¹ú²úAV

En ce qui concerne la demande d'une audience orale, l'UNAT a jug¨¦ que l'UNRWA DT avait l¨¦galement exerc¨¦ son pouvoir discr¨¦tionnaire et avait donn¨¦ une explication raisonnable pour ne pas tenir une audience orale. L'UNRWA DT a d¨¦termin¨¦ correctement que les preuves documentaires compl¨¨tes avant qu'elle ne soit suffisante pour rendre une d¨¦cision sans avoir besoin d'une audience orale, d'autant plus que la question ¨¦tait de recevoir. De plus, les appelants n'ont pas montr¨¦ comment le refus de la demande de d¨¦tenir une audience orale a affect¨¦ le jugement. En ce qui concerne la question de la...

As regards the request for an oral hearing, the UNAT held that the UNRWA DT had lawfully exercised its discretion and given a reasonable explanation for not holding an oral hearing.  The UNRWA DT correctly determined that the comprehensive documentary evidence before it was sufficient to render a decision without the need for an oral hearing, especially as the issue was one of receivability. Further, the appellants have not shown how the denial of the request to hold an oral hearing affected the Judgment. With respect to the issue of receivability, the UNAT agreed with the UNRWA DT and upheld...

L'AAA a fait appel et le secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral est interrompu. Les non-¨¦tat n'¨¦taient pas d'accord avec la position de l'UNDT selon laquelle AAA ne pouvait pas ¨ºtre tenu de signaler une all¨¦gation de viol "qu'il a entendu d'une autre personne qui a assist¨¦ ¨¤ la cour" et que l'article 4.1 de ST / AI / 2017/1 "ne s'applique pas ¨¤ une personne qui simplement Entend une seconde main sur un cas d'inconduite, car une grande partie de ce qu'une telle personne a ¨¤ signaler serait le ou?-dire et peut-¨ºtre trompeur et d¨¦pourvue du type de d¨¦tail que la r¨¨gle cherche ¨¤ susciter du membre du personnel ?...

AAA appealed and the Secretary-General cross-appealed. The UNAT disagreed with the UNDT¡¯s position that AAA could not be required to report a rape allegation ¡°which he heard from another person who attended court¡± and that Section 4.1 of  ST/AI/2017/1 ¡°does not apply to an individual who merely hears second-hand about a case of misconduct since much of what such a person has to report would be hearsay and possibly misleading and devoid of the kind of detail the rule is seeking to elicit from the staff member¡±. This approach erroneously imposes a requirement that the staff member must have a...

Unat a jug¨¦ que l'appelant a simplement r¨¦p¨¦t¨¦ les arguments soulev¨¦s devant undt concernant la preuve. Unat a accept¨¦ la conclusion de UND selon laquelle il y avait des preuves claires et convaincantes pour ¨¦tablir les faits sous-jacents aux all¨¦gations d'inconduite. Unat a jug¨¦ que UNT a appliqu¨¦ la norme juridique appropri¨¦e, ¨¤ savoir des preuves claires et convaincantes. Unat a jug¨¦ que Undt a entendu la preuve du plaignant, d'autres t¨¦moins mat¨¦riels, a ¨¦valu¨¦ la cr¨¦dibilit¨¦ et la fiabilit¨¦ du t¨¦moignage sous serment devant lui, a d¨¦termin¨¦ les faits probables et a ensuite rendu une...

Mr. Beda appealed.  As a preliminary matter, UNAT dismissed Mr. Beda's motion seeking leave to file a rejoinder on grounds that there was no probative value to the rejoinder Mr. Beda sought to file, and there was nothing new in the Administration's answer that would require him to have an opportunity to provide a rebuttal or rejoinder. Turning to the merits, UNAT found that the UNDT had applied the correct legal standard in its Judgment - whether the facts had been established by clear and convincing evidence - and properly assessed the evidence and credibility of witness testimony, making the...

Unat a jug¨¦ que l'appelant a simplement r¨¦p¨¦t¨¦ les arguments soulev¨¦s devant undt concernant la preuve. Unat a accept¨¦ la conclusion de UND selon laquelle il y avait des preuves claires et convaincantes pour ¨¦tablir les faits sous-jacents aux all¨¦gations d'inconduite. Unat a jug¨¦ que UNT a appliqu¨¦ la norme juridique appropri¨¦e, ¨¤ savoir des preuves claires et convaincantes. Unat a jug¨¦ que Undt a entendu la preuve du plaignant, d'autres t¨¦moins mat¨¦riels, a ¨¦valu¨¦ la cr¨¦dibilit¨¦ et la fiabilit¨¦ du t¨¦moignage sous serment devant lui, a d¨¦termin¨¦ les faits probables et a ensuite rendu une...

