Â鶹´«Ã½

Le Tribunal a rappel¨¦ que la disposition 3.9(b) du R¨¨glement du personnel stipule clairement que pour b¨¦n¨¦ficier de l'indemnit¨¦ pour frais d'¨¦tudes, un membre du personnel doit "r¨¦sider et servir" en dehors de son pays d'origine. Sur la base des ¨¦l¨¦ments de preuve figurant au dossier, le Tribunal a ¨¦tabli que le requ¨¦rant avait effectu¨¦ du t¨¦l¨¦travail depuis son pays d'origine pendant toute la p¨¦riode de l'ann¨¦e acad¨¦mique 2020-2021. Pour cette raison, le requ¨¦rant n'avait pas droit ¨¤ l'allocation pour frais d'¨¦tudes.

En ce qui concerne l'affirmation du requ¨¦rant selon laquelle il s'¨¦tait...

The Tribunal recalled that staff rule 3.9(b) clearly requires that to be eligible for education grant, a staff member must "reside and serve" outside his or her home country. Based on the evidence on the record, the Tribunal established that the Applicant had telecommuted from his home country for the entire period of 2020-2021 academic year. On this score, the Applicant was not entitled to the education grant.

Regarding the Applicant¡¯s contention that he had relied on an erroneous information provided to him by the Organization, the Tribunal found that there was no reliance on incorrect...

Le Tribunal a not¨¦ que l'essentiel de la demande portait manifestement sur la lettre d'avertissement et non sur l'¨¦valuation de la gestion en tant que telle. En l'esp¨¨ce, la demande d'¨¦valuation de la gestion a ¨¦t¨¦ d¨¦pos¨¦e en dehors des d¨¦lais l¨¦gaux, mais surtout, elle n'¨¦tait pas n¨¦cessaire. La demande contre une mesure non disciplinaire ¨¦mise en vertu de la r¨¨gle du personnel 10.2(b) ne n¨¦cessite pas d'¨¦valuation de la gestion. En l'esp¨¨ce, conform¨¦ment ¨¤ la r¨¨gle 11.4(b), le requ¨¦rant aurait d? introduire sa requ¨ºte aupr¨¨s du Tribunal dans un d¨¦lai de 90 jours calendaires ¨¤ compter de la...

The Tribunal noted that the gist of the application, clearly, was against the warning letter and not against the management evaluation in and of its own. The management evaluation request in this case was filed outside the statutory deadlines but above all, was unnecessary. The application against a non-disciplinary measure issued pursuant to staff rule 10.2(b) does not require management evaluation. In this case, pursuant to staff rule 11.4(b), the Applicant ought to have filed his application with the Tribunal within 90 calendar days from the date on which he received notification of the...

La question ¨¦tait de savoir si le requ¨¦rant avait droit ¨¤ l'allocation d'¨¦ducation pour la derni¨¨re ann¨¦e d'un programme de cinq ans qui comprend deux semestres (environ un an) de stages coop¨¦ratifs sans frais de scolarit¨¦.

Le Tribunal a estim¨¦ que, puisque le fils du requ¨¦rant ¨¦tait inscrit dans son ¨¦tablissement d'enseignement pendant les troisi¨¨me et quatri¨¨me ann¨¦es de son programme, au cours desquelles les semestres coop¨¦ratifs faisaient partie du programme d'¨¦tudes, il n'y avait aucune raison de ne pas compter les troisi¨¨me et quatri¨¨me ann¨¦es comme des ann¨¦es scolaires. Comme ces...

The issue was whether the Applicant was entitled to education grant for his son¡¯s last year of a five-year degree program which includes two semesters (approximately one year) of no cost/no tuition co-operatives/internships.

The Tribunal held that since the Applicant's son was enrolled in his educational institution during years three and four of his programme, during which the co-op semesters were part of the curriculum, there was no basis not to count years three and four as school years. As these years entailed less expenses on account of tuition not being paid during the co-op semesters...

D'embl¨¦e, le Tribunal a rappel¨¦ que, sur la base des ¨¦l¨¦ments de preuve vers¨¦s au dossier, la principale demande du requ¨¦rant visant ¨¤ obtenir l'annulation de la d¨¦cision contest¨¦e avait ¨¦t¨¦ rendue sans objet par le d¨¦part ¨¤ la retraite du requ¨¦rant. Par cons¨¦quent, la question qui restait ¨¤ trancher concernait l'indemnisation du pr¨¦judice financier et moral.

Compte tenu de l'ensemble des circonstances, le Tribunal a conclu que la d¨¦cision contest¨¦e avait un motif et un objectif inappropri¨¦s et qu'elle ¨¦tait donc ill¨¦gale. Le Tribunal a en outre estim¨¦ que, sur la base de ce qui pr¨¦c¨¨de, il...

At the outset, the Tribunal recalled that based on the evidence on record, the Applicant¡¯s main claim to have the contested decision rescinded had been rendered moot by the Applicant¡¯s retirement. Therefore, the matter that remained for adjudication concerned compensation for the financial and moral harm.

In the entirety of the circumstances, the Tribunal concluded that the impugned decision had an improper motive and improper purpose and was therefore, unlawful. The Tribunal further held that based on the aforesaid, it was satisfied that the reassignment decision had a negative impact on...

