äçÐÄvlogÃâ·ÑBÕ¾

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 noted that the revision procedure assumes the existence of a prior judgment and governs only the reopening of that judgment upon discovery of qualifying facts. It does not create a mechanism to revive an expired right to challenge an administrative decision. The UNDT did not err in dismissing the application for revision of judgment as not receivable ratione materiae.

The UNAT held that exceptional circumstances for waiver of the applicable time limits exist only where there is an ¡°absolute impossibility¡± to act within the prescribed period, and such impossibility is not demonstrated...

L¡¯UNAT a estim¨¦ que le recours form¨¦ par BK contre une ordonnance de gestion de l¡¯instance ne relevait pas de la cat¨¦gorie
restreinte de cas dans lesquels l¡¯UNDT aurait manifestement outrepass¨¦ sa comp¨¦tence ou ses pouvoirs en statuant sur une
question interlocutoire. Ses demandes d¡¯anonymat dans ses deux affaires port¨¦es devant l¡¯UNDT ont ¨¦t¨¦ accueillies, et rien
n¡¯indique que, malgr¨¦ cet anonymat, des ¨¦l¨¦ments permettant de l¡¯identifier auraient pu ¨ºtre divulgu¨¦s dans l¡¯un quelconque des
documents accessibles au public. La d¨¦cision de l¡¯UNDT de rendre un jugement d¨¦finitif n¡¯a pas non plus...

The UNAT held that BK¡¯s appeal of a case management order does not fall in the narrow set of cases where the UNDT manifestly exceeded its jurisdiction or powers in determining an interlocutory issue. His requests for anonymity in both of his UNDT cases were granted, and there is no indication that despite anonymity, any identifying material could have been disclosed in any of the publicly available records. Nor did the UNDT¡¯s decision to proceed to final judgment exceed its jurisdiction.

The UNAT held that the UNDT¡¯s denial of BK¡¯s inadequately supported requests for a stay, and proceeding to...

Le Tribunal d¡¯appel a rejet¨¦ l¡¯argument de M. Jin selon lequel le Tribunal administratif des Nations Unies (UNTD) avait commis une erreur en concluant ¨¤ l¡¯absence de pr¨¦judice, dans la mesure o¨´, selon ses calculs, la d¨¦cision d¡¯attribuer la note maximale ¨¤ la
partie 2 de chaque candidat avait conduit ¨¤ un groupe de candidats admis ¨¤ l¡¯entretien plus large, ce qui lui avait port¨¦ pr¨¦judice. Le Tribunal d¡¯appel a estim¨¦ que cet argument relevait de la sp¨¦culation, qu¡¯il reposait sur un sc¨¦nario hypoth¨¦tique et qu¡¯il ne
r¨¦pondait pas ¨¤ la charge de la preuve incombant ¨¤ M. Jin, qui devait...

The Appeals Tribunal dismissed Mr. Jin¡¯s claim that the UNDT erred in finding no prejudice since, by his calculations, the decision to score Part 2 perfectly for each candidate resulted in a larger interview pool which was disadvantageous to him. The Appeals Tribunal found that this argument was speculative, predicated on one hypothetical counterfactual outcome, and failed to meet Mr. Jin¡¯s burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that he had been denied a fair chance of selection.

The Appeals Tribunal found that the circumstances in Mr. Jin¡¯s case were fundamentally and...

L¡¯UNAT a estim¨¦ qu¡¯une partie l¨¦s¨¦e par le rejet d¡¯une mesure provisoire peut, et doit g¨¦n¨¦ralement, attendre que l¡¯affaire soit
d¨¦finitivement tranch¨¦e avant d¡¯interjeter appel.

L¡¯UNAT a jug¨¦ qu¡¯une d¨¦cision relative ¨¤ une mesure provisoire peut faire l¡¯objet d¡¯un r¨¦examen s¡¯il est d¨¦montr¨¦ que le tribunal de premi¨¨re instance, ¨¤ savoir le JAB, a outrepass¨¦ sa comp¨¦tence.

L¡¯UNAT a not¨¦ que le JAB est express¨¦ment habilit¨¦ par le r¨¨glement du personnel de l¡¯ISA ¨¤ d¨¦cider si la suspension d¡¯une mesure administrative est appropri¨¦e, ce qui rel¨¨ve de sa comp¨¦tence et de sa juridiction.

L¡¯UNAT a...

The UNAT held that a party aggrieved by denial of interim relief can and generally must wait until the matter is finally resolved before filing an appeal.

The UNAT found that a decision regarding interim relief may be reviewable if it can be shown that the first instance tribunal, the JAB, exceeded its jurisdiction or competence.

The UNAT noted that the JAB is specifically empowered by the ISA Staff Rules to decide whether suspension of an administrative action is appropriate, which is within its competence and jurisdiction.

The UNAT found that there was no basis for its intervention in the...