É«¿âTV

Un arr¨ºt peut faire l'objet d'une interpr¨¦tation s'il est ambigu dans ses constatations ou ses conclusions, de sorte qu'une clarification de l'arr¨ºt est n¨¦cessaire.

Le fait que le requ¨¦rant soit en d¨¦saccord avec les conclusions du Tribunal ne justifie pas une interpr¨¦tation plus pouss¨¦e. La voie correcte pour un tel d¨¦saccord est la proc¨¦dure d'appel.

Referring to its previous judgment in the Applicant¡¯s non-selection case, the Tribunal was of the view that in the present application for interpretation, he essentially disagreed with the Tribunal¡¯s findings on the propriety of the impugned selection exercise. Specifically, the Applicant takes issue with the Tribunal¡¯s finding in paragraph 60(b) that he ¡°failed to substantiate that the chosen candidate was not qualified either academically or by way of relevant managerial and supply chain experience¡±.

The Tribunal held that paragraph 60(b) of the judgment was both comprehensible and clear...

Apr¨¨s la r¨¦cusation de son fro du panel, il n'y a aucune preuve sugg¨¦rant que le requ¨¦rant aurait eu une meilleure chance si son avantage avait ¨¦t¨¦ pr¨¦sent, ni que sa pr¨¦sence (de la part) dans les autres CBI leur a donn¨¦ une meilleure chance. M¨ºme si le panneau CBI ¨¦tait rest¨¦ constant et identique, avec l'inclusion du FRO, le dossier devant le tribunal d¨¦montre que le candidat s¨¦lectionn¨¦ ¨¦tait sup¨¦rieur dans sa candidature. L'administration d'un test ¨¦crit n'est pas obligatoire conform¨¦ment ¨¤ la s¨¦lection du personnel AI. Il incombait au demandeur de prouver le parti pris pr¨¦sum¨¦. La...

Following the recusal of his FRO from the Panel, there is no evidence to suggest that the Applicant would have had a better chance had his FRO been present, nor that his (the FRO¡¯s) presence in the other CBIs gave them a better chance. Even if the CBI panel had remained constant and identical, with the inclusion of the FRO, the record before the Tribunal demonstrates that the selected candidate was superior in her candidature. The administration of a written test is not mandatory pursuant to the Staff Selection AI. The onus was on the Applicant to prove the alleged bias. Ill-will is not a...

Le tribunal a constat¨¦ qu'il y avait de graves ¨¦checs dans la permission du demandeur ¨¤ une proc¨¦dure r¨¦guli¨¨re au cours de l'enqu¨ºte. Apr¨¨s l'avoir interview¨¦e en tant que non-sujet, SIU a d¨¦cid¨¦ plus tard qu'elle serait un sujet de l'enqu¨ºte, mais n'a pas permis alors les droits de la proc¨¦dure r¨¦guli¨¨re en vertu de l'article 10 de ST / AI / 2017/1. Bien qu'il y ait eu l'injustice proc¨¦durale pour le demandeur, l'inefficacit¨¦ et le manque de rapport de transparence; Il n'y avait pas d'¨¦chec de la proc¨¦dure r¨¦guli¨¨re de la part du d¨¦cideur, car sa d¨¦cision a express¨¦ment examin¨¦ non seulement...

The Tribunal found that there were severe failures in affording the Applicant due process during the investigation. After first interviewing her as a non-subject, SIU later decided that she would be a subject of the investigation but did not then afford her the due process entitlements under section 10 of ST/AI/2017/1. While there was procedural unfairness to the Applicant, inefficiency and a lack of reporting transparency; there was no due process failing on the part of the decision-maker since her decision expressly considered not only the SIU investigation report but also the Applicant¡¯s...

