Ãå±±½ûµØ

Les faits ¨¤ l'appui des deux chefs d'accusation ¨¤ l'¨¦gard du demandeur (chef 1: Cr¨¦ation d'un environnement de travail hostile, offensant et humiliant pour un membre du personnel et le chef 2: Abus d'autorit¨¦ concernant le recrutement et l'emploi d'un consultant) ont ¨¦t¨¦ ¨¦tablies dans l'affaire ? port¨¦e de main non seulement par la pr¨¦pond¨¦rance des preuves, le seuil applicable, mais aussi par des preuves claires et convaincantes. Les faits ¨¦tablis ¨¦taient en violation du cadre juridique applicable, ¨¤ savoir ST / SGB / 2008/5 et ST / AI / 2013/4. Les cas impliquant la cr¨¦ation d'un...

Le dossier est clair que le demandeur est venu pour la premi¨¨re fois au Tribunal le 24 f¨¦vrier 2020, apr¨¨s 90 jours ¨¤ compter de la date ¨¤ laquelle il a ¨¦t¨¦ inform¨¦ de la d¨¦cision contest¨¦e. Les d¨¦lais pour les contestations officielles doivent ¨ºtre strictement appliqu¨¦s, un jour de retard n'est en aucun cas de minimis. L'UNDT n'a aucun pouvoir discr¨¦tionnaire de renoncer aux d¨¦lais applicables.

Apr¨¨s avoir examin¨¦ les preuves au dossier, en particulier le rapport d'enqu¨ºte du panel et ses annexes, le tribunal est convaincu que l'OHCH a correctement trait¨¦ la plainte du requ¨¦rant contre son avantage, et que le dossier des cas soutient pleinement le caract¨¨re raisonnable de la d¨¦cision de ne pas engager de proc¨¦dures disciplinaires contre Said Said Said Said soutient enti¨¨rement le caract¨¨re raisonnable de la d¨¦cision de ne pas engager de proc¨¦dures disciplinaires contre Said Said Said Said. Fro. Le Tribunal observe en outre que les droits de la proc¨¦dure r¨¦guli¨¨re du demandeur tels...

Whether candidates for a Job Opening possess all required criteria is subjected to an assessment entrusted to each hiring manager based on an evaluation of each candidature pursuant to secs. 7.4 and 7.6 of ST/AI/2010/3. Contrary to the Applicant¡¯s allegation, the hiring manager did not use new criteria but provided elements, that were taken into consideration in the assessment process, to come up with a reasoned and objectively justifiable decision aimed to select among a high number of applicants those to be shortlisted. Knowledge of several internal candidates in a D-1 recruitment process...

DSA is provided for official trips only, and these must be formally approved prior to travel. The decision to refuse DSA for the days the Applicant was in Cairo is therefore lawful, as that part of his presence in Cairo was clearly for personal purposes.

The Tribunal found that the right to know the contents of the report, although summarized, was implicit in the right of a staff member to complain against third persons because this right includes the right to know the reasons for which the Administration did not punish the accused person and the right to challenge this decision, founding the claim on specific grounds related to the Administration¡¯s assessment of the facts. The jrusiprudence acknowleges the right of the complainant to have a summary of the report is recognized too, and it is confirmed that only under exceptional circumstances...

Irregularities in connection with a process, including alleged delay in reaching a final decision, may only be challenged in the context of an application contesting the conclusion of an entire process. Indeed, this final administrative decision, which concludes the compounded administrative process in administering a staff member¡¯s complaint, is the only challengeable one and absorbs all the previous preliminary steps. The Tribunal noted from the record that the investigation of the Applicant¡¯s FRO¡¯s complaint had been completed and OHR had provided its assessment on the case. It further...

The impugned ¡°decision¡± carried no ¡°direct legal consequences¡± given that it was not final and remains open to challenge by way of rebuttal.

The Tribunal was satisfied that the verbal decision conveyed to the Applicant was ¡°clear and unambiguous¡± enough to have met the test laid down by the Appeals Tribunal in Auda. The Applicant¡¯s repeated emails to the Respondent to express his disagreement with the impugned decision is evidence of the clarity of the decision. Time began to run from the date the decision was conveyed to him unambiguously.

The facts in support of both counts leveled against the Applicant (count 1: creating a hostile, offensive and humiliating work environment for one staff member and count 2: abuse of authority concerning the recruitment and employment of a consultant) have been established in the case at hand not only by preponderance of evidence, the applicable threshold, but also by clear and convincing evidence. The established facts were in violation of the applicable legal framework, namely ST/SGB/2008/5 and ST/AI/2013/4. Cases involving the creation of a hostile and offensive work environment have...

