äçÐÄvlogÃâ·ÑBÕ¾

Le Tribunal d¡¯appel a estim¨¦ que le Comit¨¦ de discipline des Nations Unies (UNDT) avait commis une erreur de droit en accordant une indemnit¨¦ compensatoire ¨¦quivalente ¨¤ six mois de salaire de base net sans fournir de motifs justifiant ce montant. Le Tribunal d¡¯appel a estim¨¦ que, si le contrat de M. Isufi n¡¯avait pas ¨¦t¨¦ ill¨¦galement non renouvel¨¦ et si toutes les autres consid¨¦rations pertinentes avaient ¨¦t¨¦ identiques, celui-ci aurait pu raisonnablement s¡¯attendre ¨¤ b¨¦n¨¦ficier d¡¯un nouveau contrat ¨¤ dur¨¦e
d¨¦termin¨¦e d¡¯un an. Compte tenu de diverses ¨¦ventualit¨¦s applicables, notamment ses...

L¡¯UNAT a estim¨¦ que, bien qu¡¯il n¡¯y ait pas eu de motifs suffisants pour refuser d¡¯ouvrir des enqu¨ºtes sur les all¨¦gations de faute formul¨¦es par l¡¯ancien membre du personnel, ses rapports concernaient des
questions administratives courantes qui, en elles-m¨ºmes, n¡¯¨¦taient probablement pas constitutives d¡¯une faute et certainement pas d¡¯une faute grave. L¡¯UNAT a en outre estim¨¦ que l¡¯UNDT avait correctement conclu que l¡¯ancien membre du personnel n¡¯avait pas fourni d¡¯¨¦l¨¦ments de preuve d¨¦montrant une
intention malveillante de la part des auteurs pr¨¦sum¨¦s. En cons¨¦quence, en appliquant le ?...

Le Tribunal d¡¯appel a estim¨¦ que l¡¯indemnit¨¦ de mobilit¨¦ servait d¡¯incitation ¨¤ encourager la mobilit¨¦ des membres du personnel vers des lieux d¡¯affectation sur le terrain, conform¨¦ment aux besoins de
l¡¯Organisation, et qu¡¯elle n¡¯¨¦tait pas, contrairement ¨¤ ce qu¡¯avait conclu le Tribunal administratif des
Nations Unies, destin¨¦e ¨¤ couvrir les frais r¨¦els de d¨¦m¨¦nagement et de s¨¦jour dans un lieu d¡¯affectation donn¨¦. Toutefois, la FORUS a bien men¨¦, conform¨¦ment aux instructions re?ues, une nouvelle proc¨¦dure de recrutement qui a permis ¨¤ M. Oppal de se pr¨¦senter ¨¤ nouveau. Le Tribunal d¡¯appel a...

The Appeals Tribunal found that the UNDT erred in law when it awarded in-lieu compensation in the amount of 6 months' net base salary without providing reasons to support said amount. The Appeals Tribunal found that had Mr. Isufi's appointment not been unlawfully not renewed and all other relevant considerations being equal, he might reasonably have expected to have enjoyed another one-year fixed-term appointment. Factoring in a variety of applicable contingencies, including his known history of consistent and repeated less-than-satisfactory performance, together with the other usual...

The Appeals Tribunal found that the mobility allowance serves as an incentive to encourage movement of staff members to field duty stations in accordance with the Organization¡¯s needs and it is not, as the UNDT found, designed to cover the actual costs of relocation and living in a particular duty station. However, UNISFA, did conduct, as instructed, a new recruitment exercise which allowed Mr. Oppal to compete again. The Appeals Tribunal concluded that since Mr. Oppal did not apply for the re-advertised position thereby choosing to give up the opportunity to receive the mobility incentive...

The UNAT held that, while there was a lack of adequate reasons for declining to open investigations into misconduct allegations raised by the former staff member, his reports concerned ordinary administrative matters that were of themselves likely not misconduct and certainly not serious misconduct.The UNAT further found that the UNDT correctly concluded that the former staff member did not provide evidence demonstrating ill motivation on the part of the alleged perpetrators. Accordingly, applying the ¡°no difference principle¡±, the UNAT found that the lack of adequate reasons for declining...

