¹ú²úAV

La demande n'est pas ¨¤ recevoir Ratione tempis comme barr¨¦ dans le temps.

The application is not receivable ratione temporis as time-barred. 

Aucun des documents soumis par l'intim¨¦ n'avait le caract¨¨re officiel ou faisant autorit¨¦ d'un dossier budg¨¦taire et / ou financier pour d¨¦montrer comment le poste de demandeur a ¨¦t¨¦ ¨¦tabli et financ¨¦ et - par une exclusion ult¨¦rieure - a ¨¦galement montr¨¦ que le poste avait ¨¦t¨¦ aboli (voir, De m¨ºme, le jugement non attir¨¦ du Tribunal des litiges dans Quatrini UNDT / 2020/043). De plus, nulle part dans l¡¯une des documents n¡¯est impliqu¨¦ que le mandat du bureau des femmes de l¡¯ONU n¡¯a chang¨¦ d¡¯une mani¨¨re qui interdire l¡¯emploi d¡¯un conducteur au niveau 3 de la cat¨¦gorie du personnel de service...

None of the documents submitted by the REspondent had the official or authoritative character of a budgetary and/or financial record to demonstrate how the Applicant¡¯s post was established and funded and¡ªby a subsequent exclusion¡ªalso showed that the post had been abolished (see, similarly, the Dispute Tribunal¡¯s non-appealed judgment in Quatrini UNDT/2020/043). Also, nowhere in any of the documentation is it implied that the mandate of UN Women¡¯s office had changed in a way that would disallow the employment of a driver at 3 level of the General Service staff category (¡°G-3¡±). The Respondent...

Le tribunal note qu'il r¨¦sulte de ST / SGB / 2019/2 que le Secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral a d¨¦l¨¦gu¨¦ l'autorit¨¦ pertinente au sous-secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral pour la strat¨¦gie de gestion, la politique et la conformit¨¦ (?l'USG?), qui ¨¤ son tour, a ¨¤ son tour, Sous-d¨¦l¨¦gu¨¦e ¨¤ l'ASG conform¨¦ment ¨¤ un tableau de sous-d¨¦l¨¦gation dat¨¦ du 1er mars 2021 que l'intim¨¦ a soumis en preuve. Dans une note sur les ?d¨¦tails de d¨¦l¨¦gation? valides ¨¤ partir du 15 avril 2021, est indiqu¨¦ que ?cette sous-d¨¦l¨¦gation de l'autorit¨¦ d¨¦cisionnelle aborde une erreur technique dans l'attachement de la sous-d¨¦l¨¦gation de l'autorit¨¦...

The Tribunal notes that it follows from ST/SGB/2019/2 that the Secretary-General has delegated the relevant authority to the Under-Secretary-General for Management Strategy, Policy and Compliance (¡°the USG¡±), who in turn, has sub-delegated it to the ASG in accordance with a table of sub-delegation dated 1 March 2021 that the Respondent has submitted in evidence.  In a note on ¡°delegation details¡± valid from 15 April 2021 is stated that, ¡°This sub-delegation of decision-making authority addresses a technical error in the attachment of the sub-delegation of decision-making authority issued on...

L'application est en partie non r¨¦ceptable et est rejet¨¦e sur le fond. L¡¯objection du demandeur ¨¤ la d¨¦cision de l¡¯Assembl¨¦e g¨¦n¨¦rale de restructurer le poste de niveau D-1 et de soumettre la s¨¦lection du secr¨¦taire du conseil d¡¯administration ¨¤ un processus concurrentiel par le comit¨¦ de planification de la succession n¡¯est pas r¨¦visable par le tribunal. Le Tribunal a constat¨¦ que le demandeur avait re?u une contrepartie compl¨¨te et ¨¦quitable et que la d¨¦cision de non-s¨¦lection ¨¦tait l¨¦gale. Le tribunal a constat¨¦ que l'USG / DMSPC avait l¨¦galement attribu¨¦ le demandeur ¨¤ un poste appropri¨¦...

The application is partly non-receivable and, is rejected on the merits. The Applicant¡¯s objection to General Assembly¡¯s decision to restructure the D-1 level position and to submit the selection of the Secretary of the Board to a competitive process by the Succession Planning Committee is not reviewable by the Tribunal. The Tribunal found that the Applicant was afforded full and fair consideration and the non-selection decision was lawful. The Tribunal found that the USG/DMSPC lawfully assigned the Applicant to a suitable position in the Secretariat in order to retain his employment at the D...

La situation de la pr¨¦sente affaire est que seules deux personnes, ¨¤ savoir le demandeur et AA, ¨¦taient pr¨¦sentes lorsque les abus sexuels all¨¦gu¨¦s ont eu lieu et qu'elles ont pr¨¦sent¨¦ des t¨¦moignages contradictoires. S'agissant d'une affaire de licenciement, la question que le Tribunal doit d¨¦terminer est donc de savoir si le d¨¦fendeur a ¨¦tabli, ¨¤ l'aide de preuves claires et convaincantes, que le contexte factuel sur lequel la sanction disciplinaire est bien fond¨¦e. Cela signifie que le t¨¦moignage d¡¯AA est hautement probable alors que, par cons¨¦quent, celui du Requ¨¦rant n¡¯est pas fiable.

En...

