¹ú²úAV

Le Tribunal a not¨¦ que les contestations/plaintes du requ¨¦rant ne d¨¦coulaient pas d¡¯une d¨¦cision administrative claire. La premi¨¨re contestation concernait un manquement pr¨¦sum¨¦ de l¡¯administration ¨¤ se conformer pleinement ¨¤ la section 2.4 ST/AI/1998/9 (Syst¨¨me de classification des postes). La seconde ¨¦tait fond¨¦e sur l¡¯hypoth¨¨se apparente du requ¨¦rant selon laquelle il aurait d? ¨ºtre reclass¨¦/promu au niveau GS-7 apr¨¨s la reclassification ¨¤ la hausse du poste qu¡¯il occupait.

En cons¨¦quence, le Tribunal a interpr¨¦t¨¦ la requ¨ºte dans son ensemble pour d¨¦terminer exactement le point de d¨¦part...

The Tribunal noted that the Applicant¡¯s challenges/complaints did not derive from one clear administrative decision. The first challenge was addressed to an alleged failure by the Administration to fully comply with sec. 2.4 ST/AI/1998/9 (System for the classification of posts). The second one was based on the Applicant¡¯s apparent assumption that he should have been upgraded/promoted to GS-7 level after the upward reclassification of the post he was encumbering.

As a result, the Tribunal interpreted the application as a whole to determine exactly the starting point of the Applicant¡¯s...

Apr¨¨s avoir examin¨¦ le dossier, le Tribunal a conclu que le requ¨¦rant n¡¯avait pas contest¨¦ les faits sur lesquels la mesure disciplinaire ¨¦tait fond¨¦e. Il n¡¯a pas contest¨¦ non plus que ses actes constituaient juridiquement une faute ou que ses droits ¨¤ une proc¨¦dure r¨¦guli¨¨re avaient ¨¦t¨¦ respect¨¦s. En cons¨¦quence, la principale question en l¡¯esp¨¨ce ¨¦tait de savoir si la mesure disciplinaire impos¨¦e ¨¦tait proportionn¨¦e ¨¤ l¡¯infraction commise. Cependant, comme la proportionnalit¨¦ de la sanction ne peut ¨ºtre examin¨¦e de mani¨¨re isol¨¦e, le Tribunal a jug¨¦ appropri¨¦ de se r¨¦f¨¦rer aux faits ¨¦tablis...

Having considered the case record, the Tribunal found that the Applicant did not contest the facts upon which the disciplinary measure was based. He did not contest either that his actions legally amounted to misconduct or that his due process rights were observed. Accordingly, the main issue in the present case was whether the disciplinary measure imposed was proportionate to the offense committed. However, as the proportionality of the sanction cannot be reviewed in isolation, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to refer to the established facts and the misconduct as per the sanction letter.

¸é±ð³¦±ð±¹²¹²ú¾±±ô¾±³Ù¨¦

Le Tribunal a jug¨¦ que dans la mesure o¨´ la requ¨¦rante contestait le cadre juridique du HCR et demandait la suppression d¡¯une partie du paragraphe 34 de la politique de recrutement et d¡¯affectation, sa candidature n¡¯¨¦tait pas recevable ratione materiae. La candidature n¡¯¨¦tait recevable qu¡¯en ce qui concerne la d¨¦cision de ne pas s¨¦lectionner la requ¨¦rante pour le poste G-7 d¡¯associ¨¦ principal en gestion des ressources, charg¨¦ de la lutte contre l¡¯exploitation et les atteintes sexuelles et sexuelles.

Fond

Question de savoir si les proc¨¦dures applicables ont ¨¦t¨¦ correctement...

Receivability

The Tribunal found that to the extent the Applicant challenged the legal framework of UNHCR, and requested the removal of a part of para. 34 of the Recruitment and Assignments Policy, her application was not receivable ratione materiae. The application was only receivable concerning the decision not to select the Applicant for the G-7 position of Senior Resource Management Associate, Addressing SEA and SH.

Merits

Whether the applicable procedures were properly followed

First, the Tribunal addressed the Applicant¡¯s argument concerning the alleged forgery of the document...

