Ãå±±½ûµØ

La requ¨¦rante pr¨¦tend qu¡¯en l¡¯informant qu¡¯elle n¡¯aurait droit ¨¤ l¡¯augmentation d¡¯¨¦chelon pour anciennet¨¦ qu¡¯en ao?t 2028 au lieu d¡¯ao?t 2026, l¡¯administration a effectivement pris une nouvelle d¨¦cision administrative distincte qui est susceptible de contr?le devant le Tribunal.

La question contest¨¦e aux fins de la recevabilit¨¦ ¨¦tait de savoir si la communication envoy¨¦e ¨¤ la requ¨¦rante le 19 septembre 2023 constituait une d¨¦cision administrative susceptible de contr?le.

Le Tribunal a conclu qu¡¯aucune d¨¦cision prise par le d¨¦fendeur dans la correspondance du 19 septembre 2023 ne portait atteinte...

The Applicant claims that, by informing her that she would only be entitled to the long service step increment in August 2028 instead of August 2026, the Administration effectively made a new and separate administrative decision that is reviewable under the Tribunal¡¯s jurisdiction.

The issue under challenge for the purpose of receivability was whether the communication sent to the Applicant on 19 September 2023 constituted a reviewable administrative decision.

The Tribunal found that there was no decision made by the Respondent in the 19 September 2023 correspondence that adversely affects the...

La requ¨¦rante pr¨¦tend que l¡¯indication de l¡¯administration selon laquelle elle ne pourra pr¨¦tendre ¨¤ une augmentation d¡¯¨¦chelon pour anciennet¨¦ qu¡¯en ao?t 2028, au lieu d¡¯ao?t 2026, contrevient aux termes de l¡¯accord de r¨¨glement sign¨¦ pr¨¦c¨¦demment. Les questions que le Tribunal a examin¨¦es aux fins de la recevabilit¨¦ ¨¦taient donc de savoir si l¡¯objet de la demande ¨¦tait l¡¯une des conditions de l¡¯accord et si l¡¯accord avait ¨¦t¨¦ mis en ?uvre ou non.

De l¡¯avis du Tribunal, le dossier ne permettait pas de conclure que le report de l¡¯admissibilit¨¦ ¨¤ l¡¯augmentation ¨¦tait une question abord¨¦e dans l...

The Applicant claims that the Administration¡¯s indication that she will only be entitled to be considered for her long service step increment in August 2028, instead of August 2026, contravenes the terms of the settlement agreement signed previously. The issues the Tribunal considered for the purpose of receivability were, therefore, whether the subject matter of the application was one of the terms of the Agreement and whether the Agreement had been implemented or not.

In the Tribunal¡¯s view, the record did not allow to conclude that the deferment of eligibility for increment was a matter...

¸é±ð³¦±ð±¹²¹²ú¾±±ô¾±³Ù¨¦
La requ¨¦rante all¨¨gue qu'on lui a demand¨¦ de travailler en juillet et ao?t 2022, avant le d¨¦but de son engagement, en lui garantissant qu'elle serait indemnis¨¦e pour cette p¨¦riode. Cependant, elle n'a pas re?u cette compensation.

Tout d'abord, le Tribunal a not¨¦ que la requ¨¦rante n'¨¦tait pas membre du personnel en juillet et ao?t 2022, lorsqu'elle affirme avoir ¨¦t¨¦ oblig¨¦e de travailler, car son engagement aupr¨¨s du PNUD n'a commenc¨¦ que le 1er septembre 2022. Par cons¨¦quent, la requ¨¦rante n'avait pas qualit¨¦ pour contester une telle d¨¦cision ¨¤ l'¨¦poque.

Deuxi¨¨mement, m¨ºme en...

Receivability

The Applicant alleged that she was required to work during July and August 2022, before the beginning of her appointment, on the assurances that she would be compensated for the said period. However, she did not receive such compensation.

First, the Tribunal noted that the Applicant was not a staff member in July and August 2022, when she claims that she was required to work as her appointment with UNDP only started on 1 September 2022. Therefore, the Applicant had no standing to contest such a decision at the time.

Second, even considering that the Applicant could have contested...

