É«¿âTV

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...

Le Tribunal a statu¨¦ comme suit

1. Le requ¨¦rant s'est livr¨¦ ¨¤ plusieurs reprises ¨¤ des tentatives de corruption en demandant de l'argent ¨¤ au moins six r¨¦fugi¨¦s en ¨¦change de la promesse de services du HCR qui auraient d? ¨ºtre fournis gratuitement. Par cons¨¦quent, la d¨¦cision de licencier le requ¨¦rant ¨¦tait l¨¦gale.

2. Les faits reproch¨¦s ¨¤ la requ¨¦rante ont ¨¦t¨¦ prouv¨¦s de mani¨¨re coh¨¦rente et non ¨¦quivoque, et le d¨¦fendeur s'est acquitt¨¦ de la charge de prouver que la requ¨¦rante a accept¨¦ des pots-de-vin de la part de certains r¨¦fugi¨¦s, ou du moins qu'elle les a demand¨¦s.

3. La mesure...

The Tribunal held:

1. The Applicant repeatedly engaged in attempts of corruption by requesting money from at least six refugees in exchange for promising UNHCR services that should have been provided without charge. As a consequence, the decision to dismiss the Applicant was lawful.

2. The facts which the Applicant was accused of were proved in a consistent and unequivocal manner, and the Respondent fulfilled his burden to prove that the Applicant took bribes from some refuges, or at least that she asked for them.

3. The disciplinary measure was not based solely on anonymous statements...

Le Tribunal a statu¨¦ comme suit

1. Dans la mesure o¨´ la d¨¦cision A a d¨¦j¨¤ fait l'objet de deux arr¨ºts devenus d¨¦finitifs, cette partie de la requ¨ºte est irrecevable en raison de l'autorit¨¦ de la chose jug¨¦e.

2. Les recours de la requ¨¦rante contre les d¨¦cisions B, C et D, fond¨¦s sur sa r¨¦clamation du 12 novembre 2020 au titre de l'annexe D, sont irrecevables car prescrits.

3. Les d¨¦cisions cons¨¦cutives aux d¨¦cisions A ¨¤ D ont toutes ¨¦t¨¦ rejet¨¦es comme irrecevables parce qu'elles ne pouvaient pas se suffire ¨¤ elles-m¨ºmes.

The Tribunal held:

1. Insofar as Decision A had already been ruled upon by two judgments that were now final, that part of the application was not receivable, being res judicata.

2. The Applicant¡¯s challenges of Decisions B, C and D which were grounded on her Appendix D claim of 12 November 2020, were not receivable, being time-barred.

3. The consequential decisions arising from Decisions A - D were all rejected as irreceivable because they could not stand on their own.

Le Tribunal a statu¨¦ :

a. Tout report de la communication ¨¤ la caisse de retraite des informations relatives ¨¤ la cessation de service du requ¨¦rant ne peut ¨ºtre justifi¨¦ que dans un d¨¦lai raisonnable ; la prolongation ind¨¦finie d'une enqu¨ºte violerait les droits contractuels d'un membre du personnel ¨¤ la liquidation de ses droits d¨¦finitifs ainsi que le droit ¨¤ une d¨¦finition en temps utile de toute proc¨¦dure disciplinaire ¨¦ventuelle ¨¤ son encontre.

b. La dur¨¦e prolong¨¦e de l'enqu¨ºte ne justifiait pas la retenue du dernier paiement et de la pension du requ¨¦rant pendant une p¨¦riode aussi...

The Tribunal held:

a. Any postponement in issuing the Applicant's separation information to the Pension Fund could be justified only to a reasonable timeframe; the indefinite protraction of an investigation would violate a staff member¡¯s contractual rights to have his final entitlement paid and also the right to a timely definition of any eventual disciplinary process against him/her.

b. The prolonged duration of the investigation did not warrant the withholding of the Applicant's final payment and pension for such a long time, considering the ordinary function for the said entitlements in...

Le Tribunal a estim¨¦ que :

a. Les faits reproch¨¦s au requ¨¦rant ne constituent pas une faute ;

b. il n'appartenait pas au requ¨¦rant de v¨¦rifier o¨´ se trouvaient les membres du personnel ;

c. La question de la connaissance factuelle par le requ¨¦rant du lieu de r¨¦sidence de l'autre membre du personnel pendant la p¨¦riode en question ¨¦tait bas¨¦e sur des conjectures ;

d. Le d¨¦fendeur n'a produit aucune preuve indiquant que le requ¨¦rant savait toujours et effectivement o¨´ l'autre membre du personnel r¨¦sidait ¨¤ chaque instant, ou qu'il avait connaissance de la relation de ce membre du personnel...

The Tribunal held that:

a. The facts upon which the Applicant was reproached do not amount to misconduct;

b. it was not part of the Applicant¡¯s remit to verify where the staff members were located;

c. The issue regarding the Applicant¡¯s factual knowledge of where the other staff member resided during the period in question was based on conjecture;

d. The Respondent had not adduced any evidence to indicate that the Applicant always and effectively knew where the other staff member was residing in each moment, or had any knowledge of that staff member's relationship with the owners of any of...

En ce qui concerne la d¨¦cision de ne pas convoquer un groupe d'enqu¨ºte, le Tribunal a rappel¨¦ sa jurisprudence qui indique qu'une enqu¨ºte ne peut ¨ºtre entreprise que s'il existe des motifs suffisants de croire qu'un membre du personnel a eu une conduite insatisfaisante. En l'esp¨¨ce, le Tribunal a conclu que le requ¨¦rant n'avait pas fourni de motifs suffisants ¨¤ l'appui de sa demande.