Lors de l¡¯examen des d¨¦cisions li¨¦es au rendement, ilLe litige entre les parties porte sur la question de savoir si le requ¨¦rant a rempli la condition de service satisfaisant pendant sa p¨¦riode probatoire pour justifier un droit contractuel ¨¤ ce que son ATF soit converti en ACR. Dans ce contexte, le requ¨¦rant pr¨¦tend que son AFR et son ASR n'ont pas identifi¨¦ de lacunes de rendement pendant le cycle de rendement, y compris lors des deux entretiens ? marquants ? sur le rendement qu'ils ont eus avant la d¨¦cision contest¨¦e. Il semblerait que la premi¨¨re fois qu'il a entendu parler d'une...

The dispute between the parties relates to whether the Applicant met the condition of satisfactory service during his probationary period to warrant a contractual right to have his FTA converted into a CA. In this context, the Applicant claims that his FRO and SRO did not identify any performance shortcomings during the performance cycle, including at the two ¡°landmark¡± performance discussions they had previously to the contested decision. Allegedly, the first time he heard about any dissatisfaction with his performance was when he was informed that he would not receive a CA and, instead...

La principale question soumise ¨¤ l'examen du Tribunal dans cette affaire concernait la l¨¦galit¨¦ de la suppression du poste du requ¨¦rant entra?nant le non-renouvellement de son engagement ¨¤ dur¨¦e d¨¦termin¨¦e.

Le Tribunal a d¨¦fini les questions ¨¤ examiner en l'esp¨¨ce comme suit :

La restructuration ¨¦tait-elle authentique ?

Les ¨¦l¨¦ments de preuve vers¨¦s au dossier montrent que la restructuration a ¨¦t¨¦ effectu¨¦e dans le cadre de la transition ¨¤ l'¨¦chelle du Secr¨¦tariat de l'ONU des services de technologie de l'information et de la communication ("TIC") de l'entreprise vers le nuage. La CESAP a...

The main issue for the Tribunal¡¯s consideration in this case related to whether the abolishment of the Applicant¡¯s post leading to the non-renewal of his fixed-term appointment was lawful.

The Tribunal defined the issues to be examined in the present case as follows:

Whether the restructuring was genuine;
The evidence on record showed that the restructuring was done within the framework of the UN Secretariat-wide transition of Enterprise Information and Communication Technology (¡°ICT¡±) services to the cloud. ESCAP made strategic changes to implement this new approach, leading to the...

Sous la rubrique ? Questions pr¨¦liminaires ?, le Tribunal a d¨¦cid¨¦ de rayer du dossier la demande d'anonymat du requ¨¦rant et d'accepter ¨¤ titre exceptionnel les conclusions du requ¨¦rant qui d¨¦passaient le nombre de pages autoris¨¦.

Les faits sur lesquels la mesure disciplinaire est fond¨¦e ont-ils ¨¦t¨¦ ¨¦tablis par des preuves et selon le niveau de preuve requis ?
Le Tribunal a not¨¦ que la sanction ¨¦tait fond¨¦e sur quatre all¨¦gations, qu'il a examin¨¦es s¨¦par¨¦ment. Apr¨¨s avoir examin¨¦ les ¨¦l¨¦ments de preuve au dossier pour chaque all¨¦gation, le Tribunal a estim¨¦ qu'il avait ¨¦t¨¦ ¨¦tabli par des...

Under ¡°Preliminary Issues¡±, the Tribunal decided to strike from the record the Applicant¡¯s motion for anonymity and to exceptionally accept the Applicant¡¯s closing submission which exceeded the page limit.

Whether the facts on which the disciplinary measure was based have been established by evidence and up to the required standard of proof.

The Tribunal noted that the sanction was based on four allegations, which it considered separately. After having considered the evidence on record for each allegation, the Tribunal found that it had been established by clear and convincing evidence that...

Rien ne prouve que les faits pris en consid¨¦ration pour ¨¦tayer la conclusion de l'enqu¨ºteur concernant le "comportement ant¨¦rieur" aient fait l'objet d'une enqu¨ºte en bonne et due forme jusqu'au seuil de la preuve claire et convaincante. Par cons¨¦quent, l'¨¦valuation de la cr¨¦dibilit¨¦ faite par l'administration en utilisant des preuves de comportement ant¨¦rieur ne peut pas ¨ºtre maintenue, et les preuves de comportement ant¨¦rieur all¨¦gu¨¦es n'ont pas ¨¦t¨¦ prises en compte par ce Tribunal dans son examen judiciaire des faits.
En ce qui concerne l'all¨¦gation selon laquelle le requ¨¦rant a harcel¨¦...

