Â鶹´«Ã½

La demande n'est pas ¨¤ recevoir car Art.8.1 du statut du tribunal indique clairement que la demande doit ¨ºtre d¨¦pos¨¦e dans les 90 jours suivant la r¨¦ception de l'¨¦valuation de la gestion o¨´ l'¨¦valuation de la gestion est pr¨¦vue dans les 45 jours suivant la demande. Le demandeur a soulev¨¦ une ¨¦valuation de la direction de la plainte selon laquelle l'enqu¨ºte n'¨¦tait pas juste et ¨¦quilibr¨¦e parce que le rapport ne lui avait pas ¨¦t¨¦ divulgu¨¦; Il n'y a eu aucune ¨¦valuation de gestion de l'all¨¦gation de n¨¦gligence. Cette all¨¦gation n'est donc pas ¨¤ recevoir.

L'accusation a fait l'objet d'une enqu¨ºte en bonne et due forme et a ¨¦t¨¦ pr¨¦sent¨¦e. La proc¨¦dure l¨¦gale a ¨¦t¨¦ respect¨¦e et le requ¨¦rant a eu ¨¤ tout moment la possibilit¨¦ de r¨¦futer l'accusation et de montrer que le PNUD n'avait pas r¨¦ussi ¨¤ la prouver par des preuves claires et convaincantes ou qu'il existait des circonstances att¨¦nuantes. La proc¨¦dure et la capacit¨¦ du requ¨¦rant ¨¤ comprendre l'accusation et ¨¤ faire valoir ses arguments n'ont fait l'objet d'aucun doute. Toute difficult¨¦ ¨¤ contredire l'accusation au cours de la proc¨¦dure avec des preuves documentaires a ¨¦t¨¦ r¨¦solue par le fait...

L'all¨¦gation du demandeur selon laquelle le candidat pr¨¦f¨¦r¨¦ a ¨¦t¨¦ s¨¦lectionn¨¦ principalement pour satisfaire les directives pour la parit¨¦ et l'¨¦quilibre entre les sexes, car le candidat ¨¦tait ¨¦galement mieux qualifi¨¦ pour le poste que le demandeur, sur la base des dossiers des candidats soumis en r¨¦ponse ¨¤ l'ouverture de l'emploi.

L'administration doit prouver son all¨¦gation de violations des r¨¨glements du personnel et des r¨¨gles du personnel. Le tribunal a estim¨¦ que le cas des fausses d¨¦clarations avait ¨¦t¨¦ prouv¨¦ par des preuves claires et convaincantes. Alors que la requ¨¦rante a fait plusieurs soumissions dans l'att¨¦nuation, elle n'a introduit aucun fait qui constituait un refus des violations all¨¦gu¨¦es. L'organisation doit maintenir les normes et ¨ºtre juste pour toutes les personnes concern¨¦es. Par cons¨¦quent, si d'autres ¨¦taient rejet¨¦s pour un emploi pendant le processus de recrutement parce qu'ils n'¨¦taient pas...

- Having weighed both accounts of the factual background of the case, alongside the evidence on record, the Tribunal finds that there was clear evidence of unsatisfactory performance during the period leading to the Applicant¡¯s separation from service. Thus, it finds no wrong in the decision to terminate the Applican¡¯s continuing appointment. - The accidents reported by the Applicant occurred after she received the letter terminating her contract effective immediately. Hence, at the time of the accident the Applicant was no longer a staff member of the Organization. As a result, she was not...

- The contested decision is receivable because it affected the Applicant¡¯s conditions of employment, and was the object of a timely management evaluation request. - There is no evidence on record that OAI¡¯s investigation of the complaints against the Applicant was mishandled. In the circumstences surrounding the investigation, there were no unreasonable decisions made which were contrary to OAI¡¯s Investigation Guidelines. The Applicant had his opportunity to refute all the allegations made, to question the circumstances and motivation behind the allegations, which he did. OAI¡¯s decision that...

Receivability The Applicant did not request management evaluation of the following contested decisions: 1) The Administration¡¯s failure to take appropriate action in relation to her complaint; 2) Undue delays in the investigation, in the initiation and conducting of a disciplinary process, and in taking the final decision on the imposition of disciplinary sanctions against her former supervisors; and 3) The Administration¡¯s failure to take appropriate action to protect her from sexual harassment in her workplace environment and to remedy the harm suffered. Moreover, the Tribunal is not...

The Tribunal concluded that the Applicant had not established that there was any bias or impropriety which had any impact on the decision not to renew his appointment. The Tribunal further held that the Applicant had not provided any information which would assist in production of relevant information and the Tribunal did not have the jurisdiction to embark upon a full investigation of the matter and could only rely on what had been made available pursuant to its case management powers. Accordingly, the application was rejected.

