51³Ô¹Ï

Le Tribunal a estimé que l’ABCC avait mis un temps démesuré (près de cinq ans) à traiter la demande d’indemnisation de la requérante suite au décès de son mari.

L’objectif même de l’indemnisation d’un fonctionnaire pour un préjudice subi (ou de l’indemnisation d’un bénéficiaire pour le décès d’un proche) est d’atténuer ses souffrances et de le placer dans la situation où il se serait trouvé si le préjudice n’avait pas eu lieu. À cet égard, la question pertinente n’est pas de savoir si la demande d’indemnisation est acceptée ou rejetée, mais si une décision sur la question est prise en temps...

The Applicant failed to establish through clear and convincing evidence that the selection process for the Post was tainted by any unlawful actions or that he suffered any harm as a result of the contested decision. Accordingly, his application was dismissed and his claim for compensation was rejected.

The assertion that the Applicant had a reasonable expectation that his candidacy would receive special consideration since he had performed the functions of the Post for five years was misplaced. He did not seriously dispute the fact that the creation of the Head of Office position was not a...

It was undisputed and established by clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant engaged in several instances of outside activities. It was further undisputed that the Applicant was advised to seek authorization for her online activities. The Applicant’s challenge, therefore, is limited to the characterization of the established conduct as outside activities and, consequently, as misconduct.

Whether the facts on which the disciplinary measure was based have been established by clear and convincing evidence

Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal found that the Applicant was aware that...

The Tribunal observed that the letter communicating the contested decision did not indicate whether the Advisory Body on Compensation Claims ("ABCC") considered the exceptional circumstances set out by the Applicant in her request to reopen her claim, which explained the reasons for her not meeting the submission deadline.

The Tribunal, thus, held that the Applicant had succeeded in establishing that the decision not to reopen her claim was irrational. The Tribunal deemed the contested decision as irrational because ABCC ignored factors relevant to whether despite not meeting the four-month...

The Tribunal noted that based on the evidence before it and not contested by the Applicant, the sanction letter was issued on 1 July 2022 and the Applicant received it on 5 July 2022. Pursuant to staff rule 11.2(b), disciplinary decisions are not subject to management evaluation. This meant that the Applicant ought to have filed his application no later than Tuesday, 4 October 2022 to comply with the 90-calendar day deadline. He filed his application on 31 January 2024, which was more than a year after the statutory deadline. Accordingly, the Tribunal found the application not receivable ratio...

The UNAT dismissed the appeal. The UNAT held that the UNDT did not err in finding that Mr. Reiterer had committed the alleged misconduct. The UNAT agreed with the finding of the UNDT that the established facts amounted to misconduct on the part of Mr. Reiterer, namely that he violated ST/SGB/2008/5 concerning count one and ST/AI/2013/4 concerning count two. The UNAT further found that given the nature and the specific facts surrounding Mr. Reiterer’s misconduct, the sanction of demotion by one grade with deferment, for one year, of eligibility for consideration for promotion, was not...

Whether the Applicant had a right of return A Human Resources Factsheet, issued for Umoja users, provides that at the end of a loan period, the staff member concerned is expected to return to the Secretariat unless he/she resigns his/her Secretariat position to transfer to the receiving organization. Such practice has been clearly confirmed by the Appeals Tribunal in Iskandar (see Iskandar 2012-UNAT-248). Accordingly, while the Applicant’s lien on his former post may have been surrendered in accordance with the Administration’s decision of 9 September 2009, he retained a return right to OCHA...

UNAT reversed the UNDT Judgment finding that the Contested Decision was never implemented. Noting that the issue of mootness was raised for the first time on appeal, UNAT explained (paras. 32-33): “It is ordinarily impermissible to raise a new point on appeal that is not covered by the pleadings or was not canvassed in the evidence before the UNDT, unless the point is jurisdictional in nature. A question of jurisdiction may always be advanced on appeal for the first time. The reason for the jurisdictional exception is obvious. The principle of legality prohibits the UNDT from assuming a...

UNAT held that there was no dispute that the Appellant had a fixed-term appointment, which had no expectancy of renewal or of conversion to any other type of appointment. UNAT held that UNDT had correctly dismissed most of the allegations brought by the Appellant since he had failed to raise them in a request for administrative review or management evaluation. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

The Secretary-General appealed. UNAT dismissed the Secretary-General’s appeal against the UNDT’s interpretation of judgment. It found that the appeal was not receivable because the interpretation of a judgment is not a fresh decision or judgment within the meaning of Article 2. 1 of the UNAT Statute.