Le demandeur a demand¨¦ une ¨¦valuation de la gestion le 27 janvier 2023. La date limite pour la r¨¦ponse ¨¤ l'¨¦valuation de la gestion ¨¦tait le 13 mars 2023. Le requ¨¦rant a d¨¦pos¨¦ sa demande le 13 f¨¦vrier 2023, soit 28 jours avant la date limite de r¨¦ponse ¨¤ l'¨¦valuation de la gestion. Par cons¨¦quent, le Tribunal a estim¨¦ que la demande avait ¨¦t¨¦ d¨¦pos¨¦e pr¨¦matur¨¦ment et qu'elle n'¨¦tait donc pas recevable.

The Applicant requested management evaluation on 27January 2023. The deadline for the management evaluation response was 13 March 2023. The Applicant filed his application on 13 February 2023, which was 28 days before the management evaluation response was due.

Consequently, the Tribunal found the application to be prematurely filed and therefore, not receivable.

Le requ¨¦rant n'a pas identifi¨¦ de d¨¦cision administrative au sens de l'article 2.1(a) du Statut du Tribunal. En l'absence de d¨¦cision administrative, le Tribunal ne peut pas se d¨¦clarer comp¨¦tent pour conna?tre d'une affaire.

Le requ¨¦rant n'a pas respect¨¦ la r¨¨gle du personnel 11.2(a), qui fait de l'¨¦valuation de la gestion une condition pr¨¦alable pour le personnel souhaitant contester des d¨¦cisions exclues par la r¨¨gle du personnel 11.2(b). ?tant donn¨¦ que le requ¨¦rant n'a pas soumis sa plainte pour n¨¦gligence/n¨¦gligence grave ¨¤ l'¨¦valuation de la gestion, le Tribunal ne pouvait pas...

The Applicant failed to identify an administrative decision within the meaning of art 2.1(a) of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute. In the absence of an administrative decision, the Tribunal cannot assume jurisdiction over a matter.

The Applicant failed to comply with staff rule 11.2(a), which makes management evaluation a pre-requisite for staff wishing to contest decisions excluded by staff rule 11.2(b). Since the Applicant did not submit his claim for negligence/gross negligence for management evaluation, the Tribunal could not entertain his application.

Le Tribunal a estim¨¦ que le refus de payer les imp?ts du requ¨¦rant ¨¦tait l¨¦gal et que l'administration n'¨¦tait pas responsable du retard dans le traitement de la demande.

Le t¨¦moignage du requ¨¦rant lui-m¨ºme a mis ¨¤ mal son all¨¦gation de circonstances att¨¦nuantes. Son t¨¦moignage a ¨¦tabli de mani¨¨re concluante que le requ¨¦rant n'a pas d¨¦pos¨¦ de demandes de remboursement d'imp?ts en temps voulu parce qu'il croyait ¨¤ tort qu'il n'¨¦tait pas tenu de d¨¦clarer et de payer des imp?ts au gouvernement des ?tats-Unis ¨¤ l'expiration de sa r¨¦sidence permanente. Son erreur a ¨¦t¨¦ r¨¦v¨¦l¨¦e en ao?t 2019...

The Tribunal found that the refusal to pay the Applicant¡¯s taxes was lawful and that the Administration was not liable for the delay in processing of the claim.

The Applicant¡¯s own testimony undermined his claim of extenuating circumstances. His testimony conclusively established that the Applicant did not file claims for tax reimbursement in a timely manner because he mistakenly believed that he was not required to file and pay taxes to the United States Government upon expiry of his permanent residence.His error came to light in August 2019, when the IRS placed a lien on his bank account to...

La demande n'¨¦tait pas recevable car elle avait ¨¦t¨¦ d¨¦pos¨¦e sans attendre le r¨¦sultat de l'¨¦valuation de la direction.

The application was not receivable because it had been filed without awaiting the result of management evaluation.

La plainte principale contre l'inaction administrative est devenue sans objet ¨¤ la suite des r¨¦affectations de la requ¨¦rante et de son superviseur. La d¨¦cision de r¨¦affectation a donn¨¦ lieu ¨¤ un r¨¦sultat factuel et juridique essentiellement diff¨¦rent de la plainte de la requ¨¦rante au titre de ST/SGB/2019/8.

The principal claim against administrative inaction has become moot following the reassignments of both the Applicant and her supervisor. The reassignment decision created an essentially different factual and legal outcome of the Applicant¡¯s complaint under ST/SGB/2019/8.

Le Tribunal a constat¨¦ qu'en tant que chef d'entit¨¦, le chef de mission/commandant de la force avait d¨¦l¨¦gu¨¦ le pouvoir de r¨¦affecter un membre du personnel au sein de la FINUL en vertu de l'article 1.2 c) du Statut du personnel. Le Tribunal a en outre conclu que le maintien d'un environnement de travail harmonieux et la pr¨¦vention des comportements interdits constituaient une raison op¨¦rationnelle valable de r¨¦affectation. La demande a ¨¦t¨¦ rejet¨¦e.

The Tribunal was satisfied that as Head of Entity, the Head of Mission/Force Commander had delegated authority to reassign a staff member within UNIFIL under staff regulation 1.2(c). The Tribunal further found that maintaining a harmonious work environment and the prevention of prohibited conduct was a valid operational reason for reassignment. The application was dismissed.