Â鶹´«Ã½

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 persistency...

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...

Le Tribunal a estim¨¦ que les irr¨¦gularit¨¦s proc¨¦durales et substantielles all¨¦gu¨¦es dans le transfert lat¨¦ral du requ¨¦rant au poste de directeur g¨¦n¨¦ral de GPH n'¨¦taient pas fond¨¦es. Le requ¨¦rant ¨¦tait parfaitement au courant de son transfert lat¨¦ral et du mod¨¨le d'entreprise de l'UNITAR, qui d¨¦pend d'un financement externe. De plus, la lettre de nomination du requ¨¦rant indiquait clairement que sa nomination ¨¦tait limit¨¦e ¨¤ la disponibilit¨¦ des fonds.
En outre, le requ¨¦rant a fait valoir qu'au lieu d'¨ºtre plac¨¦ sur SWLOP jusqu'¨¤ la fin de son engagement temporaire, son contrat aurait d? ¨ºtre...

The Tribunal found unsubstantiated the alleged procecural and substantive irregularities in the lateral transfer of the Applicant to the position of CEO of GPH. The Applicant was well aware of both his lateral transfer and the business model of UNITAR, which is dependent on external funding. Also, the Applicant's letter of appointment clearly stated that his appointment was limited to availability of funds.

Moreover, the Applicant argued that, instead of being placed on SWLOP until the end of his temporary appointment, his contract should have been terminated, pursuant to para. 9(c) of AC...

Le Tribunal a rappel¨¦ que la recevabilit¨¦ est une condition sine qua non du contr?le juridictionnel.

Le Tribunal a not¨¦ qu'au moment o¨´ le requ¨¦rant a d¨¦pos¨¦ sa requ¨ºte, il n'avait pas ¨¦t¨¦ officiellement notifi¨¦ de la suppression de son poste et que l'exercice de restructuration ¨¦tait toujours en cours. Jusqu'¨¤ la date du prononc¨¦ de l'arr¨ºt, la situation est rest¨¦e inchang¨¦e, comme le montre un courriel du PNUD adress¨¦ au requ¨¦rant en novembre 2023, lui demandant de confirmer son int¨¦r¨ºt pour le poste d'assistant de programme au niveau G-5. ? ce jour, le requ¨¦rant est toujours en poste au...

The Tribunal recalled that receivability is a condition sine qua non for judicial review.

The Tribunal noted that by the time the Applicant filed his application, he had not been formally notified of the abolition of his post and the restructuring exercise was still ongoing. Up to the date of the judgment¡¯s issuance, the situation remained the same as showed by a November 2023 email from UNDP to the Applicant asking him to confirm his interest in the position of Programme Assistant at the G-5 level. So far, the Applicant is still serving at the G-6 level in UNDP Pakistan.

The Tribunal...

Le Tribunal a not¨¦ que, premi¨¨rement, le requ¨¦rant ne conteste pas une d¨¦cision administrative prise par le Secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral en tant que chef de l'administration de l'Organisation des Nations Unies. Deuxi¨¨mement, la FAO n'a pas conclu d'accord sp¨¦cial avec le Secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral, en vertu de l'art. 2.5 du Statut du Tribunal, pour accepter les termes de la comp¨¦tence du Tribunal.
Par cons¨¦quent, le Tribunal a estim¨¦ qu'il n'¨¦tait pas comp¨¦tent pour examiner la pr¨¦sente requ¨ºte.

The Tribunal noted that, firstly, the Applicant does not contest an administrative decision taken by the Secretary-General as the Chief Administrative Officer of the United Nations. Secondly, FAO has not concluded a special agreement with the Secretary-General, under art. 2.5 of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute, to accept the terms of the Tribunal¡¯s jurisdiction.

Consequently, the Tribunal found that it was not competent to examine the present application.

