Recherce

Regarding claim 1, the Tribunal held that based on the evidence on record, the Applicant did not provide any evidence that could prove any form of misconduct against the OIOS or UNIFIL officials who handled his complaint. Accordingly, claim 1 was rejected.

For claim 2, the Tribunal noted that, upon his request, via emails dated 22 August 2024 and 31 October 2024, the OIOS provided the Applicant with an explanation for the closure of his Complaint without investigation. Therefore, claim 2 was found to be moot.

Claim 3 was found not receivable. The Tribunal held that the outcome of a management...

a. Regarding the first contested decision, the Tribunal established that based on the evidence on record, the Organization terminated the Applicant’s appointment under staff rule 9.6(c) due to the abolishment of the post that he encumbered. Accordingly, the Tribunal concluded that the termination of the Applicant’s permanent appointment on the basis of abolishment of his post was procedurally proper and lawful.

b. On the second issue, the Tribunal established that based on the evidence before it, the Organization had fulfilled its obligation under staff rule 9.6(c) to make reasonable and good...

The Tribunal found that the 29 February 2024 decision constituted a fresh administrative decision and not a mere reiteration of the 9 August 2023 decision as argued by the Respondent.

Just as a staff member may not reset the clock by repeatedly questioning the original decision, the Organization may not freeze the clock and deprive a staff member of their right to a new decision based on new circumstances.

The substantive issue in this case was whether the Administration properly exercised its discretion in not granting the Applicant telecommuting arrangements. The Tribunal found that the...

The Tribunal noted that the evidence before it, supplied by the Applicant himself, showed that the contested decision was taken on 17 April 2011 and the Application was filed in 2025.

Based on art. 8.1(d)(ii) of its Statute, the Tribunal found that the application was manifestly time-barred. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the application was not receivable ratione temporis and the application was rejected.

Après avoir examiné les observations des parties et les éléments de preuve au dossier, le Tribunal a défini les questions à trancher comme suit :

a. Si le candidat avait une chance réaliste d'être sélectionné ; et

b. Si le recours a subi une perte financière en raison de la décision contestée.

Concernant la première question, le Tribunal a noté que l'Unité d'évaluation hiérarchique avait déjà constaté des irrégularités dans le processus de sélection et recommandé que celui-ci soit refait. Le Secrétaire général adjoint à la stratégie, à la politique et à la conformité de gestion (SGA/DMSPC) avait...

In the present case, according to the Applicant’s own submissions, he was not in a situation of “an absolute impossibility” of filing a timely waiver as per Karki. Instead, while apparently being aware of expiry of the deadline, he continued to work intensely on preparing the application, and rather than giving priority to filing it in time, he instead wanted it “to be perfect”. When then filing the application, the Applicant, however, made no reference to it being filed too late or indicating that he requested a waiver of the 90-day deadline under art. 8.3 of the Statute. He only requested a...

The Respondent argued that the discontinuation of the Applicant’s position was distinct from the non-renewal of his position. The Tribunal rejected this argument. The Tribunal found that the decision-maker linked the discontinuation of the Applicant's post with the non-renewal. The Tribunal held that the discontinuation and non-renewal were inextricably interrelated and therefore the application was receivable. The Respondent’s argument that the claim was not receivable ratione temporis was rejected.

The Respondent’s distinction, while perhaps academically correct, would make receivability no...

The Tribunal rejected the application as not receivable ratione materiae as (1) the record indicates that the Applicant did not submit a request for request for management evaluation to the Management Advice and Evaluation Section as required under staff rule 11.2; and (2) the contested decision had no direct effect on the Applicant, no external legal effect, nor any adverse impact on the Applicant’s contractual employment rights.

Le Tribunal a pris note de la préférence du requérant pour que l'affaire soit jugée à New York, étant donné qu'il était « partiellement résident » aux Etats-Unis avec sa famille. Cependant, après avoir examiné tous les arguments avancés par les parties depuis le dépôt de l'affaire au greffe de New York, en particulier les documents officiels fournis par le conseil du défendeur, le Tribunal a considéré qu'il était approprié et dans l'intérêt de la justice de transférer l'affaire au greffe de Genève. Le Tribunal s'est également assuré que le requérant ne serait pas lésé par le transfert de l...

Although the Applicant disagrees with the assessment made during the interview as to whether she satisfied particular competency requirements and regarding her overall suitability for the post, the interview panel was entitled to come to its own conclusions regarding the Applicant’s suitability.

The Tribunals have consistently held that it is not its role to substitute its judgment for that of the hiring manager or the decision-maker. The Tribunal's review is limited to ensuring that the decision was made in accordance with the applicable rules and procedures, and that there was no improper...