The situation of the present case is that only two persons, namely the Applicant and AA, were present when the alleged sexual abuse occurred, and they have presented contradictory witness testimonies. As the case involves termination, the question for the Tribunal to determine is therefore whether the Respondent has established with clear and convincing evidence that the factual background upon which the disciplinary sanction is well-founded. This means that AA¡¯s testimony is highly probable whereas, in consequence, the Applicant¡¯s testimony is not reliable.

With reference to the Tribunal¡¯s...

Le tribunal constate que le demandeur ne r¨¦pond pas aux crit¨¨res qui lui donneraient le droit de demander un recours au sein du syst¨¨me de justice interne. D'apr¨¨s les documents pr¨¦c¨¦dents, le Tribunal suit que le demandeur n'est pas membre du personnel des Nations Unies. Les soumissions du demandeur n'¨¦tablissent pas qu'une offre d'emploi avait ¨¦t¨¦ ¨¦mise et que le demandeur ne fournit aucune preuve qu'il a droit ¨¤ des droits contractuels en vue de l'emploi en tant que membre du personnel au sein de l'organisation. L'administration ne s'est pas engag¨¦e ¨¤ conclure un contrat pour le recrutement...

The Tribunal finds that the Applicant does not meet the criteria which would entitle him to seek recourse within the internal justice system. From the documents before the Tribunal follows that the Applicant is not a United Nations staff member. The Applicant¡¯s submissions do not establish that an offer of employment had been issued and the Applicant does not provide any evidence that he is entitled to contract-based rights with a view to employment as a staff member within the Organization. The Administration did not undertake to conclude a contract for the recruitment of the Applicant as a...

Le Tribunal a estim¨¦ qu'avec des preuves claires et convaincantes, le d¨¦fendeur a seulement r¨¦ussi ¨¤ ¨¦tablir que le demandeur avait l'intention d'exercer une certaine pression, quoique inefficace, sur BM dans le processus d'embauche des travailleurs journaliers. Dans l¡¯affaire Sanwidi, le Tribunal a estim¨¦ que la r¨¦siliation de l¡¯engagement du requ¨¦rant ¨¦tait manifestement incorrecte et avait conduit ¨¤ un r¨¦sultat disproportionn¨¦. La d¨¦cision attaqu¨¦e ¨¦tait donc ill¨¦gale.

Compte tenu de ses conclusions sur l'ill¨¦galit¨¦ de la d¨¦cision contest¨¦e, le Tribunal a estim¨¦ que le recours le plus...

The Tribunal found that with clear and convincing evidence, the Respondent only managed to establish that the Applicant intended to assert some, albeit ineffective, pressure on BM in the hiring process of daily workers. Under Sanwidi, the Tribunal found that the termination of the Applicant¡¯s appointment was manifestly incorrect and led to a disproportionate outcome. The contested decision was therefore unlawful.  

Considering its findings on the unlawfulness of the contested decision, the Tribunal found that the most appropriate remedy would be to rescind this decision (in comparison, see...

Dans le cas actuel, le demandeur n'a d¨¦pos¨¦ sa demande d'¨¦valuation de la gestion une journ¨¦e civile avant sa demande au tribunal des litiges et n'a pas encore re?u de r¨¦ponse de la direction ¨¤ sa soumission. Dans le cadre de la r¨¨gle 11.2 (d) du personnel, l'administration a 30 jours pour fournir l'¨¦valuation de la direction si le membre du personnel est stationn¨¦ ¨¤ New York et 45 jours s'il est stationn¨¦ en dehors de New York. Dans ces circonstances, la demande du demandeur est pr¨¦matur¨¦e et donc pas ¨¤ recevoir.

In the current case, the Applicant only filed his request for management evaluation one calendar day before his application to the Dispute Tribunal and is yet to receive a response by management to his submission. Under staff rule 11.2(d), the Administration has 30 days to provide the management evaluation if the staff member is stationed in New York and 45 days if s/he is stationed outside New York. In the circumstances, the Applicant¡¯s application is premature and therefore not receivable.

La cons¨¦quence logique de l'annulation de la d¨¦cision administrative contest¨¦e serait de renvoyer l'affaire ¨¤ Dhmosh pour une nouvelle consid¨¦ration ¨¤ la lumi¨¨re des conclusions du tribunal dans le cas pr¨¦sent. Comme la pr¨¦misse juridique fondamentale de la d¨¦cision administrative contest¨¦e a ¨¦t¨¦ imparfaite, le tribunal constate que ce serait le rem¨¨de le plus appropri¨¦ dans la pr¨¦sente affaire (en ligne, voir le Tribunal d'appel dans Gueben et al. 2016-UNAT-692, par. 48). ? cet ¨¦gard, le tribunal note qu'il n'a aucune comp¨¦tence pour diriger le travail d'un conseil m¨¦dical potentiel ou de l...

The logical consequence of rescinding the contested administrative decision would be to remand the case to DHMOSH for a new consideration in light of the Tribunal¡¯s findings in the present case. As the basic legal premise for the contested administrative decision was flawed, the Tribunal find that this would be the most appropriate remedy in the present case (in line herewith, see the Appeals Tribunal in Gueben et al. 2016-UNAT-692, para. 48). In this regard, the Tribunal notes that it has no jurisdiction as to directing the work of a potential medical board or the ABCC. The Tribunal finds...

/

/