51ÁÔÆæ

1. The Tribunal noted that, in his reply, the Respondent informed the Tribunal that he had voluntarily decided to extend the Applicant¡¯s appointment through 30 June 2025. As an annex to the reply, the Respondent provided a copy of the Applicant¡¯s Personnel Action, indicating that his appointment had been extended to 30 June 2025.

2. The Tribunal thus held that, in light of the above, the Applicant¡¯s request for suspension of the implementation of the contested administrative decision had become moot. The Tribunal, therefore, did not find it necessary to examine whether...

The Tribunal noted that the evidence before it, supplied by the Applicant himself, showed that the contested decision was taken on 17 April 2011 and the Application was filed in 2025.

Based on art. 8.1(d)(ii) of its Statute, the Tribunal found that the application was manifestly time-barred. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the application was not receivable ratione temporis and the application was rejected.

Le Tribunal a conclu que le d¨¦fendeur n'¨¦tait pas en mesure de d¨¦montrer que les faits sur lesquels la mesure disciplinaire ¨¦tait fond¨¦e ¨¦taient ¨¦tablis par des preuves claires et convaincantes, comme l'exige par ailleurs le Tribunal d'appel dans sa jurisprudence.

Ayant conclu que les faits sur lesquels ¨¦tait fond¨¦e la mesure disciplinaire n'avaient pas ¨¦t¨¦ ¨¦tablis par des preuves claires et convaincantes, le Tribunal a ¨¦galement conclu qu'il n'y avait pas de faute av¨¦r¨¦e de la part du requ¨¦rant.

Compte tenu du constat d'absence de faute du Requ¨¦rant, le Tribunal a ¨¦galement annul¨¦ la sanction...

The Tribunal found that the Respondent was not able to demonstrate that the facts on which the disciplinary measure was based were established by clear and convincing evidence, as otherwise required by the Appeals Tribunal in its jurisprudence.

Having found that the facts on which the disciplinary measure was based had not been established by clear and convincing evidence, the Tribunal also found that there was no established misconduct by the Applicant.

Given the finding of absence of misconduct by the Applicant, the Tribunal also rescinded the sanction imposed on him.

Le Tribunal a not¨¦ que, comme le stipule l'art. 5.1 de la norme ST/AI/2017/1, ? le BSCI conserve l¡¯autorit¨¦ ultime pour d¨¦cider quelles affaires il examinera et d¨¦terminera si les informations re?ues concernant une conduite insatisfaisante m¨¦ritent une action ?.

En cons¨¦quence, le Tribunal a consid¨¦r¨¦ que la d¨¦cision contest¨¦e ¨¦tait l¨¦gale.

?tant donn¨¦ que la d¨¦cision du BSCI de ne pas ouvrir d¡¯enqu¨ºte constituait un exercice l¨¦gitime du pouvoir discr¨¦tionnaire de l¡¯Administration, rien ne justifiait de renvoyer cette affaire au Secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral afin qu¡¯il puisse prendre des mesures pour faire...

The Tribunal noted that, as stipulated in sec. 5.1 of ST/AI/2017/1, ¡°OIOS retains the ultimate authority to decide which cases it will consider and shall determine whether the information of unsatisfactory conduct received merits any action¡±.

Accordingly, the Tribunal found that the contested decision was lawful.

As the decision by OIOS not to open an investigation was found to be a lawful exercise of the Administration¡¯s discretion, there was no basis for the referral of this case to the Secretary-General for possible action to enforce accountability.

Le requ¨¦rant n'a pas r¨¦ussi ¨¤ ¨¦tablir par des preuves claires et convaincantes que la proc¨¦dure de s¨¦lection pour le poste ¨¦tait entach¨¦e d'actes ill¨¦gaux ou qu'il avait subi un pr¨¦judice du fait de la d¨¦cision contest¨¦e. En cons¨¦quence, sa demande a ¨¦t¨¦ rejet¨¦e et sa demande d'indemnisation a ¨¦t¨¦ rejet¨¦e.

