äçÐÄvlogÃâ·ÑBÕ¾

En ce qui concerne la recevabilit¨¦ de la demande de r¨¦examen de Mme Janakiram, l¡¯UNAT a estim¨¦ que seule la d¨¦cision du 7 octobre 2024 rejetant sa demande constituait une d¨¦cision susceptible de
r¨¦examen, dans la mesure o¨´ elle s¡¯appliquait ¨¤ elle ¨¤ titre individuel et affectait directement ses droits en tant que b¨¦n¨¦ficiaire. En revanche, il a estim¨¦ que la lettre du Fonds dat¨¦e du 8 juillet 2010 n¡¯¨¦tait ni adress¨¦e ¨¤ Mme Janakiram ni relative au m¨ºme sujet : elle ¨¦tait adress¨¦e ¨¤ l¡¯affili¨¦ d¨¦c¨¦d¨¦ et l¡¯informait que le Fonds ne pouvait pas reconna?tre son deuxi¨¨me mariage aux fins des droits...

Le Tribunal d¡¯appel a estim¨¦ que le Tribunal administratif des Nations unies (UNTD) avait correctement conclu que le motif invoqu¨¦ par l¡¯Administration pour justifier le non-renouvellement ¨¦tait ¨¦tay¨¦ par les faits, ¨¤ savoir l¡¯expiration d¡¯une subvention qui finan?ait la nomination de M. Musambai. En outre, le TND a correctement estim¨¦ qu¡¯une fois que l¡¯Administration avait ¨¦tay¨¦ le motif invoqu¨¦ pour exercer son pouvoir discr¨¦tionnaire, il incombait ¨¤ M. Musambai de d¨¦montrer que la d¨¦cision ¨¦tait
d¨¦raisonnable, in¨¦quitable, entach¨¦e d¡¯irr¨¦gularit¨¦s de proc¨¦dure ou motiv¨¦e par des...

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...

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 UNDT correctly concluded that the Administration¡¯s stated reason for the non-renewal was supported by the facts, i.e. the expiration of a grant that funded Mr. Musambai's appointment. Furthermore, the UNDT correctly held that, once the Administration substantiated the reason it gave for the exercise of its discretion, the burden shifted to Mr. Musambai to demonstrate that the decision was unreasonable, unfair, procedurally irregular, or tainted by improper motive.

Turning to Mr. Musambai¡¯s argument that other staff members continued receiving salaries...

Concerning the receivability of Ms. Janakiram¡¯s request for review, the UNATheld that only the 7 October 2024 decision rejecting her claim constituted a reviewable decision, as it applied to her individually and directly affected her rights as a beneficiary. By contrast, it found that the Fund¡¯s 8 July 2010 letter was neither addressed to Ms. Janakiram nor concerned the same subject: it was addressed to the late participant and informed him that the Fund could not recognize his second marriage for the purpose of pension entitlements. The UNAT held that the letter therefore had no direct legal...

L¡¯UNAT a estim¨¦ qu¡¯en l¡¯absence de disposition expresse dans le cadre juridique pr¨¦voyant que l¡¯engagement continu puisse ¨ºtre prolong¨¦ ou qu¡¯un agent puisse ¨ºtre r¨¦int¨¦gr¨¦ aux fins de l¡¯utilisation d¡¯un cong¨¦ de maladie, le droit de M. Iacovino au cong¨¦ de
maladie a pris fin ¨¤ la date indiqu¨¦e dans sa lettre de licenciement, ¨¤ savoir le 31 d¨¦cembre 2023. L¡¯UNAT a reconnu que,
conform¨¦ment ¨¤ la note ST/AI/2005/3, les membres du personnel sous contrat ¨¤ dur¨¦e d¨¦termin¨¦e peuvent se voir accorder une prolongation afin de faire valoir leur droit au cong¨¦ de maladie, mais qu¡¯il n¡¯existe aucune...

L¡¯UNAT a estim¨¦ que le TDN avait commis une erreur en concluant que le renvoi vers le BSCI constituait une d¨¦cision administrative susceptible de recours. Il a jug¨¦ que, contrairement ¨¤ ce qu¡¯avait conclu le TDN, le fait d¡¯¨ºtre soumis ¨¤ une enqu¨ºte ne transformait pas, en soi, le renvoi en vue d¡¯une enqu¨ºte en une d¨¦cision administrative, en l¡¯absence de cons¨¦quences juridiques
suppl¨¦mentaires. Elle a en outre conclu que, dans la mesure o¨´ la demande de cong¨¦ parental du fonctionnaire avait finalement ¨¦t¨¦ accept¨¦e et o¨´ celui-ci n¡¯avait pas fait ¨¦tat d¡¯un pr¨¦judice r¨¦sultant du retard dans l...

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...

En ce qui concerne le recours form¨¦ contre l¡¯ordonnance n¡ã 46 (GVA/2025) rejetant la requ¨ºte de M. Turcanu visant ¨¤ obtenir la
suspension de la d¨¦cision contest¨¦e dans l¡¯attente de l¡¯examen judiciaire de sa demande au fond, le Tribunal d¡¯appel a rappel¨¦ qu¡¯en vertu de l¡¯article 10, paragraphe 2, du Statut du TNDU et de l¡¯article 14 du R¨¨glement du TNDU, le TNDU ne peut suspendre
l¡¯ex¨¦cution d¡¯une d¨¦cision contest¨¦e dans les affaires relatives ¨¤ la nomination, ¨¤ la promotion ou ¨¤ la cessation de fonctions. Il a ¨¦galement rappel¨¦ qu¡¯une d¨¦cision de ne pas renouveler une nomination relevait de la...

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...

The UNAT held that the UNDT erred in finding that the referral to OIOS constituted a reviewable administrative decision.It found that, contrary to the UNDT¡¯s finding, being subject to an investigation did not, in itself, transform the referral for investigation into an administrative decision, in the absence of additional legal consequences.It further concluded that, as the staff member¡¯s request for parental leave was eventually granted, and he had not identified any harm resulting from the delay in granting it, the referral to OIOS did not have sufficient legal effect to constitute a...

As to the appeal of Order No. 46 (GVA/2025) dismissing Mr. Turcanu¡¯s motion seeking the suspension of the contested decision pending judicial review of his substantive application, the Appeals Tribunal recalled that pursuant to Article 10(2) of the UNDT Statute and Article 14 of the UNDT Rules, the UNDT may not suspend the implementation of a contested decision in cases of appointment, promotion or termination. It also recalled that a decision not to renew an appointment was a matter concerned with the ¡°appointment¡± of a staff member. The Appeals Tribunal concluded that under the terms of...

The UNAT noted that the UNDT Order was issued 31 July 2025, and that the staff member filed his interlocutory appeal on 5 September 2025, beyond the applicable time limit and without having sought a waiver or extension of that limit.

The UNAT accordingly held that the appeal was not receivableratione temporis and dismissed the appeal.

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...

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...