Ãå±±½ûµØ

Le Tribunal a estim¨¦ que la requ¨¦rante n'avait pas rempli les conditions requises pour renverser la pr¨¦somption selon laquelle la restructuration ¨¦tait r¨¦elle et constituait donc une raison valable de ne pas renouveler son accord de libre-¨¦change.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant had not met the requisite standard to rebut the presumption that the restructuring was genuine and therefore a valid reason for not renewing her FTA.

Le Tribunal a estim¨¦ que la requ¨¦rante n'avait pas d¨¦montr¨¦, par des preuves claires et convaincantes, qu'elle s'¨¦tait vu refuser une chance ¨¦quitable de promotion. La d¨¦cision contest¨¦e ¨¦tait l¨¦gale, l'administration ayant exerc¨¦ de mani¨¨re appropri¨¦e son pouvoir discr¨¦tionnaire en mati¨¨re de s¨¦lection du personnel. Le Tribunal n'a trouv¨¦ aucune preuve ¨¤ l'appui du point de vue de la requ¨¦rante selon lequel sa participation ¨¤ des discussions ? litigieuses ? avec la direction de la DGACM en tant que repr¨¦sentante du syndicat du personnel avait une incidence sur la proc¨¦dure d'entretien pour le...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that she was denied a fair chance of promotion. The contested decision was lawful as the Administration appropriately exercised its discretion in matters of staff selection. The Tribunal found no evidence to support the Applicant¡¯s view that her involvement with ¡°contentious¡± discussions with DGACM management as a Staff Union representative has any bearing on the interview process for the contested position.

Le Tribunal a estim¨¦ qu'en l'esp¨¨ce, il n'est pas contest¨¦ que la d¨¦cision a ¨¦t¨¦ prise unilat¨¦ralement par l'administration et qu'elle impliquait l'exercice d'un pouvoir ou l'ex¨¦cution d'un instrument r¨¦glementaire. Le diff¨¦rend porte sur la question de savoir si la d¨¦cision a port¨¦ atteinte aux droits du demandeur et a produit des cons¨¦quences juridiques directes.

Le Tribunal a jug¨¦ que l'argument du requ¨¦rant selon lequel ? l'UNOPS avait non seulement d¨¦cid¨¦ de [l'inculper], mais aussi de le maintenir dans un statut ind¨¦fini de ? personne inculp¨¦e ?, le laissant poursuivi pour une dur¨¦e...

The Tribunal found that, in the present case, there is no dispute that the decision was unilaterally made by the administration and that it involved the exercise of a power or the performance of a statutory instrument. The dispute is on whether the decision adversely affected the rights of the Applicant and produced direct legal consequences.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant¡¯s argument that ¡°UNOPS not only decided to charge [him], but also to maintain him in an indefinite status of ¡°charged person,¡± leaving him indeterminately prosecuted; since as¡ªat the time of the Application¡ªhe had...

L'absence d'explication justifiable de la part du d¨¦fendeur pour le retard de d¨¦cembre 2018 ¨¤ juin 2021 ne pouvait ¨ºtre attribu¨¦e qu'¨¤ un manque de soin et de diligence, de transparence, de responsabilit¨¦ et de bonne foi. Par cons¨¦quent, le Tribunal a estim¨¦ que le retard ¨¦tait indemnisable.

Le requ¨¦rant a prouv¨¦ au-del¨¤ de la pr¨¦pond¨¦rance des probabilit¨¦s que le pr¨¦judice moral et ¨¦motionnel subi par les personnes ¨¤ charge ¨¦tait directement imputable ¨¤ la gestion n¨¦gligente de l'affaire par l'administration.

L'all¨¦gation de pr¨¦judice moral a ¨¦t¨¦ suffisamment prouv¨¦e.

The lack of justifiable explanation on the part of the Respondent for the delay from December 2018 to June 2021 could only be attributed to lack of due care and diligence, transparency, accountability and good faith. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the delay was compensable.