The Court found that the Applicant failed to demonstrate the existence of exceptional circumstances or factors beyond his control that prevented him from filing a timely application for enforcement of the Settlement Agreement (see, e.g., Gelsei 2020-UNAT-1035, paras. 19-24).

In any event, the Trtibunal considered that a period of six and a half years to request enforcement was excessive.

Ayant établi que la décision contestée avait été dûment notifiée au requérant le 22 mai 2023, le Tribunal a estimé que la demande d'évaluation de la gestion aurait dû être déposée au plus tard le 22 juillet 2023. Le requérant n'ayant déposé la demande d'évaluation de la gestion que le 23 novembre 2023, le Tribunal a également estimé que la demande n'était pas recevable.

L'avocat du requérant ayant admis que l'administration avait déjà réglé en grande partie les créances fiscales du requérant pour 2022 et 2023, le Tribunal a également considéré que ces aspects de la demande étaient sans objet.

Le...

The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to determine this application on the merits as it challenges a decision that was not submitted for management evaluation in a timely manner. The application is therefore not receivable ratione materiae.

The Applicant’s contention in respect of his putative privileges and immunities as a staff member of the United Nations is misconceived. Section 20 of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations is clear: Privileges and immunities are granted to officials in the interests of the United Nations and not for the personal benefit of the...

Le Tribunal a estimé que la demande était prématurée, car elle concernait un processus de recrutement qui était toujours en cours et pour lequel il n'y avait pas eu de décision de sélection. La décision de ne pas convoquer le requérant à un entretien était une étape intermédiaire qui ne constituait pas une décision administrative finale susceptible de recours. Par conséquent, la demande n'était pas recevable ratione materiae.

The Tribunal agreed with the Respondent that the Applicant must comply with the requirements for filing an application set forth in paras. 5, 6, 22 and 23 of Practice Direction No. 4 with respect to the number of pages and content of Annexes in an application form.

The Applicant failed to comply with these provisions. Specifically, the Applicant filed, as an annex, 10 pages of arguments and facts beyond those set forth in the application form.

The Applicant was directed to file an amended application which was in compliance with paras. 5, 6, 22 and 23 of Practice Direction No. 4.

Having filed a motion requesting an extension of time to file an application with a fast-approaching deadline, Counsel should have monitored the case file for a ruling but failed to do so.

Considering the amount of time Counsel spent drafting and filing motions for extension of time, he could have filed an application instead.

This resulted in more resources being expended by the Applicant’s Counsel and by the Tribunal in dealing with the motions. However, the Applicant should not suffer prejudice because of his Counsel’s neglect.

Le Tribunal a tenu compte de la politique de « tolérance zéro » de l'Organisation à l'égard du harcèlement et des abus sexuels, ainsi que de la nécessité pour l'Organisation de protéger sa réputation et l'intégrité du lieu de travail.

Le Tribunal a noté que la norme requise au stade de l'imposition d'un congé administratif sans solde n'est pas une « preuve claire et convaincante » mais des « motifs raisonnables de croire », ce qui est une norme moins stricte. Tout bien considéré, le Tribunal a estimé que les premières phases de l'enquête avaient permis de découvrir des éléments de preuve...

Le Tribunal a estimé que la demande était recevable au motif qu'une évaluation négative des performances a des conséquences juridiques pour le membre du personnel concerné et qu'elle peut faire l'objet d'un réexamen.

De l'avis du Tribunal, le défendeur n'a pas démontré que le Secrétaire général des Nations Unies avait engagé avec le requérant une discussion appropriée sur ses performances ou qu'il lui avait fourni un retour d'information suffisant sur ses lacunes, comme l'exigent les sections 7.1, 7.2 et 10.1 de l'instruction administrative ST/AI/2021/4. 7.1, 7.2 et 10.1 de l'instruction ST...

Le requérant s'est vu notifier la décision de rejeter sa demande pour négligence grave le 8 avril 2024, ce qui ne correspond pas à la définition de « décision administrative » au sens de l'article 2.1(a) du Statut du Tribunal. 2.1(a) du Statut du Tribunal.

La négligence alléguée des fonctionnaires des Nations Unies n'étant pas une cause d'action accessible aux membres du personnel et ne relevant pas de la compétence du Tribunal, le requérant ne pouvait pas introduire une plainte pour négligence grave.

Le requérant a été informé de la décision de rejeter sa demande pour négligence grave le 8...

The Applicant failed to identify disputed facts for which the proposed testimony is relevant. Even assuming the facts as alleged by the Applicant regarding her future claims, it was clear that each decision would rise or fall on its own merits.

Directing the Applicant to file new claims in the case would cause undesirable delay in disposing of the case.