Ãå±±½ûµØ

The compulsory nature of education at any level is not one of the eligibility requirements for the education grant. The determining factor is the binding nature of the start of formal primary education. Paragraph 4.2(d) provides for an exception only if an earlier start of formal primary education is required by law. In other words, it creates an exception to the five-year age-based definition of ¡°primary level¡± set forth in para 4.2(c). The legal minimum level of education for education grant eligibility purposes remains the primary level.
Furthermore, the Hungarian Act on National Education...

While, arguably, changing the title of a position may carry the same effect as abolishing it, the two actions are not synonymous under the UNHCR legal framework.  Since ¡°discontinuance/abolition of post¡± and ¡°change of position title¡± are separately provided for under the UNHCR New Resource Allocation Framework (UNHCR/AI/2019/7/Rev.1), it follows that they are independent of each other. Indeed, the above provision has explanatory language indicating that ¡°discontinuance of a post¡± is ¡°same as abolition of a post defined in the Staff Regulations and Rules of the United Nations¡±. No such...

Le requ¨¦rant ne conteste pas le fait qu'il a pris connaissance de la d¨¦cision attaqu¨¦e au plus tard le 31 d¨¦cembre 2021, lorsqu'il a cess¨¦ ses fonctions, et qu'il a demand¨¦ l'¨¦valuation par la direction de la d¨¦cision attaqu¨¦e le 15 avril 2023, soit plus d'un an apr¨¨s le d¨¦lai l¨¦gal.

Pour justifier l'introduction tardive de sa demande de contr?le hi¨¦rarchique, le requ¨¦rant invoque son ¨¦tat de sant¨¦. Le Tribunal n'est cependant pas comp¨¦tent pour "suspendre ou supprimer les d¨¦lais de contr?le hi¨¦rarchique" (art. 8.3 de son Statut).

Par cons¨¦quent, le Tribunal a estim¨¦ que la demande de...

Le Tribunal est saisi d'une requ¨ºte dans laquelle une fonctionnaire conteste la r¨¦siliation de son engagement permanent et sa cessation de service en raison de performances insatisfaisantes. Les ¨¦l¨¦ments de preuve montrent que la performance de la requ¨¦rante a ¨¦t¨¦ jug¨¦e ? partiellement conforme aux attentes ? ou ? ne r¨¦pond pas aux attentes en mati¨¨re de performance ? depuis 2015, ¨¤ l¡¯exception d¡¯un cycle au cours duquel elle a ? pleinement satisfait ? aux attentes. Le requ¨¦rant n¡¯a r¨¦fut¨¦ qu¡¯une seule de ces ¨¦valuations de performance, qui a toutefois ¨¦t¨¦ confirm¨¦e par le jury de r¨¦futation...

La requ¨¦rante a commis une erreur en estimant que le BSCI ne faisait pas partie de l'Administration et que sa d¨¦cision ne constituait pas une d¨¦cision administrative d¨¦finitive susceptible d'¨ºtre contest¨¦e. En effet, le BSCI fait partie du Secr¨¦tariat. Il ? op¨¨re sous l¡¯autorit¨¦ ? du Secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral, tout en conservant son ? ind¨¦pendance ? op¨¦rationnelle. En cons¨¦quence, les d¨¦cisions prises par le BSCI peuvent constituer, en fait, une d¨¦cision administrative d¨¦finitive.

Le fait que le requ¨¦rant ait pr¨¦sent¨¦ deux rapports, l'un au BSCI et l'autre ¨¤ l'Administration, n'obligeait aucune...

En tant que titulaire d'une offre d'affectation d'un Volontaire des Nations Unies, le requ¨¦rant ne peut pas introduire une requ¨ºte devant le Tribunal, car il n'est ni un membre du personnel ou un ancien membre du personnel des Nations Unies, ni une personne faisant des r¨¦clamations au nom d'un membre du personnel des Nations Unies frapp¨¦ d'incapacit¨¦ ou d¨¦c¨¦d¨¦.

Deuxi¨¨mement, il n'y a aucune preuve que le requ¨¦rant a soumis une demande d'¨¦valuation de la gestion en temps voulu.

Par cons¨¦quent, la demande n'est pas recevable reatione personae et ratione materiae.