The record is clear that the Applicant first came to the Tribunal on 24 February 2020, after 90 days from the date he was notified of the contested decision. Time limits for formal contestations are to be strictly enforced, a day late is by no means de minimis. The UNDT has no discretion to waive the applicable deadlines.

Having examined the evidence on file, particularly the panel¡¯s investigation report and its annexes, the Tribunal is satisfied that OHCHR properly handled the Applicant¡¯s complaint against his FRO, and that the case record fully supports the reasonableness of the decision not to initiate disciplinary proceedings against said FRO. The Tribunal further observes that the Applicant¡¯s due process rights as set forth in ST/SGB/2008/5 and ST/AI/2017/1 were respected. The Applicant was inter alia interviewed and given an opportunity to provide his version of events and informed of the outcome of his...

Scope of judicial review The Applicant only challenged the dismissal of his complaint against his FRO and SRO by way of management evaluation. Recalling the general requirement of staff rule 11.2(a), the Tribunal will limit its scope of judicial review to the decision not to investigate the Applicant¡¯s complaint against his FRO and SRO. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to consider appeals against the MEU¡¯s responses to the Applicant¡¯s request for management evaluation. Therefore, it will not adjudicate the Applicant¡¯s arguments against the MEU¡¯s responses to his request for management...

Given that the Tribunal already adjudicated the Applicant¡¯s claim, finding it not receivable ratione personae for lack of standing, the present application is not receivable. The Secretary-General¡¯s response to a request for management evaluation is not an appealable administrative decision.

UNDT held that the Applicant¡¯s due process rights were respected because she was afforded the opportunity to provide comments related to the administrative measures applied at every step of the process and was represented by Counsel. She also did not challenge the adversarial examination of the allegations that was undertaken. UNDT found that the facts in support of the administrative measures imposed were established as per the applicable standard of proof. UNDT held that the administrative measures imposed on the Applicant were rational and proportionate to the established facts, as well as...

UNDT held that since the Applicant was separated due to the expiration of her fixed-term appointment, her separation could not be considered a termination pursuant to staff rule 9.6(b). Therefore, the retainment criteria referred to in staff rule 9.6(e) was not applicable to the Applicant¡¯s case, and she was not entitled to a termination indemnity pursuant to staff regulation 9.3(c). UNDT held that the contested decision was lawful and that the Applicant was not entitled to the remedies requested. UNDT rejected the application in its entirety.

Whether the Applicant¡¯s performance was managed or evaluated in a fair and objective manner The Tribunal notes that the Applicant has adduced evidence of possible bias and lack of objectivity in the evaluation of his performance by the FRO and the SRO¡­ Even assuming that the FRO and the SRO evaluated the Applicant¡¯s performance in a fair and an objective manner, they certainly failed to ¡°proactively assist¡± the Applicant to remedy his performance shortcomings in accordance with section 10.1 of ST/AI/2010/5. Moreover, the undisputed interpersonal issues between the Applicant and his FRO have...

UNDT found that at the earliest, the deadline to request management evaluation started to run on 22 August 2019 and expired on 21 October 2019. UNDT held that the Applicant¡¯s 18 October 2019 request for management evaluation was timely and that her application was receivable. UNDT further held that the decision to pay the Applicant¡¯s repatriation grant at the single rate was in accordance with the UNDP Policy as well as Annex IV to the Staff Regulations and Rules of the United Nations and was lawful. UNDT rejected the application in its entirety.

UNDT denied the Applicant¡¯s motion in which he sought the disclosure of an extensive amount of additional documents, as it was filed after the end of the collection of evidence and after the submissions of closing statements. UNDT held that the contested non-renewal decision was unlawful because the provided reason for it, namely lack of funding, was not based on correct facts. It was therefore not necessary for UNDT to examine whether the decision was tainted by ulterior motives, as also argued by the Applicant. UNDT held that the most appropriate remedy for the Applicant would be rescission...

UNDT found that the Applicant did not contest the non-renewal of her fixed-term appointment, and held that the application was admissible as the Applicant properly requested management evaluation of the decision related to her non-selection. UNDT noted that the recruitment process was conducted in accordance with the UNDP¡¯s Recruitment and Selection Policy. UNDT held that the Applicant was given full consideration in the selection process, and that her experience in the United Nations as well as her status as a staff member of the RCO in Turkey was properly recorded in the corporate panel...