UNAT held that the Appellant merely repeated arguments raised before UNDT regarding the evidence. UNAT accepted UNDT¡¯s finding that there was clear and convincing evidence to establish the facts underlying the allegations of misconduct. UNAT held that UNDT applied the appropriate legal standard, namely clear and convincing evidence. UNAT held that UNDT heard the evidence of the complainant, other material witnesses, assessed the credibility and reliability of the testimony under oath before it, determined the probable facts and then rendered a decision as to whether the onus to establish the...

Demande d'audience orale: Compte tenu des arguments de M. Toson dans lesquels il souhaite contester les preuves devant le Tribunal des diff¨¦rends d'une mani¨¨re qui serait essentiellement une r¨¦p¨¦tition de la preuve, Unat a jug¨¦ qu'une audience orale ne devrait pas ¨ºtre accord¨¦e et ne contribuerait pas ¨¤ rapidement et R¨¦solvant assez les probl¨¨mes dans le pr¨¦sent appel. Sur le fond, Unat a jug¨¦ que le Tribunal des litiges appliquait la norme de r¨¦vision appropri¨¦e. Il a examin¨¦ la politique applicable de l'UNFPA pour les processus de s¨¦lection (le PPM), a examin¨¦ les preuves et a d¨¦termin¨¦ que...

Request for oral hearing: Given Mr. Toson¡¯s arguments wherein he wishes to contest evidence before the Dispute Tribunal in a manner that would be essentially a rehearing of the evidence, UNAT held that an oral hearing should not be granted and would not assist in expeditiously and fairly resolving the issues in this appeal. On the merits, UNAT held that the Dispute Tribunal applied the appropriate standard of review. It reviewed the applicable policy of the UNFPA for selection processes (the PPM), reviewed the evidence, and determined that the applicable procedures were followed in the...

Unat a consid¨¦r¨¦ un appel de Mme Al Smadi. Unat a constat¨¦ que l'UNRWA DT a commis une erreur dans sa conclusion qu'une lettre que Mme Al Smadi a re?ue ¨¤ sa demande de reclassification le 17 ao?t 2017 ¨¦tait une d¨¦cision administrative. La seule interpr¨¦tation de cette lettre ¨¦tait que ce n¡¯¨¦tait pas une d¨¦cision qui avait un effet juridique ou des cons¨¦quences sur les termes et conditions de nomination de Mme Al Smadi. C¡¯¨¦tait simplement une notification que la demande de reclassement de Mme Al Smadi ¨¦tait toujours en cours d¡¯examen, mais que l¡¯examen n¡¯avait pas ¨¦t¨¦ ?finalis¨¦? ou d¨¦cid¨¦ ¨¤...

UNAT considered an appeal by Ms. Al Smadi. UNAT found the UNRWA DT erred in its finding that a letter Ms. Al Smadi received to her reclassification request on 17 August 2017 was an administrative decision. The only interpretation of this letter was that it was not a decision that had any legal effect or consequences on Ms. Al Smadi¡¯s terms and conditions of appointment. It was simply a notification that Ms. Al Smadi¡¯s reclassification request was still being reviewed but that the review had not been ¡°finalized¡± or decided upon as of that date. The letter she received on 29 July 2019 was, on...

Unat a consid¨¦r¨¦ une demande de r¨¦vision du jugement n ¡ã 2021-UNAT-1106. En ce qui concerne l'article 11 du statut de l'UNAT, Unat a jug¨¦ qu'il n'¨¦tait pas satisfait que les d¨¦clarations de revenus vierges telles que pr¨¦vues par M. Giles ¨¦taient inconnues de l'UNAT et de la partie qui demande la r¨¦vision au moment o¨´ le jugement pertinent a ¨¦t¨¦ rendu ni que les d¨¦clarations de revenus vierges ¨¦taient un fait d¨¦cisif. Unat a jug¨¦ que le demandeur r¨¦it¨¦rait les arguments qu'il avait avanc¨¦s, ce qui n'¨¦tait ni l'objectif ni l'intention d'une demande de r¨¦vision du jugement. UNAT a rejet¨¦ la...