Le Tribunal a observ¨¦ qu'il n'y avait pas de diff¨¦rend concernant les faits mat¨¦riels de l'affaire. Le requ¨¦rant a fait l'objet d'une enqu¨ºte et d'une proc¨¦dure disciplinaire alors qu'il ¨¦tait employ¨¦ ¨¤ l'UNOPS, il a ¨¦t¨¦ mis fin ¨¤ son engagement pour faute, et il n'a pas divulgu¨¦ cette information dans son notice personnelle lorsqu'il a postul¨¦ pour le poste ¨¤ la Base de soutien logistique des Nations Unies ¨¤ Brindisi.
Les tentatives du candidat pour justifier sa conduite ¨¦taient ¨¤ la fois illogiques et non fond¨¦es sur des preuves.
Les fausses d¨¦clarations et les d¨¦clarations erron¨¦es...

The Tribunal observed that there was no dispute with respect to the material facts of the case. The Applicant was subject to an investigation and disciplinary process while employed at UNOPS, had his appointment terminated for misconduct, and did not disclose this information in his PHP when applying for the position at the UNLB, UNGSC.

The Applicant's attempts to justify his conduct were both illogical and not grounded on evidence.

False claims and misrepresentations of qualifications on PHPs constitute serious misconduct for violating the legal framework. The Applicant's conduct was not an...

La d¨¦cision initiale de refuser au requ¨¦rant le droit ¨¤ l'EGT pour l'ann¨¦e universitaire 2021-2022 a ¨¦t¨¦ modifi¨¦e ¨¤ la suite de l'¨¦valuation de la direction. Le requ¨¦rant s'est vu accorder un EGT partiel pour les ann¨¦es acad¨¦miques 2020-2021 et 2021-2022, ce qui s'est traduit par un recouvrement au prorata de l'EGT du requ¨¦rant pour l'ann¨¦e acad¨¦mique 2020-2021 et par l'octroi de la moiti¨¦ de son EGT pour l'ann¨¦e acad¨¦mique 2021-2022.
Conform¨¦ment ¨¤ l'article 3.2(a) du Statut du personnel, ¨¤ la r¨¨gle 3.9(g) du Statut du personnel et ¨¤ la sec. 9.1 de l'instruction administrative ST/AI/2018/1...

The initial decision to deny the Applicant EGT for the 2021-2022 academic year was modified following management evaluation. The Applicant was granted partial EGT for the 2020-2021 and 2021 2022 academic years, which resulted in a pro-rated recovery of the Applicant¡¯s EGT for the 2020-2021 academic year and the granting of half of his EGT for the 2021 2022 academic year.

Pursuant to staff regulation 3.2(a), staff rule 3.9(g), and sec. 9.1 of ST/AI/2018/1/Rev.1, the Applicant is entitled to one round trip for her daughter during each academic year between her educational institution and his...

Le requ¨¦rant a perdu une partie importante de son solde de cong¨¦s annuels parce que l'administration a utilis¨¦ ces cong¨¦s pour faire face ¨¤ la p¨¦riode de s¨¦paration ill¨¦gale. Ce pr¨¦judice persistant a des cons¨¦quences collat¨¦rales suffisantes pour exclure l'absence d'int¨¦r¨ºt malgr¨¦ l'annulation partielle des effets directs de la d¨¦cision contest¨¦e. Ainsi, m¨ºme si le requ¨¦rant ¨¦tait r¨¦int¨¦gr¨¦, il resterait une controverse vivante entre les parties et, en tant que telle, la requ¨ºte n'est pas d¨¦pourvue d'objet.

La d¨¦cision contest¨¦e en l'esp¨¨ce est la d¨¦cision de non-renouvellement. Il n'y a pas...

The Applicant lost a significant portion of his annual leave balance because the Administration used that leave to address the period of unlawful separation. This ongoing injury is of sufficient collateral consequence to preclude mootness despite the partial reversal of the direct effects of the contested decision. Thus, even if the Applicant was reinstated, there remained a live controversy between the parties and as such, the application is not moot.

The contested decision in the case at hand is the non-renewal decision. There is no separate litigation of the decision to charge absence to...