Dans toutes les circonstances, l¡¯intim¨¦ n¡¯a pas prouv¨¦ par des preuves claires et convaincantes la base de la conclusion d¡¯inconduite qui a conduit au licenciement du demandeur. Il n'y avait aucune preuve claire et convaincante d'une base factuelle pour conclusion que le demandeur avait commis les actions comme pr¨¦sum¨¦es. Le tribunal a constat¨¦ qu'une proc¨¦dure r¨¦guli¨¨re a ¨¦t¨¦ observ¨¦e. Cependant, le non-interview des t¨¦moins appropri¨¦s a nui ¨¤ la norme de preuve d'inconduite obtenue par l'intim¨¦. Cette norme n'a pas atteint le niveau d'une affaire claire et convaincante. Parmi les recours...

In all the circumstances, the Respondent failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence the basis for the finding of misconduct that led to the Applicant¡¯s dismissal. There was no clear and convincing evidence of any factual basis for a finding that the Applicant committed the actions as alleged. The Tribunal found that due process was observed. However, the failure to interview appropriate witnesses adversely detracted from the standard of proof of misconduct achieved by the Respondent. That standard did not reach the level of a clear and convincing case. Of the remedies sought by the...

Le tribunal a constat¨¦ qu¡¯il y avait une justification suffisante ¨¤ la conclusion plausible du d¨¦cideur selon laquelle le demandeur avait viol¨¦ son obligation de divulguer un conflit d'int¨¦r¨ºts r¨¦el ou possible. Bien que seules des preuves sur un ¨¦quilibre des probabilit¨¦s aient ¨¦t¨¦ n¨¦cessaires, les preuves pr¨¦sent¨¦es ont d¨¦pass¨¦ cette norme et ¨¦taient claires et convaincantes. Le fait ou la possibilit¨¦ d'un tel int¨¦r¨ºt personnel pourrait avoir un impact n¨¦gatif sur la perception de l'int¨¦grit¨¦, de l'ind¨¦pendance et de l'impartialit¨¦ requise du demandeur en tant que fonctionnaire international...

The Tribunal found that there was ample justification for the decision maker¡¯s plausible conclusion that the Applicant breached his obligation to disclose an actual, or possible, conflict of interest. Although only evidence on a balance of probabilities was required, the evidence presented surpassed that standard and was clear and convincing.

The fact or possibility of such personal interest could impact negatively on the perception of integrity, independence and impartiality required of the Applicant as an international civil servant. The Applicant had a duty was to disclose the actual or...

Il n'y avait aucune preuve dans le dossier d'une demande d'¨¦valuation de la gestion soumise par le demandeur. Au lieu de cela, la demande instantan¨¦e n'a ¨¦t¨¦ pr¨¦c¨¦d¨¦e que par une demande de ME faite en octobre 2021 par un coll¨¨gue du demandeur, un M. AA. Le tribunal a cependant constat¨¦ qu'il ¨¦tait ¨¦vident que le requ¨¦rant consid¨¦rait que ladite demande de moi avait ¨¦t¨¦ faite en son nom comme l'un des membres touch¨¦s du personnel national de l'UNAMID. La demande ME a ¨¦t¨¦ soumise plus de quatre ans apr¨¨s que le demandeur a re?u la notification de la d¨¦cision administrative contest¨¦e. La demande...

There was no evidence on record of a management evaluation request submitted by the Applicant. Instead, the instant application was preceded only by an ME request made in October 2021, by a colleague of the Applicant, one Mr. AA. The Tribunal found that it was apparent however, that the Applicant considered the said ME request to have been made on his behalf as one of the affected members of the UNAMID national staff. The ME request was submitted more than four years after the Applicant received notification of the administrative decision being contested. The application was accordingly not...

La r¨¦clamation du demandeur ¨¦tait fond¨¦e sur son affirmation selon laquelle elle ¨¦tait sur le statut officiel du voyage aux d¨¦penses des Nations Unies lorsqu'elle a ¨¦t¨¦ forc¨¦e de prendre une escale de 23 jours ¨¤ Khartoum. En cons¨¦quence, elle a affirm¨¦ qu'elle avait droit ¨¤ la DSA conform¨¦ment ¨¤ la r¨¨gle 7.10 du personnel. Le tribunal a toutefois constat¨¦ qu¡¯il n¡¯y avait pas de cat¨¦gorie en vertu du travail juridique applicable de droit ¨¤ la DSA en vertu duquel le temps du demandeur ¨¤ Khartoum est tomb¨¦.