UNAT considered an application for revision of Judgment No. 2021-UNAT-1106. With reference to Article 11 of the UNAT Statute, UNAT held that it was neither satisfied that the blank tax returns as provided by Mr. Giles¡¯ were unknown to the UNAT and to the party applying for the revision at the time the relevant Judgment was rendered nor that the blank tax returns were a decisive fact. UNAT held that the Applicant reiterated arguments he had made previously, which was not the purpose nor intention of an application for revision of judgment. UNAT dismissed the application for revision.

Unat d¨¦tenait l'UNDT avait raison de trouver la demande Ratione materiae non receivable. Au moment du jugement de l'UND, il n'y avait aucune d¨¦cision administrative finale qui avait des cons¨¦quences juridiques directes sur les conditions d'emploi de l'appelant. En outre, pendant l'intervalle, l'appelant a ¨¦t¨¦ s¨¦lectionn¨¦ pour le poste, et par cons¨¦quent, il a re?u ce qu'il avait cherch¨¦ ¨¤ l'origine, faisant sa demande d'annulation de la d¨¦cision contest¨¦e. En ce qui concerne la demande d'indemnisation pour le diff¨¦rentiel salarial pendant 17 mois, le tribunal a conclu qu'il n'y avait pas de...

UNAT held the UNDT was correct to find the application non-receivable ratione materiae. At the time of the UNDT Judgment, there was no final administrative decision that had direct legal consequences on the Appellant¡¯s terms of employment.  In addition, in the intervening time, the Appellant has been selected for the post, and therefore, he has received that which he had sought originally, making his request for rescission of the contested decision moot. Regarding the request for compensation for the pay differential for 17 months, the Tribunal found because there was no appealable...

Le Secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral a d¨¦pos¨¦ un appel. UNAT a accord¨¦ l'appel et annul¨¦ le jugement de l'UND. Unat a jug¨¦ que si la d¨¦termination de quels membres du personnel doit ¨ºtre compar¨¦s est ?principalement guid¨¦ par le titre fonctionnel conform¨¦ment ¨¤ la lettre de nomination du membre du personnel?, il peut y avoir des cas o¨´ le titre fonctionnel ne refl¨¨te pas les fonctions r¨¦elles remplies comme dans le pr¨¦sent Cas. Dans ces circonstances, le CHRO doit d¨¦terminer quel individu appartient ¨¤ quel groupe professionnel. Le r?le et les fonctions de Mme Barud ont chang¨¦ en mai 2018 pour un assistant de...

The Secretary-General filed an appeal. UNAT granted the appeal and vacated the UNDT Judgment. UNAT held that while the determination of which staff members should be compared is ¡°primarily guided by the functional title as per the staff member¡¯s letter of appointment¡±, there can be cases where the functional title does not reflect the actual functions performed as in the present case. In these circumstances, the CHRO must determine which individual falls into which occupational group. Ms. Barud¡¯s role and functions changed in May 2018 to a Facilities Management Assistant. Therefore, at the...

Unat a jug¨¦ que l'UNRWA DT n'avait pas commis d'erreur de proc¨¦dure, par exemple, pour affecter la d¨¦cision de l'affaire conform¨¦ment ¨¤ l'article 2, paragraphe 1, de la loi UNAT. Unat a rejet¨¦ l'argument selon lequel le fait que l'appelant n'avait pas re?u les enregistrements de l'audience ou du transcrit a affect¨¦ la d¨¦cision de l'affaire. Unat a soutenu que l'appelant a simplement r¨¦p¨¦t¨¦ les arguments soulev¨¦s avant Unrwa dt. Unat a accept¨¦ la conclusion de l'UNRWA DT selon laquelle l'appelant avait amplement l'occasion de r¨¦pondre aux all¨¦gations et de faire des commentaires sur le rapport...

UNAT held that UNRWA DT did not commit an error in procedure, such as to affect the decision of the case pursuant to Article 2(1) of the UNAT Statute. UNAT rejected the argument that the fact that the Appellant did not receive the recordings of the hearing or transcript affected the decision of the case. UNAT held that the Appellant merely repeated arguments raised before UNRWA DT. UNAT accepted UNRWA DT¡¯s finding that the Appellant had ample opportunity to respond to allegations and provide comments on the investigation report and exhibits. UNAT held that UNRWA DT made fundamental errors of...