¨¦e sur la base du d¨¦lai excessif entre l'introduction de la demande et le jugement du TANU. Le TANU a estim¨¦ que le fait de permettre ¨¤ la d¨¦cision de ne pas s¨¦lectionner le requ¨¦rant de rester en vigueur comme si elle ¨¦tait...

As a preliminary matter, in response to the Appellant¡¯s request for interim measures, in which she requested that the Secretary-General complied with the UNDT judgment insofar as it had not been appealed against, UNAT denied the motion on the basis that execution should have been requested before UNDT. On the Appellant¡¯s motion to strike assertions and evidence, UNAT noted that the Appellant was supplementing her appeal, and denied the motion. On the merits, UNAT held that the appeal was limited to the request for further compensation, as per the Appellant¡¯s Power of Attorney document, and...

UNAT held that the reason upon which UNDT decided not to rescind the contested decision, i. e. the lapse of time, was insufficient justification. UNAT held that, given the grossly negligent illegalities in which the selection process was conducted as found by UNDT, rescission of the contested decision was mandatory and could not be avoided on the basis of the excessive length of time between the filing of the application and the UNDT judgment. UNAT held that allowing the decision not to select the Appellant to remain in effect as if it was correct, despite its clear illegality, was not...

UNAT considered the Appellant¡¯s appeal. UNAT considered the criteria set out in Article 2 of the UNAT Statute to determine whether any alleged errors of law and fact resulted in a manifestly unreasonable decision. UNAT found that there was no evidence that the decision to abolish the post encumbered by the Appellant was unlawful. UNAT also found that UNRWA DT¡¯s decision was correctly based on the applicable law and available evidence. To that end, UNAT held that the Appellant failed to establish that the UNRWA DT committed any error, whether of law, fact, or procedure. UNAT further noted that...

UNAT held that the Appellant did not present sufficient evidence to support his claim and demonstrate any incapacity during the relevant time frame. UNAT was satisfied that the AJAB had considered all relevant evidence to the issues. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the ICAO Secretary-General.

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General limited to contesting the award by UNDT of three months¡¯ net base salary as compensation for damage to Ms Haroun¡¯s career prospects. UNAT held that UNDT committed an error in law by awarding compensation for damage to career prospects on the basis of Ms Haroun¡¯s separation from service. UNAT noted that the separation from service was the sole ground for awarding compensation for damage to career prospects but that there was no evidence on the record with respect to the exact reasons for separating Ms Haroun from service and the circumstances...