L¡¯UNAT a estim¨¦ que l¡¯UNDT n¡¯avait pas commis d¡¯erreur de droit dans son interpr¨¦tation de l¡¯article 10.1(b) du R¨¨glement du
personnel et avait ¨¤ juste titre jug¨¦ que la notion de ? perte financi¨¨re ? exigeait un pr¨¦judice p¨¦cuniaire d¨¦montrable et quantifiable pour l¡¯Organisation, directement caus¨¦ par une faute intentionnelle, imprudente ou gravement n¨¦gligente de la part du fonctionnaire, et non compens¨¦ par une contrepartie de valeur ¨¦quivalente ou sup¨¦rieure.

Le Tribunal administratif des Nations unies a rejet¨¦ l¡¯argument du Secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral selon lequel toute utilisation non autoris¨¦e...

Le Tribunal d¡¯appel a estim¨¦ que M. Egenhoff avait omis de signaler son conflit d¡¯int¨¦r¨ºts, qu¡¯il ne s¡¯¨¦tait pas r¨¦cus¨¦ de la proc¨¦dure de passation de march¨¦ et qu¡¯il avait, ¨¤ plusieurs reprises, communiqu¨¦ des informations confidentielles ¨¤ AH. Ce comportement ¨¦tait intentionnel ; il s¡¯est ¨¦tendu sur une longue p¨¦riode et n¡¯¨¦tait pas dans l¡¯int¨¦r¨ºt des Nations Unies. De plus, M. Egenhoff
occupait un poste ¨¤ haute responsabilit¨¦ et, ¨¤ ce titre, ¨¦tait cens¨¦ servir de mod¨¨le aux membres du personnel plac¨¦s sous sa
supervision. Compte tenu d¡¯autres facteurs, M. Egenhoff n¡¯avait pas d¡¯ant¨¦c¨¦dents...

The Appeals Tribunal considered that Mr. Egenhoff had failed to disclose his conflict of interest, he had failed to recuse himself from the procurement exercise, and he had repeatedly shared confidential information with AH. This conduct was intentional; it occurred over a prolonged period and was not in the interest of the United Nations. Moreover, Mr. Egenhoff was in a position of significant responsibility and as such, he was supposed to be a role model for the staff members he supervised. Considering other factors, Mr. Egenhoff had no prior disciplinary record, and there was no evidence of...

The UNAT held that the UNDT did not err in law in its interpretation of Staff Rule 10.1(b) and properly held that ¡°financial loss¡± requires a demonstrable and quantifiable monetary detriment to the Organization, directly caused by the staff member¡¯s wilful, reckless, or grossly negligent misconduct, and not offset by equivalent or greater value received.

The UNAT rejected the Secretary-General¡¯s argument that any unauthorized use of funds constitutes ¡°financial loss¡±, holding that this conflates misconduct with loss.Accordingly, it held that the failure to follow procurement procedures...

L¡¯agent a d¨¦pos¨¦ une demande d¡¯indemnisation pour un accident du travail. La Commission consultative des demandes
d¡¯indemnisation a jug¨¦ sa demande prescrite. Elle a demand¨¦ ¨¤ la Commission consultative de r¨¦examiner sa demande et a joint un nouveau formulaire de demande, sur lequel figurait une nouvelle date d¡¯accident. Elle a ensuite d¨¦pos¨¦ de nombreuses demandes et requ¨ºtes en r¨¦examen des d¨¦cisions all¨¦gu¨¦es et des ? non-d¨¦cisions ? concernant le traitement de sa demande.

Le Tribunal administratif des Nations unies (UNAT) a not¨¦ qu¡¯il avait d¨¦j¨¤ rendu un arr¨ºt dans lequel il avait jug¨¦ que...