The Applicant proved beyond a balance of probabilities that the mental and emotional harm suffered by the dependents was directly attributable to the Administration¡¯s negligent handling of the matter.

The claim of moral harm was sufficiently proved to the requisite standard.

The Applicant having failed to establish any illegality, procedural irregularity, bad faith or improper motivation in the Respondent¡¯s taking of the decision not to accept her request to withdraw her resignation, the application had to fail.

Had the Respondent not exercised his discretion to reject the Applicant¡¯s request to withdraw her resignation, he would have been compelled to rescind selection decisions already communicated and accepted by three other staff members. This would have constituted a breach of the employment contracts of the three staff members. This breach would have...

Apr¨¨s avoir consult¨¦ le statut et le r¨¨glement du personnel ainsi que les observations du d¨¦fendeur, le Tribunal n'a rien trouv¨¦ qui puisse contredire le requ¨¦rant quant ¨¤ l'ill¨¦galit¨¦ de l'alcootest.

Le Tribunal n'acceptera pas de preuves obtenues en violation du Statut et du R¨¨glement du personnel.

Le Tribunal estime que le d¨¦fendeur ne s'est pas acquitt¨¦ de la charge de la preuve qui lui incombait de d¨¦montrer par des preuves claires et convaincantes que le requ¨¦rant avait conduit son v¨¦hicule apr¨¨s avoir consomm¨¦ de l'alcool.

Les ¨¦l¨¦ments de preuve montrent clairement que l'argument...

After consulting the Staff Regulations and Rules and the Respondent¡¯s submissions, the Tribunal has found nothing to contradict the Applicant that the breathalyzer test was conducted illegally.

The Tribunal will not accept evidence obtained in violation of the Staff Regulations and Rules.

The Tribunal finds that the Respondent has failed to discharge his burden of proof to show by clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant drove his vehicle after consuming alcohol.

The evidence is clear that the Respondent¡¯s argument that a Military Officer was authorized to conduct a breathalyzer...

Le requ¨¦rant n'a pas r¨¦ussi ¨¤ convaincre le Tribunal que l'administration avait fait na?tre en lui une esp¨¦rance l¨¦gitime de renouvellement de son ALE. Une mesure administrative prise par erreur sans contrat ¨¦crit ne constitue pas un motif d'esp¨¦rance l¨¦gitime de renouvellement.

Le Tribunal a convenu avec le requ¨¦rant que le statut et le r¨¨glement du personnel doivent ¨ºtre appliqu¨¦s de mani¨¨re uniforme et coh¨¦rente aux membres du personnel. Les proc¨¦dures des Nations Unies existent pour faciliter des d¨¦cisions de fond ¨¦quitables et transparentes, et le non-respect des proc¨¦dures requises n...

The Applicant failed to convince the Tribunal that the Administration raised in him a legitimate expectation of renewal of his FTA. An erroneously raised personnel action without a written contract does not constitute a ground for legitimate expectation of renewal.

The Tribunal agreed with the Applicant that the Staff Regulations and Rules must be applied uniformly and consistently to staff members. United Nations procedures exist to facilitate fair and transparent substantive decisions, and the failure to abide by required procedures is no mere ¡°technicality¡±, but instead undermines...

Le Tribunal a formul¨¦ les observations suivantes : (a) la r¨¨gle du personnel 8.1(d) r¨¦git les relations du personnel et habilite sp¨¦cifiquement les scrutateurs ¨¤ organiser les ¨¦lections des repr¨¦sentants du personnel sur la base des r¨¨gles et r¨¨glements applicables aux ¨¦lections du personnel, (b) la r¨¨gle du personnel 8.1(d) ne fait aucune r¨¦f¨¦rence au droit contractuel individuel d'un membre du personnel, et (c) s'il y avait un diff¨¦rend concernant la r¨¨gle du personnel 8.1(d) sur le secret et la r¨¦gularit¨¦ du vote, la disposition ne r¨¦git pas les modalit¨¦s de r¨¦solution de ce diff¨¦rend.