Le Tribunal a examin¨¦ les ¨¦l¨¦ments de preuve vers¨¦s au dossier et les raisons invoqu¨¦es par le d¨¦fendeur pour ne pas s¨¦lectionner le requ¨¦rant et a conclu que, sur la base des informations fournies par le requ¨¦rant, la d¨¦cision du d¨¦fendeur de ne pas le s¨¦lectionner ne pouvait pas ¨ºtre consid¨¦r¨¦e comme injuste. Le candidat n'avait pas la certification CIPS niveau 2 qui ¨¦tait une exigence obligatoire pour le poste, et il n'a pas prouv¨¦ qu'il avait deux ans d'exp¨¦rience progressive dans la gestion des achats.

En outre, la suggestion du candidat dans ses observations selon laquelle le jury de...

The Tribunal reviewed the evidence on record and the reasons provided by the Respondent for not selecting the Applicant and concluded that based on the information provided by the Applicant, the Respondent¡¯s decision not to select him cannot be faulted as being unfair. The Applicant did not have the CIPS level 2 certification that was a mandatory requirement for the position, and he did not prove that he had two years of progressive experience in procurement management.

Furthermore, the Applicant¡¯s suggestion in his submissions that the selection panel ought not to have relied only on his...

¸é±ð³¦±ð±¹²¹²ú¾±±ô¾±³Ù¨¦

Le requ¨¦rant a fait valoir ¨¤ juste titre qu¡¯il ne contestait pas la promulgation de l¡¯AI de mobilit¨¦. Il ressortait clairement du contenu de la requ¨ºte qu¡¯il ne contestait pas l¡¯existence de l¡¯AI de mobilit¨¦ en tant que d¨¦cision r¨¦glementaire du Secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral affectant tous les membres du personnel. Au contraire, il contestait l¡¯impact de ce qu¡¯il percevait comme une d¨¦cision sp¨¦cifique prise apr¨¨s avoir accept¨¦ l¡¯offre d¡¯emploi, ¨¤ savoir que l¡¯AI de mobilit¨¦ serait une condition de son contrat de travail. Le Tribunal a donc jug¨¦ la requ¨ºte recevable.

Fonds

Le Tribunal a...

Receivability

The Applicant correctly submitted that he was not contesting the promulgation of the Mobility AI. It was clear from the content of the application that he did not challenge the existence of the Mobility AI as a regulatory decision of the Secretary-General affecting all staff members. Instead, he was contesting the impact of what he perceived as a specific decision made after he accepted the offer of appointment, i.e., that the Mobility AI would be a term of his employment contract. The Tribunal thus found the application receivable.

Merits

The Tribunal established that the...

Le Tribunal a ¨¦tabli que la requ¨¦rante avait ¨¦t¨¦ d?ment inform¨¦e, avant d¡¯accepter la lettre d¡¯offre, du caract¨¨re obligatoire de la condition de mobilit¨¦ dans son emploi propos¨¦. Cependant, m¨ºme si la mobilit¨¦ obligatoire n¡¯avait pas ¨¦t¨¦ aussi explicite dans les documents pr¨¦alables ¨¤ la nomination, le cadre r¨¦glementaire stipule ¨¤ la r¨¨gle 4.1 du R¨¨glement du personnel que c¡¯est la lettre de nomination (LOA) qui contient express¨¦ment ou par r¨¦f¨¦rence les conditions d¡¯emploi.

Par cons¨¦quent, lorsque la requ¨¦rante a sign¨¦ sa LOA le 3 octobre 2023, acceptant d?ment toutes les conditions d...

The Tribunal established that the Applicant was duly informed, before accepting the offer letter, of the mandatory nature of the condition of mobility in her proposed employment. However, even if mandatory mobility had not been so explicit in the pre-appointment documents, the regulatory framework stipulates at staff rule 4.1 that it is the letter of appointment (LOA) that contains expressly or by reference the terms and conditions of employment.

Therefore, when the Applicant signed her LOA on 3 October 2023, duly accepting all the terms and conditions of her employment, including the...

The Tribunal recalled that the regulatory framework on termination for facts anterior does not limit it to cases where there has been a proven prior factual finding of misconduct or a conviction of crime. What is required is that there must be a fact anterior that detracts from the suitability of the prospective recruit due to concerns of efficiency, competence, and integrity. The fact must be of so serious a nature that it would have precluded the staff member¡¯s appointment if it had been disclosed to the Organization during the recruitment process.

