Receivability

The Respondent challenged the receivability of the application. He argued that the Dispute Tribunal may only issue an Order for execution under art. 12.4 of its Statute where a judgment required a time limit for execution and such execution had not been carried out.

The Tribunal considered that while Judgment Applicant UNDT/2022/055 did not provide for its execution within a certain period of time, it was reasonable to infer that in the absence of an appeal, said judgment should have been executed within a reasonable time, after the expiry of the 60-day time limit to file an...

Rescission and in lieu compensation under art. 10.5(a) of the Dispute Tribunal’s Statute

Considering that the evidence provided by the Respondent showed that the duration of most of the former renewals of the Applicant’s fixed-term appointment including the last regular renewal was for a duration of one year and that there is no expectation of renewal for a fixed-term appointment, the Tribunal determined that the amount of in lieu compensation must be equal to one year’s net base salary.

Compensation for harm under art. 10.5(b) of the Dispute Tribunal’s Statute

The Tribunal reviewed the...

The Tribunal decided on its own initiative and in accordance with art. 9 of its Rules of Procedure, to adjudicate the present application by way of summary judgement.

The Tribunal noted that in accordance with art. 8.4 of the Tribunal’s Statute and art. 7.6 of its Rules of Procedure, an application shall not be receivable if it is filed more than three years after the applicant’s receipt of the contested administrative decision. The Applicant filed her application on 5 March 2023 indicating that the contested decision was made in October 1995, that is, more than 27 years earlier. Consequently...

In determining the lawfulness of the contested decision, the Tribunal examined the following issues:

a) Whether the Applicant's performance was evaluated in a fair and objective manner.

The Tribunal noted that the contested decision was based on the Applicant’s records for the 2019-2020 and 2020-2021 performance cycles.

The Tribunal reviewed the evidence on record and noted that during the 2019-2020 performance cycle, the Applicant was advised on multiple occasions to improve his work ethic and productivity. At the end of the 2019-2020 performance cycle, the Applicant was assessed as...

The Tribunal rejected the application finding that the Secretary-General made the final selection decision, lawfully taking into account the unchallenged considerations of geographical diversity and gender. In regard to the evaluation of the shortlisted candidates, the Applicant cannot allege to have been prejudiced by the choice of the other shortlisted or recommended candidates. The Applicant was among the recommended candidates. In any event, the Applicant does not demonstrate that the selected female candidate had less credentials than the other female candidates. The Applicant has not...

In sum, considering the nature and gravity of the Applicant’s misconduct, as well as the past practice of the Organization in matters of comparable misconduct, the Tribunal finds that the imposed disciplinary and administrative measures were adequate in light of the Administration’s scope of discretion in this matter.

Le Tribunal a conclu à la légalité de la décision attaquée. Le Tribunal a conclu que la requérante n’avait pas maintenu une conduite digne de son statut de haut fonctionnaire international. La demanderesse, en tant que cadre supérieur, s’est vu conférer une obligation de diligence de promouvoir un « environnement de travail harmonieux, exempt d’intimidation, d’hostilité, d’infraction et de toute forme de conduite interdite », conformément à la circulaire ST/SGB/2008/5, ce qu’elle n’a pas fait. Les actes du requérant, tels qu’établis par les faits, constituaient du harcèlement et un abus de...

The Tribunal found that the contested decision was lawful. The Tribunal found that the Applicant failed to uphold a conduct befitting her status as senior international civil servant. The Applicant, as a senior manager, was conferred a duty of care to promote a “harmonious work environment, free of intimidation, hostility, offence and any form of prohibited conduct” as per ST/SGB/2008/5, which she failed to do. The Applicant’s actions, as established by the facts, constituted harassment and abuse of authority under ST/SGB/2008/5 and amounted to misconduct.

Le Tribunal a conclu que la décision contestée était légale au motif que le candidat retenu avait plus d’expérience que le demandeur et qu’il était donc classé de manière appropriée comme le candidat le plus fort. Sur la base du dossier documenté et de la recommandation du responsable du recrutement, la Directrice exécutive d’ONU-Habitat a légalement sélectionné le candidat le mieux adapté aux fonctions attachées au poste, en tenant compte des objectifs de l’Organisation en matière d’égalité des sexes. Le Tribunal était convaincu que l’Administration avait démontré que la procédure applicable...