Le Requ¨¦rant conteste essentiellement l¡¯ex¨¦cution par l¡¯Administration du jugement Ozturk 2018-UNAT-892, c¡¯est-¨¤-dire le remboursement par l¡¯Administration de 41 173 USD effectu¨¦ le 7 mai 2019 pour l¡¯exc¨¦dent de salaire d¨¦duit conform¨¦ment ¨¤ une ordonnance judiciaire relative ¨¤ la pension alimentaire pour enfants.

Bien que le Requ¨¦rant ait cherch¨¦ ¨¤ identifier la r¨¦ponse par courrier ¨¦lectronique de l¡¯Administration de la MINUK dat¨¦e du 19 janvier 2023 comme ¨¦tant une d¨¦cision contest¨¦e, ce courrier ¨¦lectronique ne constitue qu¡¯une simple r¨¦it¨¦ration de la d¨¦cision de l¡¯Administration du 7...

Une requ¨ºte devant le Tribunal du contentieux administratif doit ¨ºtre d¨¦pos¨¦e dans les 90 jours civils suivant la r¨¦ception du r¨¦sultat du contr?le hi¨¦rarchique, et non ¨¤ compter de la date ¨¤ laquelle un fonctionnaire en a accus¨¦ r¨¦ception.

En outre, les d¨¦lais l¨¦gaux sont calcul¨¦s dans le fuseau horaire du si¨¨ge du Tribunal ayant comp¨¦tence g¨¦ographique en la mati¨¨re, et non en fonction de la localisation du demandeur ou du d¨¦fendeur.

En cons¨¦quence, ayant re?u la r¨¦ponse au contr?le hi¨¦rarchique le 2 d¨¦cembre 2022,

la Requ¨¦rante aurait d? d¨¦poser sa candidature au plus tard le 2 mars 2023...

A a holder of an Ãå±±½ûµØVolunteer offer of assignment, the Applicant may not file an application before the Tribunal, as he is neither a staff member or a former staff member of the United Nations, nor a person making claims in the name of an incapacitated or deceased staff member of the United Nations.

Secondly, there is no evidence that the Applicant submitted a timely management evaluation request.

As a result, the application is not receivable ratione personae and ratione materiae.

The Applicant essentially contests the Administration¡¯s execution of Judgment Ozturk 2018- UNAT-892, i.e., the Administration¡¯s reimbursement of USD41,173 made on 7 May 2019 for excess salary deducted pursuant to a child support court order.

While the Applicant sought to identify the UNMIK Administration¡¯s email response dated 19 January 2023 as a contested decision, that email merely constitutes a mere reiteration of the Administration¡¯s decision of 7  May 2019, and thus it does not constitute a new administrative decision.

The Applicant first became aware of the contested decision on 7 May...

The Applicant does not contest the fact that he became aware of the contested decision at the latest on 31 December 2021, when he separated from service, and that he requested management evaluation of the contested decision on 15 April 2023, more than a year after the statutory deadline.

To justify the delayed submission of his request for management evaluation, the applicant points to his medical condition. The Tribunal is however not competent to ¡°suspend or waive deadlines for management evaluation¡± (art. 8.3 of its Statute).

Accordingly, the Tribunal found that the Applicant¡¯s request...

An application before the Dispute Tribunal shall be filed within 90 calendar days of the receipt of the management evaluation outcome, not the date at which a staff member acknowledged its receipt.

In addition, statutory time limits are calculated in the time zone of the Tribunal¡¯s seat having geographical jurisdiction over the matter, not according to the location of the Applicant or the Respondent.

As a result, having received the management evaluation response on 2 December 2022.

the Applicant should have filed her application at the latest by 2 March 2023.

However, having only filed...

The Tribunal is seized of an application where the staff member contests the termination of her permanent appointment and separation from service due to unsatisfactory performance. The evidence shows that the Applicant¡¯s performance was rated as either ¡°partially meets performance expectations¡± or ¡°does not meet performance expectations¡± since 2015, except for one cycle in which she ¡°fully met¡± expectations. The Applicant only rebutted one of these performance evaluations, which, however, was upheld by the rebuttal panel. Accordingly, all of these performances evaluations are binding on the...