L'affirmation selon laquelle le requ¨¦rant pouvait raisonnablement s'attendre ¨¤ ce que sa candidature fasse l'objet d'une attention particuli¨¨re ¨¦tant donn¨¦ qu'il avait exerc¨¦ les fonctions du poste pendant cinq ans ¨¦tait d¨¦plac¨¦e. Il n'a pas s¨¦rieusement contest¨¦ le fait que la cr¨¦ation du...

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...

Chacune des trois all¨¦gations ¨¦tait grave en soi. La nature complexe des all¨¦gations ne permettait pas d'envisager d'autre sanction que la s¨¦paration. La politique de tol¨¦rance z¨¦ro de l'Organisation implique ¨¦galement des sanctions s¨¦v¨¨res pour ceux qui se livrent au harc¨¨lement (voir, par exemple, le Tribunal d'appel dans l'affaire Conteh 2021-UNAT-1171, paragraphe 41).

Le dossier indique que le d¨¦cideur a pes¨¦ tous les facteurs, tant att¨¦nuants qu'aggravants, avant d'arriver ¨¤ la d¨¦cision contest¨¦e. Etant donn¨¦ qu'il y avait suffisamment de preuves que tous les facteurs avaient ¨¦t¨¦ d?ment...

Each of the three allegations were serious on their own. The compound nature of the allegations left no possibility for any other punishment than separation. The Organization¡¯s zero-tolerance policy also entails severe punishments for those who engage in harassment (see, for instance, the Appeals Tribunal in Conteh 2021-UNAT-1171, para. 41).

The record indicated that the decision-maker weighed all factors, both mitigating and aggravating, before arriving at the contested decision. Since there was sufficient evidence that all factors were given due consideration, but that the aggravating...

Le Tribunal a conclu que :

a) le demandeur ne satisfaisait pas aux crit¨¨res qui ¨¦tayeraient sa demande de protection des d¨¦nonciateurs

b) Les faits de la d¨¦cision attaqu¨¦e ont ¨¦t¨¦ d?ment ¨¦tablis. ?tant donn¨¦ que la plaignante poss¨¦dait les qualifications et l¡¯exp¨¦rience requises, les attaques de la demanderesse ¨¤ son endroit n¡¯¨¦taient pas fond¨¦es et ne constituaient pas une r¨¦ponse ou un commentaire juste dans les circonstances. Les pr¨¦occupations ¨¦taient diffamatoires ¨¤ l¡¯¨¦gard de son professionnalisme et de son int¨¦grit¨¦. En cons¨¦quence, le demandeur a tenu des propos d¨¦sobligeants ¨¤ l¡¯¨¦gard...

The Tribunal found that:

(a) The Applicant did not satisfy the criteria which would support his claim to whistleblower protection.

(b) The facts of the contested decision were properly establised. Since the Complainant had the relevant qualifications and experience, the Applicant¡¯s attacks on her were neither well founded, nor did they constitute a fair response or comment in the circumstances. The concerns were defamatory of her professionalism and integrity. Accordingly, the Applicant made disparaging remarks about the Complainant in front of other UNJSPF staff. In addition, the Applicant...

Le Tribunal n'a pas trouv¨¦ de fondement ¨¤ la requ¨ºte. En particulier, le Tribunal n'a trouv¨¦ aucun fondement ¨¤ l'all¨¦gation des requ¨¦rants selon laquelle les d¨¦cisions contest¨¦es ¨¦taient ill¨¦gales ou qu'elles faisaient l'objet d'une discrimination fond¨¦e sur le sexe. Le Tribunal a conclu qu'aucun des requ¨¦rants ne remplissait les conditions requises pour b¨¦n¨¦ficier de l'article 6.3(a)(i). 6.3(a)(i) du cong¨¦ parental en vertu de l'article 1.2 de l'instruction ST/AI/20. 1.2 de l'instruction administrative ST/AI/2023/2, qui fixait la date limite au 1er janvier 2023, et qu'elles ne remplissaient...