L...

The Tribunal made the following observations: (a) staff rule 8.1(d) governs staff relations and specifically empowers polling officers to conduct elections of staff representatives based on applicable rules and regulations on staff elections, (b) staff rule 8.1(d) makes no reference whatsoever to any staff member¡¯s individual contractual right, and (c) if there was any dispute concerning staff rule 8.1(d) on secrecy and fairness of the vote, the provision does not regulate modalities for resolving that dispute.

Staff rule 8.1(d) and staff regulation 8.1(b) do not apply to any individual staff...

Pursuant to jurisprudence on the factors to consider in a communication purporting to constitute the date on which an administrative decision was made, the Tribunal found that the 8 December 2021 communication from the CHRO/RSCE constituted the impugned decision. It had sufficient gravitas having been conveyed by the CHRO/RSCE as opposed to the HR Partner, it raised relevant factors and it had an element of finality.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant met the timeline for filing a request for management evaluation in accordance with staff rule 11.2(c). The Respondent¡¯s motion on...

Pursuant to jurisprudence on the factors to consider in a communication purporting to constitute the date on which an administrative decision was made, the Tribunal found that the 8 December 2021 communication from the CHRO/RSCE constituted the impugned decision. It had sufficient gravitas having been conveyed by the CHRO/RSCE as opposed to the HR Partner, it raised relevant factors and it had an element of finality.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant met the timeline for filing a request for management evaluation in accordance with staff rule 11.2(c). The Respondent¡¯s motion on...

Les conclusions du Tribunal sont les suivantes :

- La d¨¦cision contest¨¦e concernait l'utilisation de l'¨¦valuation des performances pour p¨¦naliser le requ¨¦rant.

- Le Tribunal ¨¦tait comp¨¦tent pour r¨¦examiner une d¨¦cision contest¨¦e qui remplit les conditions ¨¦nonc¨¦es ¨¤ l'article 2.1(a) du Statut de l'UNDT. 2.1(a) du Statut de l'UNDT.

• - L'¨¦valuation des performances a ¨¦t¨¦ men¨¦e et achev¨¦e avec la mention "r¨¦pond avec succ¨¨s aux attentes" par le Bureau des relations ext¨¦rieures de la requ¨¦rante et approuv¨¦e par son Bureau des relations ext¨¦rieures. Il s'agissait d'une d¨¦cision unilat¨¦rale...

The Tribunal's findings were as follows:

The impugned decision related to the use of the performance appraisal to penalize the Applicant.

It had jurisdiction to review an impugned decision which meets the requirements under art. 2.1(a) of the UNDT Statute.

The performance appraisal was conducted and completed with a "successfully meets expectations" rating by the Applicant¡¯s FRO and endorsed by her SRO. This was a unilateral decision made in a precise individual case. This decision was final and binding in accordance with sections 15.1 and 15.7 of ST/AI/2010/5 which precluded the Applicant...

Le Tribunal a estim¨¦ que le remboursement de l'imp?t est r¨¦gi par un r¨¦gime juridique sp¨¦cifique et unique qui a fait l'objet de d¨¦lib¨¦rations approfondies de la part de l'Assembl¨¦e g¨¦n¨¦rale. L'article 3.3(f) du Statut du personnel ne peut ¨ºtre interpr¨¦t¨¦ comme un "autre paiement" dans la disposition 3.17(ii) du Statut du personnel.

Le Tribunal a accept¨¦ l'interpr¨¦tation du requ¨¦rant selon laquelle les paiements au titre de la disposition 3.17(ii) concernent tous les membres du personnel et toutes les nationalit¨¦s des Nations Unies et ne sont pas limit¨¦s aux seuls citoyens am¨¦ricains comme...