The Applicant erred in her assessment that OIOS is not part of the Administration and that its decision does not constitute a final challengeable administrative decision. Indeed, OIOS is part of the Secretariat. It ¡°operates under the authority¡± of the Secretary-General, albeit its operational ¡°independence¡±. Accordingly, decisios made by OIOS can constitute, in fact, final administrative decision. The fact that the Applicant made two reports, namely one to OIOS and one to the Administration, did not create a duty on any other person or office to make a final decision, given that the...

Le Tribunal a estim¨¦ que le requ¨¦rant ne s'¨¦tait pas acquitt¨¦ de la charge de prouver l'existence de motifs inappropri¨¦s ou de partialit¨¦ ¨¤ l'encontre du d¨¦fendeur.

Les huit actes/omissions all¨¦gu¨¦s sur lesquels le requ¨¦rant a fond¨¦ sa plainte selon laquelle son ¨¦valuation "partiellement satisfaisant" ¨¦tait motiv¨¦e par la partialit¨¦ et la mauvaise volont¨¦ ¨¦taient sp¨¦culatifs et l'¨¦valuation contest¨¦e n'¨¦tait pas impartiale ou relevant de motifs ill¨¦gitimes. Le Tribunal a conclu que le fait que le groupe d'¨¦valuation de la gestion des talents n'ait pas donn¨¦ au requ¨¦rant l'occasion de...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant had not discharged the burden of proving improper motives or bias against the Respondent.

Of all the eight alleged acts/omissions on which the Applicant based the complaint that his "partially satisfactory" rating was motivated by bias and ill-motive were speculative and the impugned assessment was not tainted by bias or improper motives. The Tribunal concluded that the fact that the Talent Management Review Group did not afford the Applicant an opportunity to present his case could not, ground a finding of bias and improper motive.

Le demandeur a ¨¦t¨¦ sanctionn¨¦ pour s'engager dans deux types d'inconduite: (i) exploiter sexuellement V01, et (ii) s'engager dans une fausse d¨¦claration ¨¤ l'organisation et un d¨¦tournement des actifs de l'organisation concernant le cong¨¦ d'urgence familiale du 22 au 27 juillet 2019. Sur si les faits ont ¨¦t¨¦ ¨¦tablis par des preuves claires et convaincantes; En ce qui concerne la premi¨¨re sanction de l'exploitation sexuelle de V01, le tribunal a conclu que sur la base de la conclusion que le demandeur ¨¦tait au courant de la vuln¨¦rabilit¨¦ de V01, la preuve qu'il continuait d'avoir des rapports...

The Applicant was sanctioned for engaging in two types of misconduct: (i) sexually exploiting V01, and (ii) engaging in a misrepresentation to the Organization and a misappropriation of assets from the Organization regarding Family Emergency Leave from 22 until 27 July 2019. On whether the facts were established by clear and convincing evidence; regarding the first sanction of sexually exploiting V01, the Tribunal concluded that based on the finding that the Applicant was aware of V01¡¯s vulnerability, the evidence that he continued to have sexual intercourse with her even at times when she had...

Sur le plan de la proc¨¦dure r¨¦guli¨¨re, le tribunal a conclu que les droits d¡¯¨¦quit¨¦ proc¨¦duraux du demandeur ¨¦taient respect¨¦s tout au long de l¡¯enqu¨ºte et du processus disciplinaire. Le demandeur a ¨¦t¨¦ interview¨¦ par le Bureau des services de surveillance interne et a re?u un enregistrement audio de l'entretien. Il a re?u toutes les documents de soutien, a ¨¦t¨¦ inform¨¦ des all¨¦gations contre lui, son droit de demander l'aide d'un avocat et il a eu la possibilit¨¦ de commenter les all¨¦gations; et ses commentaires ont ¨¦t¨¦ d?ment pris en compte. En cons¨¦quence, le tribunal a jug¨¦ que les droits de...

On the due process prong, the Tribunal concluded that the Applicant¡¯s procedural fairness rights were respected throughout the investigation and the disciplinary process. The Applicant was interviewed by the Office of Internal Oversight Services and was provided with an audio-recording of the interview. He was provided all supporting documentation, was informed of the allegations against him, his right to seek the assistance of counsel and he was provided the opportunity to comment on the allegations; and his comments were duly considered. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the Applicant¡¯s...