Â鶹´«Ã½

La demande a ¨¦t¨¦ rejet¨¦e comme non ¨¤ la cr¨¦ance car elle a ¨¦t¨¦ d¨¦pos¨¦e plus de trois ans apr¨¨s la r¨¦ception des d¨¦cisions contest¨¦es.

The application was rejected as not receivable because it was filed more than three years after the receipt of the contested decisions.

Le tribunal a jug¨¦ que, comme clairement confirm¨¦ par la mission permanente du Danemark, le demandeur n'est pas reconnu comme une femme en vertu de la loi danoise des passeports, qui aurait ¨¦t¨¦ indiqu¨¦e comme ?F? dans le passeport. Le tribunal a conclu qu'il n'y avait aucune violation des normes internationales. En tant que personne non conforme ¨¤ son sexe biologique, le demandeur a le droit ¨¤ une expression ext¨¦rieure de l'identit¨¦ de genre, le respect de son identification et devrait ¨ºtre prot¨¦g¨¦ contre une mauvaise discrimination sur cette base. Cela ne se traduit cependant pas par un acc¨¨s...

The Tribunal held that as clearly confirmed by the Permanent Mission of Denmark, the Applicant is not recognized as female under the Danish Passport Law, which would have been indicated as ¡°F¡± in the passport. The Tribunal concluded that there was no violation of international standards. As a person non-compliant with their biological sex, the Applicant has the right to an outward expression of gender identity, respect for their identification and should be protected against improper discrimination on this basis. This does not however translate to automatic access to entitlements or policies...

La contestation contre la d¨¦cision d'accorder au demandeur une allocation postale sp¨¦ciale (SPA) au lieu d'une promotion temporaire s'est av¨¦r¨¦e ne pas ¨ºtre ¨¤ recevoir ratione materiae pour l'absence d'une d¨¦cision administrative. Le Tribunal a ¨¦galement estim¨¦ que cette r¨¦clamation n'¨¦tait pas ¨¤ recevoir en raison de l'absence d'une demande d'¨¦valuation de gestion en temps opportun. La contestation contre la d¨¦cision de conclure que le demandeur est inadmissible ¨¤ la demande pour une ouverture d'emploi au niveau P-5 a ¨¦t¨¦ trouv¨¦e ¨¤ recevoir ¨¦tant donn¨¦ que la demande d'¨¦valuation de la...

The challenge against the decision to grant the Applicant a special post allowance (SPA) instead of a temporary promotion was found to not be receivable ratione materiae for the lack of an administrative decision. The Tribunal also considered that this claim was not receivable due to the absence of a timely management evaluation request. The challenge against the decision to find the Applicant ineligible to apply for a job opening at the P-5 level was found receivable given that the management evaluation request was filed within two months from the application for the job opening. The...

Une fois approuv¨¦ par l'Assembl¨¦e g¨¦n¨¦rale, la d¨¦cision de r¨¦trograder un poste est plac¨¦e en dehors de la juridiction du tribunal. Il ne peut y avoir aucun probl¨¨me ¨¤ restaurer ce poste et le demandeur comme son titulaire. La seule question qui pourrait ¨ºtre divertie par le Tribunal est de savoir si, en proposant le budget, l'administration a agi l¨¦galement ou, comme il est all¨¦gu¨¦, engag¨¦ dans un complot contre le demandeur pour induire en erreur l'Assembl¨¦e g¨¦n¨¦rale. Le tribunal a constat¨¦ que la recommandation du secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral de r¨¦trograder l'un des postes P-4 ¨¦tait l¨¦gal. Le...

Once approved by the General Assembly, the decision to downgrade a post is placed outside the Tribunal¡¯s jurisdiction. There can be no issue of restoring this position and the Applicant as its incumbent. The only question that could be entertained by the Tribunal is whether, in proposing the budget, the administration acted lawfully, or, as it is alleged, engaged in a conspiracy against the Applicant to mislead the General Assembly. The Tribunal found that the Secretary-General¡¯s recommendation to downgrade one of the P-4 posts was lawful. The Tribunal was satisfied that the downgrading of...

Le Tribunal a constat¨¦ qu'il y avait plusieurs raisons pour lesquelles la demande n'¨¦tait pas ¨¤ recevoir: la d¨¦cision contest¨¦e n'¨¦tait qu'un acte pr¨¦-pr¨¦f¨¨re, en outre, en tant que tel, il ¨¦tait sous-judice dans le cas n ¡ã UND / NBI / 2022/6. Cependant, sur un plan purement formel, l'application avait ¨¦t¨¦ d¨¦pos¨¦e hors du temps.