The Applicant¡¯s claim was based on her assertion that she was on official travel status at United Nations expense when she was forced to have a stopover of 23 days in Khartoum. Accordingly, she claimed that she was entitled to DSA in accordance with staff rule 7.10. The Tribunal found, however, that there was no category under the applicable legal framwework of entitlement to DSA under which the Applicant¡¯s time in Khartoum fell.

Sur le plan de la proc¨¦dure r¨¦guli¨¨re, le tribunal a conclu que les plaintes du demandeur concernant le manque de proc¨¦dure r¨¦guli¨¨re ¨¦taient sans fondement. Le requ¨¦rant n'a pas ¨¦tabli que l'intim¨¦ n'avait pas permis de lui proposer une proc¨¦dure r¨¦guli¨¨re dans l'enqu¨ºte et le processus disciplinaire. En cons¨¦quence, le tribunal a jug¨¦ que les droits de la proc¨¦dure r¨¦guli¨¨re du demandeur ¨¦taient garantis. Sur la question de savoir si les faits ont ¨¦t¨¦ ¨¦tablis par des preuves claires et convaincantes, le tribunal a rappel¨¦ que le requ¨¦rant avait ¨¦t¨¦ sanctionn¨¦: (i) tromper la gestion mondiale...

On the due process prong, the Tribunal concluded that the Applicant¡¯s complaints about lack of due process were without merit. The Applicant did not establish that the Respondent failed to afford him due process in the investigation and disciplinary process. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the Applicant¡¯s due process rights were guaranteed. On whether the facts were established by clear and convincing evidence, the Tribunal recalled that the Applicant was sanctioned for: (i) Misleading the UNHCR¡¯s Global Fleet Management (¡°GFM¡±) regarding the extent of the damage to the UNHCR¡¯s vehicle;...

Le tribunal n'avait aucune comp¨¦tence pour d¨¦terminer cette demande sur le fond car elle a contest¨¦ une d¨¦cision qui n'a pas ¨¦t¨¦ soumise en temps opportun. La demande a ¨¦t¨¦ d¨¦pos¨¦e sans ¨ºtre pr¨¦c¨¦d¨¦e d'un d¨¦p?t en temps opportun d'une demande d'¨¦valuation de la gestion.

The Tribunal had no jurisdiction to determine this application on the merits as it challenged a decision that was not submitted for management evaluation in a timely manner. The application was filed without being preceded by a timely filing of a request for management evaluation.

Le demandeur a ¨¦t¨¦ inform¨¦ de la d¨¦cision par ¨¦crit par e-mail du 17 juin 2022. En cons¨¦quence, il devait d¨¦poser sa demande d'ici le 15 septembre 2022. Cependant, le demandeur l'a d¨¦pos¨¦ le 18 septembre 2022. La demande n'a donc pas ¨¦t¨¦ d¨¦pos¨¦e dans les d¨¦lais stipul¨¦ par le statut du tribunal. De plus, le demandeur n'a pas demand¨¦ de renonciation ¨¤ la date limite avant de d¨¦poser sa demande tardive ou dans la demande tardive elle-m¨ºme. La demande n'a pas ¨¦t¨¦ cr¨¦able.

The Applicant was notified of the decision in writing by email dated 17 June 2022. Accordingly, he was required to file his application by 15 September 2022. However, the Applicant filed it on 18 September 2022. The application was therefore not filed within the deadlines stipulated by the Tribunal's Statute. Further, the Applicant did not request a waiver of the deadline before filing his late application or in the late application itself. The application was found to not be receivable.