The Tribunal found that the contested decision was lawful on the basis that the selected candidate had more experience than the Applicant and was therefore appropriately ranked the strongest candidate. Based on the documented record and the recommendation of the Hiring Manager, the Executive Director of UN-Habitat lawfully selected the candidate best suited for the functions of the position, taking into account the Organization’s gender targets. The Tribunal was satisfied that the Administration had shown that the applicable procedure was followed and that the Applicant’s candidacy was...

En ce qui concerne le cadre juridique pertinent, quel que soit le statut accordé à l’emploi antérieur et/ou actuel du demandeur au sein de l’OIM dans le cadre du programme ASHI, au moment pertinent de la demande d’AMCS, le demandeur ne se trouvait pas dans un délai de 31 jours avant ou après la séparation lorsqu’une demande d’AMCS doit être soumise.

Dès lors, même si les termes de la décision attaquée étaient trompeurs, la requérante n’avait pas le droit d’être inscrite à la Régime ASHI lorsqu’il en a fait la demande.

With reference to the relevant legal framework, no matter what status is given to the Applicant’s previous and/or current employment with the IOM in the context of the ASHI scheme, at the relevant time of applying for ASHI, the Applicant was not within a time period of 31 days before or after separation when an application for ASHI must be submitted.

Accordingly, even if the terms of the contested decision were misleading, the Applicant had no right to be enrolled in the ASHI scheme when he applied for it.

Il existe en effet une incertitude et peut-être aussi un désaccord sur divers faits importants de l’affaire. Par conséquent, l’affaire ne peut être jugée sur la base d’un jugement sommaire.

La partie de la présente affaire concernant l’OIM n’est pas recevable en vertu de la doctrine juridique de la litispendance.

S’agissant de la décision HLIS, le Requérant renvoie à sa demande d’évaluation de gestion du 4 novembre 2022. Étant donné que la requête en l’espèce est déposée après cette date, cette partie de la requête est donc, de ce point de vue, désormais recevable en vertu de la...

There is indeed uncertainty and possibly also disagreement regarding various material facts of the case. Accordingly, the case may not be adjudicated on the basis of a summary judgment.

The part of the present case concerning IOM is not receivable under the legal doctrine of lis pendens.

With regard to the HLIS decision, the Applicant refers to his request for management evaluation of 4 November 2022. As the application in the present case is filed after this date, this part of the application is therefore, from this perspective, now receivable under staff rule 11.2

Le Secrétaire général de l’ONU n’est pas le Chef de l’administration de l’OIM, et l’OIM n’a pas conclu d’accord spécial avec le Secrétaire général acceptant la compétence du Tribunal du contentieux administratif. Au lieu de cela, l’OIM relève de la compétence du Tribunal administratif de l’Organisation internationale du Travail.

Étant donné que la demande d’évaluation de la gestion présentée par le requérant n’a pas été déposée avant que la requête ne soit soumise au Tribunal du contentieux administratif en l’espèce, le Tribunal n’a pas la compétence ratione materiae requise en vertu de la...

The United Nations Secretary-General in not the Chief Administrative Officer of IOM, and IOM has not concluded a special agreement with the Secretary-General accepting the Dispute Tribunal’s jurisdiction. Instead, IOM falls under the jurisdiction of the Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organization.

As the Applicant’s request for management evaluation was not filed before submitting the application to the Dispute Tribunal in the present case, the Tribunal does not have the necessary subject-matter jurisdiction under staff rule 11.2. The challenge against the decision of...

The context of the case in O’Brien is not similar. Essentially, in O’Brien, the applicant was the subject of an investigation, whereas in the present case, the Applicant was the complainant. Accordingly, In O’Brien, the applicant opposed a disciplinary investigation launched against himself based on a misconduct complaint made by others, and he then contested a decision to reject his request for an independent review of the investigation. The Appeals Tribunal, however, dismissed the applicant’s challenge because the decision-maker eventually held in his favour as, contrary to the preliminary...

Après avoir examiné tous les facteurs utilisés pour déterminer la sanction appropriée pour l’inconduite du demandeur, le Tribunal conclut que l’USG/DMSPC a suffisamment motivé la décision attaquée et a établi un lien ou une relation rationnelle entre la preuve et l’objectif de la mesure disciplinaire.

Having reviewed all the factors used in determining the appropriate sanction for the Applicant’s misconduct, the Tribunal finds that the USG/DMSPC has provided sufficient reasoning in the contested decision and has established a rational connection or relationship between the evidence and the objective of the disciplinary action.