The Tribunal found that there were several reasons why the application was not receivable: the impugned decision was merely a prefatory act , moreover, as such, it was sub judice in Case No. UNDT/NBI/2022/6. However, on a purely formal plane, the application had been filed out of time.

Le requ¨¦rant a re?u la d¨¦cision contest¨¦e le 5 mai 2021. S'il souhaitait contester sa r¨¦affectation, il aurait d? d¨¦poser une demande d'¨¦valuation de la direction avant le 4 juillet 2021 mais ne l'a fait qu'au 30 novembre 2021. Ainsi, son application a ¨¦t¨¦ jug¨¦e recevable.

The Applicant received the contested decision on 5 May 2021. If he wished to challenge his reassignment, he should have filed a management evaluation request by 4 July 2021 but did not do so until 30 November 2021. Thus, his applicaiton was found to not be receivable.

Conform¨¦ment ¨¤ la r¨¨gle 11.2 (c) du personnel, le demandeur aurait d? demander l'¨¦valuation de la direction de la d¨¦cision du 31 ao?t 2021 d'ici le 30 octobre 2021, ou m¨ºme plus t?t, si l'intention ¨¦tait de plaider contre la d¨¦cision de r¨¦cup¨¦ration communiqu¨¦e entre le 30 juin et le 9 juillet. Le demandeur envisageait de recourir ¨¤ l'¨¦valuation de la direction d¨¦j¨¤ en juillet 2021, il n'a cependant demand¨¦ l'¨¦valuation de la direction que le 3 novembre 2021, qui ¨¦tait apr¨¨s les deux d¨¦lais.

Pursuant to staff rule 11.2(c), the Applicant should have requested management evaluation of the 31 August 2021 decision by 30 October 2021, or even earlier, if the intent was to argue against the recovery decision communicated between 30 June and 9 July. The Applicant was contemplating resorting to management evaluation already in July 2021, he, however, requested management evaluation only on 3 November 2021, which was after both deadlines.

Un ancien membre du personnel contestant une d¨¦cision r¨¦sultant de sa nomination ou du contrat ¨¦coul¨¦ est, aux fins de la r¨¨gle 11.2 du personnel, consid¨¦r¨¦e comme un ?membre du personnel?. En tant qu'ancien membre du personnel, le demandeur n'a pas ¨¦t¨¦ exempt¨¦ de soumettre une demande d'¨¦valuation de la direction. Par cons¨¦quent, le tribunal n'¨¦tait pas comp¨¦tent pour divertir cette application.

A former staff member contesting a decision stemming from his elapsed appointment or contract is, for the purpose of staff rule 11.2, considered a ¡°staff member¡±. As a former staff member, the Applicant was not exempt from submitting a request for management evaluation. Therefore, the Tribunal was not competent to entertain this application.

Le demandeur n'avait pas de position pour contester la modalit¨¦ d'un autre processus de recrutement. En l'absence d'une d¨¦cision administrative r¨¦visable, la demande n'¨¦tait pas ¨¤ recevoir en ce qui concerne la r¨¦clamation principale. Comme l'administration a agi dans le cadre de son pouvoir discr¨¦tionnaire, la r¨¦mun¨¦ration n'¨¦tait pas due.

The Applicant had no standing to contest the modality of a further recruitment process. Absent a reviewable administrative decision, the application was not receivable with respect to the principal claim. As the administration acted within the scope of its discretion, compensation was not due.

Le Tribunal a estim¨¦ que les deux requ¨ºtes d¨¦pos¨¦es portaient sur le m¨ºme objet et la m¨ºme cause d'action entre les m¨ºmes parties. Il y a eu en substance une d¨¦cision administrative refusant de renouveler un engagement de dur¨¦e d¨¦termin¨¦e et la premi¨¨re demande ¨¦tait litispendance lorsque la deuxi¨¨me demande a ¨¦t¨¦ introduite. Le Tribunal a en outre estim¨¦ que le Requ¨¦rant avait reconnu la m¨ºme chose dans sa requ¨ºte en fusion des deux affaires et oralement lors d'une discussion sur la gestion de l'affaire tenue le 6 juillet 2022. Le Tribunal a d¨¦termin¨¦ qu'il n'y avait pas lieu de fusionner et...

The Tribunal held that the two applications filed concerned the same subject-matter and the same cause of action between the same parties. There was in substance one administrative decision refusing to renew a fixed-term appointment and the first application was lis pendens when the second application was made. The Tribunal further held that the Applicant had acknowledged the same in his motion to merge the two cases and orally during a case management discussion held on 6 July 2022. The Tribunal determined that there was no case for merger and that the application was not receivable under the...