Whether the Applicant was promised a renewal The Applicant appears to argue that the Administration created an expectancy of renewal of his contract by referring to statements, allegedly made by various individuals of the Organization. The individuals concerned dispute the facts as presented by the Applicant and he has not adduced any written evidence regarding a firm commitment to renewal. In this respect, the Tribunal recalls that ¡°[i]n order for a staff member¡¯s claim of legitimate expectation of a renewal of appointment to be sustained, it must not be based on mere verbal assertion, but...

Scope of judicial review The Tribunal entertains applications against administrative decisions de novo and without regard to the outcome of the MEU review. Accordingly, the Tribunal will not adjudicate the Applicant¡¯s arguments in relation to the Internal Oversight Office (IOO¡¯s) responses to her request for management evaluation. Whether the contested decision is lawful Whether the Applicant is eligible to receive a termination indemnity In the present case, the Applicant joined WMO on 1 July 1999. Her normal retirement age is thus 62 pursuant to art. 1 of the UNJSPF Regulations. When she...

The application is not receivable because art.8.1 of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute makes it clear that the application must be filed within 90 days of receipt of the management evaluation where the management evaluationis provided within 45 days of the request. The Applicant raised for management evaluation the complaint that the investigation was not fair and balanced because the report not been disclosed to him; there was no management evaluation of the allegation of negligence. That allegation is therefore not receivable.

The charge was properly investigated and proffered. There was due process of law and the Applicant at all times had every opportunity to refute the charge and show that UNDP had failed to prove it by clear and convincing evidence or that there were mitigating circumstances. There was no doubt in the process and the ability of the Applicant to understand the charge and make representation about it. Any difficulty in contradicting the charge during the process with documentary evidence was cured by the fact that the matter was provided an oral hearing before the Tribunal.

Accountability...

The Applicant¡¯s allegation that the preferred candidate was selected mainly to satisfy guidelines for gender parity and balance was not factual since the candidate was also better qualified for the post than the Applicant, based on the records of the candidates submitted in response to the job opening.

The Administration has to prove their allegation of breaches of the Staff Regulations and Staff Rules. The Tribunal took the view that the case of misrepresentations had been proven by clear and convincing evidence. While the Applicant made several submissions in mitigation, she did not introduce any facts that constituted a denial of the breaches alleged. The Organization must maintain standards and be fair to all concerned. Consequently, if others were rejected for employment during the recruitment process because they were not qualified, then this should be the position across the board...

UNDT was satisfied, based on the evidence, that the Applicant was prepared to use his power and influence to make life in the United Nations difficult for the Complainant if she pursued her complaint against him. UNDT held that this evidence satisfied the clear and convincing requirement. The evidence also showed that, during the investigation, the Applicant was afforded the due process rights he was entitled to. UNDT held that the disciplinary action of summary dismissal in this matter was justified and proportionate. UNDT dismissed the application.

In the matter of non-selection, it is evident that the Applicant was required to take a test but did not. The Applicant did not explain why she failed to take the test in any terms which show that the Administration must take responsibility for this failure. UNDT held that the Applicant must take responsibility for this failure and therefore can blame no-one other than herself for the non-selection. UNDT dismissed this aspect of the Application. UNDT held that the finding that there was insufficient evidence to pursue the matter of sexual harassment tantamounts to abuse abuse of authority on...

Fixed-term post The record showed that the hiring manager for the fixed-term post found the Applicant not eligible as he did not meet one of the required criteria for it, namely ¡°[p]ractical experience in working in the area of sustainability standards¡±. Consequently, he was not invited to participate in the subsequent steps of the selection process. The Applicant¡¯s lack of experience in sustainably standards was properly recorded in the respective electronic selection system and, moreover, was communicated to the Applicant by email of 16 July 2018 in response to his query about the status of...

Whether the non-renewal decision is supported by the facts Although, as the Applicant¡¯s advanced, there was no documentary evidence explicitly showing that funding for the Pacific Project was to end in June 2017, other than the Respondent¡¯s assertion that the Pacific Project received no funding beyond 30 June 2017, the Tribunal found that there were enough elements that taken together supported the budgetary reason behind the non-renewal of the Applicant¡¯s appointment. The Tribunal noted, inter alia, that the Applicant and other ITC Officials were fully aware in February 2017 that the Donor...

The Respondent has appropriately established the rationale for canceling a JO and readvertising it in response to the Secretary-General¡¯s Gender Strategy issued on 12 Sep September 2017, namely to attract more female candidates. The re-advertisement lawfully fell within the Organization¡¯s discretion. The Respondent has not appropriately established that the role of the Human Resources official was to be that of an assessor within the meaning of the Hiring Manager¡¯s Manual and that he was therefore authorised to ask probing questions to the Applicant during the interview. The only irregularity...