En ce qui concerne la deuxi¨¨me d¨¦cision contest¨¦e, le Tribunal s'est ¨¦galement r¨¦f¨¦r¨¦ ¨¤ sa jurisprudence constante qui indique qu'il n'y a pas de droit ¨¤ l'allocation de subsistance. Le Tribunal a plut?t observ¨¦...

Regarding the decision to not convene a fact-finding panel, the Tribunal recalled its jurisprudence which indicates that a fact-finding investigation may only be undertaken if there are sufficient grounds to believe that a staff member had engaged in unsatisfactory conduct. In the instant case, the Tribunal, concluded that the Applicant had not provided sufficient grounds to support his claim.

In relation to the second contested decision, the Tribunal also referred to its settled jurisprudence which indicates that there is no right to FWA. The Tribunal, rather, observed that a denial of FWA...

En ce qui concerne la premi¨¨re d¨¦cision contest¨¦e, le Tribunal a estim¨¦ que le droit de conna?tre le contenu du rapport, bien que r¨¦sum¨¦, est implicite dans le droit d'un membre du personnel de porter plainte contre des tiers (droit d¨¦j¨¤ reconnu dans l'affaire Belkhabbaz, UNDT/2021/047 au paragraphe 21) parce que ce droit inclut le droit de conna?tre les raisons pour lesquelles l'Administration n'a pas sanctionn¨¦ la personne accus¨¦e.

Le Tribunal a donc conclu que le requ¨¦rant avait le droit de recevoir de l'administration le rapport dans son int¨¦gralit¨¦, avec des expurgations raisonnables. Il a...

Regarding the first contested decision, the Tribunal held that the right to know the contents of the report, although summarised, is implicit in the right of a staff member to complain against third persons (right already acknowledged in Belkhabbaz, UNDT/2021/047 at para. 21) because this right includes the right to know the reasons for which the Administration did not punish the accused person.

The Tribunal, therefore, concluded that the Applicant had a right to receive the report in full, with reasonable redactions, from the Administration. Therefore, the claim in question was granted.

In...

Le Tribunal a conclu que le requ¨¦rant avait droit ¨¤ l'indemnisation int¨¦grale pr¨¦vue ¨¤ l'annexe D, sans aucune d¨¦duction. Le Tribunal a ¨¦galement observ¨¦ que le requ¨¦rant ¨¦tait en droit de recevoir des int¨¦r¨ºts pour le retard de paiement.

Au vu de ce qui pr¨¦c¨¨de, le Tribunal :

a. fait droit ¨¤ la demande et annule la d¨¦cision contest¨¦e ;

b. ordonn¨¦ au d¨¦fendeur de verser au requ¨¦rant l'indemnit¨¦ pr¨¦vue ¨¤ l'annexe D, sans d¨¦duction des prestations de retraite vers¨¦es ¨¤ des tiers ; et

c. ordonner au d¨¦fendeur de verser au requ¨¦rant, pour le retard de paiement de ladite indemnit¨¦...

The Tribunal concluded that the Applicant was entitled to full compensation as provided for under Appendix D, with no deductions. The Tribunal also observed that the Applicant was entitled to receive interests for the delayed payment.

In view of the foregoing, the Tribunal:

a. Granted the application and rescinded the contested decision;

b. Directed the Respondent to pay to the Applicant the compensation under Appendix D with no deduction for pension benefits paid to third parties; and

c. Directed the Respondent to pay to the Applicant for the delayed payment of said compensation the...

Le Tribunal a estim¨¦ que la d¨¦cision de cr¨¦er le poste de repr¨¦sentant sp¨¦cial adjoint (? DSR ?) n'a pas eu de cons¨¦quences n¨¦gatives directes pour le requ¨¦rant, qui est rest¨¦ employ¨¦, avec le m¨ºme poste et les m¨ºmes attributions ; en d'autres termes, la cr¨¦ation du poste de DSR n'a pas affect¨¦ le r?le, les fonctions et les responsabilit¨¦s du requ¨¦rant.

le r?le, les fonctions et les responsabilit¨¦s du requ¨¦rant n'ont pas ¨¦t¨¦ affect¨¦s.

Le Tribunal a estim¨¦ que la requ¨¦rante n'avait pas r¨¦ussi ¨¤ identifier une d¨¦cision administrative contestable affectant n¨¦gativement les conditions de sa...

The Tribunal held that the decision to create the Deputy Special Representative ("DSR") post did not have any direct adverse consequences for the Applicant, who remained in employment, with the same post and ToRs; in other terms, by the establishment of the DSR post, the Applicant¡¯s role, duties and responsibilities remained unaffected.

The Tribunal held that the Applicant had failed to identify a contestable administrative decision adversely affecting the terms and conditions of her appointment and that therefore her challenge of the DSR post was not receivable ratione materiae.

As to the...

La demande est rejet¨¦e comme non recevable.

The application is DISMISSED as not receivable.

Le candidat a ¨¦t¨¦ jug¨¦ apte ¨¤ occuper les postes disponibles. En effet, pour un poste vacant, il a ¨¦t¨¦ l'un des huit candidats pr¨¦s¨¦lectionn¨¦s et convoqu¨¦s ¨¤ un entretien. En le pr¨¦s¨¦lectionnant, l'administration a tacitement reconnu qu'il ¨¦tait jug¨¦ apte ¨¤ occuper le poste ; selon Timothy UNDT/2017/080, en tant que titulaire d'un engagement continu menac¨¦ de r¨¦siliation, l'administration ¨¦tait oblig¨¦e ¨¤ partir de ce moment d'examiner sa candidature sur une base pr¨¦f¨¦rentielle et non concurrentielle.

Le Tribunal a estim¨¦ que l'administration avait manqu¨¦ ¨¤ son obligation de s'efforcer...