In the instant case, the Tribunal...

Fran?aisLe Tribunal a estim¨¦ que le d¨¦fendeur n'avait fourni aucune explication contextuelle fond¨¦e sur une r¨¨gle ou un pr¨¦c¨¦dent pour ¨¦tayer sa position. Le Tribunal a donc conclu que le d¨¦fendeur n'avait fourni aucune explication rationnelle pour avoir priv¨¦ la requ¨¦rante des droits aux augmentations accord¨¦es en vertu du bar¨¨me des salaires GS 120b ¨¤ des personnes se trouvant dans une situation similaire. En cons¨¦quence, le Tribunal :

a. A d¨¦cid¨¦ d'annuler la d¨¦cision contest¨¦e ;

b. A ??ordonn¨¦ que la requ¨¦rante soit reconnue comme ayant ¨¦t¨¦ en service continu au Secr¨¦tariat des Nations...

The Tribunal found that the Respondent had provided no rule or precedent based contextual explanation to support his position. The Tribunal, therefore, concluded that the Respondent had not provided any rational explanation for depriving the Applicant of the entitlements to increments afforded under GS Salary Scale 120b to those similarly circumstanced. Accordingly, the Tribunal:

a. Decided to rescind the contested decision;

b. Directed that the Applicant be recognised as having been in continuous service with the United Nations Secretariat from 3 May 1994 and, effective 22 February 2022...

Le Tribunal a observ¨¦ que la lettre communiquant la d¨¦cision contest¨¦e n'indiquait pas si l'Organe consultatif sur les demandes d'indemnisation (? ABCC ?) avait pris en compte les circonstances exceptionnelles expos¨¦es par la requ¨¦rante dans sa demande de r¨¦ouverture de sa demande, qui expliquaient les raisons pour lesquelles elle n'avait pas respect¨¦ le d¨¦lai de soumission.

Le Tribunal a donc estim¨¦ que la requ¨¦rante avait r¨¦ussi ¨¤ ¨¦tablir que la d¨¦cision de ne pas rouvrir sa demande ¨¦tait irrationnelle. Le Tribunal a jug¨¦ que la d¨¦cision contest¨¦e ¨¦tait irrationnelle parce que l'ABCC avait...

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...

Un arr¨ºt peut faire l'objet d'une interpr¨¦tation s'il est ambigu dans ses constatations ou ses conclusions, de sorte qu'une clarification de l'arr¨ºt est n¨¦cessaire.

Le fait que le requ¨¦rant soit en d¨¦saccord avec les conclusions du Tribunal ne justifie pas une interpr¨¦tation plus pouss¨¦e. La voie correcte pour un tel d¨¦saccord est la proc¨¦dure d'appel.

Referring to its previous judgment in the Applicant¡¯s non-selection case, the Tribunal was of the view that in the present application for interpretation, he essentially disagreed with the Tribunal¡¯s findings on the propriety of the impugned selection exercise. Specifically, the Applicant takes issue with the Tribunal¡¯s finding in paragraph 60(b) that he ¡°failed to substantiate that the chosen candidate was not qualified either academically or by way of relevant managerial and supply chain experience¡±.

The Tribunal held that paragraph 60(b) of the judgment was both comprehensible and clear...

Apr¨¨s la r¨¦cusation de son fro du panel, il n'y a aucune preuve sugg¨¦rant que le requ¨¦rant aurait eu une meilleure chance si son avantage avait ¨¦t¨¦ pr¨¦sent, ni que sa pr¨¦sence (de la part) dans les autres CBI leur a donn¨¦ une meilleure chance. M¨ºme si le panneau CBI ¨¦tait rest¨¦ constant et identique, avec l'inclusion du FRO, le dossier devant le tribunal d¨¦montre que le candidat s¨¦lectionn¨¦ ¨¦tait sup¨¦rieur dans sa candidature. L'administration d'un test ¨¦crit n'est pas obligatoire conform¨¦ment ¨¤ la s¨¦lection du personnel AI. Il incombait au demandeur de prouver le parti pris pr¨¦sum¨¦. La...