There is no evidence that the facts that were taken into consideration to substantiate the investigator¡¯s finding of ¡°prior conduct¡± were properly investigated up to the threshold of clear and convincing evidence. Therefore, the credibility assessment made by the Administration via the use of prior conduct evidence cannot stand, and the alleged prior conduct evidence was not considered by this Tribunal in its judicial review of the facts.
With respect to the allegation that the Applicant sexually harassed V01, based on the 8 and 21 November 2017 emails, which confirm the Applicant¡¯s...

Le Tribunal a rappel¨¦ qu'il ne peut r¨¦examiner que les d¨¦cisions qui ont fait l'objet d'une demande de contr?le hi¨¦rarchique dans les d¨¦lais impartis.

Consid¨¦rant, entre autres, que la requ¨¦rante a d¨¦pos¨¦ sa demande de contr?le hi¨¦rarchique apr¨¨s le d¨¦lai de 60 jours calendaires, et que le Tribunal n'est pas comp¨¦tent pour suspendre ou supprimer les d¨¦lais de contr?le hi¨¦rarchique conform¨¦ment ¨¤ l'article 8.3 de son Statut, le Tribunal a conclu que la pr¨¦sente requ¨ºte n'¨¦tait pas recevable ratione materiae. 8.3 de son Statut, le Tribunal a estim¨¦ que la pr¨¦sente requ¨ºte n'¨¦tait pas recevable...

The Tribunal recalled that it may only review decisions that have been the subject of a timely request for management evaluation.

Considering, inter alia, that the Applicant filed her request for management evaluation after the 60 calendar days¡¯ deadline, and that the Tribunal is not competent to suspend or waive deadlines for management evaluation as per art. 8.3 of its Statute, the Tribunal found that the present application was not receivable ratione materiae. It consequently dismissed the application.

Le recours n'est pas recevable ratione materiae pour deux raisons. Premi¨¨rement, la d¨¦cision pr¨¦tendument contest¨¦e n'a pas la capacit¨¦ de produire des cons¨¦quences juridiques directes affectant les conditions d'emploi du requ¨¦rant et, par cons¨¦quent, n'est pas une d¨¦cision administrative r¨¦visable relevant de la comp¨¦tence du Tribunal. Deuxi¨¨mement, le requ¨¦rant n'a pas d¨¦pos¨¦ de demande d'¨¦valuation de la gestion dans les d¨¦lais l¨¦gaux.

The application is not receivable ratione materiae on two grounds. First, the alleged contested decision does not carry the capacity to produce direct legal consequences affecting the Applicant¡¯s terms and conditions of employment and, thus, is not a reviewable administrative decision falling under the jurisdiction of the Dispute Tribunal. Second, the Applicant did not file a timely request for management evaluation within the statutory deadline. 

¸é±ð³¦±ð±¹²¹²ú¾±±ô¾±³Ù¨¦
Le Tribunal a examin¨¦ la demande d'¨¦valuation de la gestion pr¨¦sent¨¦e par le requ¨¦rant et a estim¨¦ que seule la d¨¦cision de ne pas le consid¨¦rer comme ¨¦ligible ¨¤ un engagement temporaire dans le cadre de la r¨¦serve de talents, au niveau P-2, ¨¦tait recevable et susceptible de faire l'objet d'un contr?le juridictionnel. Toute autre d¨¦cision ¨¤ laquelle le requ¨¦rant s'est r¨¦f¨¦r¨¦ dans ses observations n'¨¦tait par cons¨¦quent pas recevable.

Le bien-fond¨¦
Le Tribunal s'est r¨¦f¨¦r¨¦ au cadre juridique applicable ainsi qu'aux ¨¦l¨¦ments de preuve vers¨¦s au dossier et a not¨¦ que la pratique...

Receivability
The Tribunal reviewed the Applicant¡¯s request for management evaluation and found that only the decision not to consider him eligible for a temporary appointment through the Talent Pool, at the P-2 level, was receivable and subject to judicial review. Any other decision to which the Applicant referred in his submissions was consequently not receivable.

Merits
The Tribunal referred to the applicable legal framework as well as to the evidence on record and noted that the practice is to only consider experience at the G-6 level and above (or equivalent experience outside of the UN...