L¡¯UNAT a estim¨¦ que l¡¯UNDT n¡¯avait pas commis d¡¯erreur en concluant que la demande d¡¯indemnisation de Mme Johnson-Simmons au titre des imp?ts non per?us n¡¯¨¦tait pas recevable, dans la mesure o¨´ non seulement Mme Johnson-Simmons n¡¯avait pas identifi¨¦ la d¨¦cision administrative contest¨¦e concernant le remboursement des imp?ts sur le revenu, mais o¨´ elle avait ¨¦galement admis ne pas avoir soumis la question ¨¤ l¡¯¨¦valuation de la direction, et o¨´ rien n¡¯indiquait qu¡¯elle ait pay¨¦ des imp?ts.

L¡¯UNAT a estim¨¦ que Mme Johnson-Simmons avait sciemment et intentionnellement dissimul¨¦ ¨¤ l¡¯Organisation des...

L¡¯UNAT a estim¨¦ que le DT de l¡¯UNRWA avait commis une erreur de droit et de fait, aboutissant ¨¤ une d¨¦cision manifestement
d¨¦raisonnable, en omettant de prendre d?ment en consid¨¦ration l¡¯article 66 de la directive de l¡¯UNRWA relative au personnel de
terrain n¡ã PD/A/4/Partie II/Rev. 7/Section I, qui vise ¨¤ garantir l¡¯¨¦quilibre entre les sexes, et lorsqu¡¯il a pris en compte, ¨¤ tort, la
recommandation concernant le troisi¨¨me candidat, ce qui l¡¯a conduit ¨¤ fixer ¨¤ tort les chances de s¨¦lection de Mme Al Dawoud ¨¤ 50 % au lieu de 100 %. L¡¯UNAT a estim¨¦ que la section 66 exprime une pr¨¦f¨¦rence pour...

The staff member submitted a claim for compensation for an injury attributable to the performance of official duties. The Advisory Board on Compensation Claims found her claim time-barred. She requested the Advisory Board to reconsider her claim and attached a new claim form, which stated a new date of the injury. She subsequently filed many claims and requests for reviews of alleged decisions and ¡°non decisions¡± concerning the processing of her claim.

The UNAT noted that it had rendered its prior Judgment in which it held that the staff member¡¯s application challenging alleged decisions and...

The staff member who was on a roster of suitable candidates for the Senior Service Desk Officer (SSDO) post was informed that the SSDO post was reclassified to the IT Service Delivery Officer (ISDO) post and the job description had changed to the degree that his membership in the SSDO roster was not applicable to the ISDO post. He expressed interest in applying for the ISDO post but did not apply.

The UNAT noted that the staff member was not the incumbent of the SSDO post at the time of reclassification. The UNAT held that the reclassification of the SSDO post to the ISDO post had not...

The UNAT found that the UNDT did not err in finding that Ms. Johnson-Simmons¡¯s claim to compensation for unpaid taxes not receivable, as not only did Ms. Johnson-Simmons fail to identify the contested administrative decision regarding reimbursement for income tax payments, but she also admitted that she did not submit the matter for management evaluation, and there was no indication that she had paid any taxes.

The UNAT found that Ms. Johnson-Simmons knowingly and intentionally concealed relevant information about her changed residency status from the Organization, and she also willfully...

The UNAT found the UNRWA DT erred in law and in fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision, when it failed to properly consider Section 66 of UNRWA Area Personnel Directive No. PD/A/4/Part II/Rev. 7/Section I, which is geared toward ensuring gender balance, and when it took the irrelevant consideration of the recommendation of the third candidate into account, leading it to erroneously set Ms. Al Dawoud¡¯s chances for selection at 50 per cent instead of 100 per cent. The UNAT held that Section 66 expresses a preference for selection of candidates who are in the under-represented...

The UNAT noted that in its prior Judgment the UNAT had found that the staff member knew or reasonably should have known of the contested decisions from the date he was notified by email of the reclassification of his post, or at the very latest on the date the initial job opening was advertised on Inspira.

The UNAT held that the alleged new fact that the vacancy for the post was filled 13 months after the staff member left the Organization would not have materially impacted the outcome of its prior Judgment. The UNAT accordingly found the application for revision not receivable ratione...