The Tribunal found no merit in the application. In particular, the Tribunal found no grounds for the Applicants¡¯ claim that the contested decisions were unlawful or that they were subject to gender discrimination. The Tribunal found that neither Applicant qualified for sec. 6.3(a)(i) parental leave by operation of sec. 1.2 of ST/AI/2023/2, which set a cutoff date of 1 January 2023, nor did they qualify for the 10 weeks special leave under the transitional measures since they did not give birth and were not on maternity leave on 1 January 2023. The Tribunal found that since the Applicants did...

Le Tribunal a estim¨¦ que la d¨¦cision de placer le requ¨¦rant en ALWP ¨¦tait l¨¦gale, raisonnable et proportionn¨¦e, et que le RSSG a raisonnablement exerc¨¦ son autorit¨¦ pour prot¨¦ger le travail du comit¨¦ d'¨¦tablissement des faits (conform¨¦ment ¨¤ l'article 11.3(b) du ST/AI). /2017/1) et pour ¨¦viter tout pr¨¦judice aux int¨¦r¨ºts et ¨¤ la r¨¦putation de l¡¯Organisation (conform¨¦ment ¨¤ la section 11.3(c) du ST/AI/2017/1). Le demandeur n'a pas r¨¦ussi ¨¤ ¨¦tablir que la d¨¦cision contest¨¦e ¨¦tait arbitraire ou capricieuse, motiv¨¦e par un parti pris ou d'autres facteurs ¨¦trangers, ou ¨¦tait entach¨¦e d'une...

The Tribunal found that the decision to place the Applicant on ALWP was lawful, reasonable and proportionate, and that the SRSG reasonably exercised his authority to protect the work of the fact-finding panel (pursuant to sec. 11.3(b) of ST/AI/2017/1) and to avoid any prejudice to the interests and reputation of the Organization (pursuant to sec. 11.3(c) of ST/AI/2017/1). The Applicant failed to discharge the burden of establishing that the contested decision was arbitrary or capricious, motivated by prejudice or other extraneous factors, or was flawed by procedural irregularity or error of...

Compte tenu de la jurisprudence susmentionn¨¦e, le Tribunal estime que le requ¨¦rant doit d¨¦montrer : a) que les d¨¦cisions contest¨¦es lui ¨¦taient sp¨¦cifiquement adress¨¦es sur une base individuelle et qu'elles n'¨¦taient pas d'application g¨¦n¨¦rale pour les autres membres du personnel, et b) que c'est l'Administration qui a pris les d¨¦cisions et non une autre entit¨¦ ou personne ext¨¦rieure ¨¤ l'Organisation des Nations Unies.

Les dispositions de la circulaire ST/SGB/2019/8, sur lesquelles le requ¨¦rant cherche ¨¤ fonder sa demande, ne sont opposables qu'¨¤ des personnes, et non ¨¤ des gouvernements...

Considering the above jurisprudence, the Tribunal determines that the Applicant must demonstrate: (a) that the contested decisions were specifically addressed to him on an individualized basis and that they were not of general application to other staff members, and (b) that it was the Administration which took the decisions and not some other entity or person outside the United Nations.

The provisions of ST/SGB/2019/8, on which the Applicant seeks to base his claim are only enforceable against persons, and not governments. The Tribunal therefore has no jurisdiction to adjudicate complaints...

Le Tribunal a estim¨¦ que le requ¨¦rant n¡¯avait pas prouv¨¦ qu¡¯il avait subi un effet d¨¦favorable direct en raison de la d¨¦cision attaqu¨¦e. La d¨¦cision attaqu¨¦e n¡¯est donc pas une d¨¦cision administrative au sens de l¡¯article 2(1) du Statut du Tribunal du contentieux administratif.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant had not proved that he suffered any direct adverse effect on account of the contested decision. The contested decision is therefore not an administrative decision within the meaning of art. 2(1) of the Dispute Tribunal¡¯s Statute.