Â鶹APP

L'interpr¨¦tation des rapports m¨¦dicaux pour d¨¦terminer la cause et l'¨¦tendue des incapacit¨¦s m¨¦dicales est l'essence m¨ºme de la m¨¦decine l¨¦gale et le r¨¦sultat est clairement une d¨¦termination m¨¦dicale.

Cet argument vise ¨¤ ce que le Tribunal remette en question la conclusion de l'Administration selon laquelle l'appareil de radiographie n'est pas tomb¨¦ sur le genou du requ¨¦rant en 2017. Cela d¨¦passe les comp¨¦tences de ce Tribunal. Dans le cadre du contr?le judiciaire d'une d¨¦cision administrative, le Tribunal doit s'en remettre aux conclusions factuelles de l'Administration et ne peut substituer...

interpreting medical reports to determine the cause and extent of medical disabilities is the essence of forensic medicine and the result is clearly a medical determination.

this argument seeks to have the Tribunal second-guess the Administration¡¯s finding that the X-ray camera did not fall on the Applicant¡¯s knee in 2017. That is beyond the purview of this Tribunal. In conducting a judicial review of an administrative decision, the Tribunal must defer to the Administration¡¯s factual findings and may not substitute its own decision for that of the Administration. Moreover, it is clear from...

Le Tribunal a d¨¦fini les questions g¨¦n¨¦rales de la pr¨¦sente affaire comme suit :

Le requ¨¦rant a-t-il d¨¦lib¨¦r¨¦ment induit l'Organisation en erreur ?

Bien qu'il y ait eu de nombreux d¨¦saccords factuels entre les parties, y compris en ce qui concerne les d¨¦tails des gains financiers et des transactions dans lesquelles le requ¨¦rant ¨¦tait impliqu¨¦, le Tribunal a estim¨¦ qu'il n'¨¦tait pas n¨¦cessaire de r¨¦soudre tous ces diff¨¦rends dans le cadre de cet exercice de contr?le judiciaire. Le requ¨¦rant a admis ses relations financi¨¨res ¨¦tendues avec M. David Kendrick et qu'il n'avait pas divulgu¨¦ ces...

The Tribunal defined the overall issues of the present case as follows:

Whether the Applicant wilfully misled the Organization

While there were many factual disagreements between the parties, including with respect to the details of the financial gains and dealings the Applicant was involved with, the Tribunal found that it was not necessary to resolve all those disputes during this exercise of judicial review. The Applicant admitted his extensive financial relationships with Mr. David Kendrick and that he failed to disclose these relationships to the Organization. These admissions were...

En ce qui concerne la d¨¦cision de non-installation, le Tribunal a observ¨¦ qu'au moment o¨´ le requ¨¦rant a pris son service, les restrictions familiales ¨¤ Naqoura (son lieu d'affectation) ¨¦taient en place depuis six semaines, et que les conditions avaient entra?n¨¦ l'attribution au lieu d'affectation d'un classement sp¨¦cial de difficult¨¦s ? D ?. L'existence d'un conflit arm¨¦ et la d¨¦t¨¦rioration de la situation en mati¨¨re de s¨¦curit¨¦ rendaient dangereuse la pr¨¦sence de personnes ¨¤ charge sur le lieu d'affectation. Par cons¨¦quent, la d¨¦cision de ne pas amener la famille du requ¨¦rant dans la zone...

Regarding the non-installation decision, the Tribunal observed that by the time the Applicant reported on duty, the family restrictions at Naqoura (his duty station) had been in place for six weeks, and the conditions had caused the duty station to be granted a special hardship classification of ¡°D¡±. The existence of armed conflict and the deteriorating security situation made the presence of dependents at the duty station unsafe. Therefore, the decision not to bring the Applicant¡¯s family to the unsafe area was obviously reasonable. The Tribunal, thus, held that the contested decision not to...

Le Tribunal a not¨¦ que les ¨¦l¨¦ments de preuve dont il disposait indiquaient que la d¨¦cision contest¨¦e ¨¦tait contenue dans une lettre dat¨¦e du 21 mai 2024. Le 30 mai 2024, le chef du bureau local de l'UNICEF ( ? CFO ?) a rencontr¨¦ le requ¨¦rant pour lui remettre en main propre la lettre de sanction, mais le requ¨¦rant n'a pas sign¨¦ de d¨¦claration de r¨¦ception. En cons¨¦quence, le CFO a not¨¦ : ? Document lu au personnel le 30/05/2024, qui a ensuite refus¨¦ d'accuser r¨¦ception de la lettre ?. Le m¨ºme jour, l'unit¨¦ de droit administratif a envoy¨¦ la d¨¦cision contest¨¦e au requ¨¦rant par courrier...

The Tribunal noted that the evidence before it indicated that the contested decision was contained in a letter dated 21 May 2024. On 30 May 2024, the Chief of the UNICEF Field Office (¡°CFO¡±) met with the Applicant to hand-deliver the sanction letter to the Applicant, but the Applicant did not sign a declaration of receipt. As a result, the CFO noted, ¡°Document read to staff on 30/05/2024, who then refused to acknowledge receipt of the letter¡±. On the same day, the Administrative Law Unit sent the contested decision to the Applicant via email.

The Tribunal further observed that the Applicant...

T

Le Tribunal a estim¨¦ que :

a. Les violations continues commises par le requ¨¦rant pendant plus d'un an et demi, malgr¨¦ une r¨¦primande ant¨¦rieure, de nombreux avertissements, une directive claire et une nouvelle enqu¨ºte, montrent clairement qu'il a d¨¦lib¨¦r¨¦ment ignor¨¦ les r¨¨gles applicables interdisant ¨¤ son ¨¦pouse de vivre avec lui dans un lieu d'affectation d¨¦conseill¨¦ aux familles.

b. Par la pr¨¦pond¨¦rance des preuves, le Tribunal est persuad¨¦ que le requ¨¦rant a menac¨¦ un autre membre du personnel, comme l'a constat¨¦ l'Organisation.

c. Les menaces du requ¨¦rant et ses violations r¨¦p¨¦t¨¦es...

The Tribunal held that:

a. The Applicant's continued violations over a year and one-half, despite a prior reprimand, numerous warnings, a clear directive, and a new investigation, clearly showed that he willfully disregarded the applicable rules prohibiting his wife from living with him in a non-family duty station.

b. By the preponderance of the evidence, the Tribunal was persuaded that the Applicant threatened another staff member, as was found by the Organization.

c.The Applicant¡¯s threats and repeated violation of the housing rules amounted to serious misconduct.

d. The record was...

Le Tribunal D?CIDE de rejeter la demande dans son int¨¦gralit¨¦.

The Tribunal DECIDES to deny the application in its entirety.

Le Tribunal d¨¦cide que la demande est rejet¨¦e.

The Tribunal DECIDES that the Application is rejected.

Le Tribunal a observ¨¦ que les faits de cette affaire ¨¦taient tr¨¨s clairs d'apr¨¨s les t¨¦moignages et le dossier. Le Tribunal a ¨¦galement not¨¦ que le requ¨¦rant avait admis sa faute lors de son entretien avec l'enqu¨ºteur. Par cons¨¦quent, le Tribunal a conclu, sur la base de preuves claires et convaincantes, que le requ¨¦rant avait commis une fraude, une conduite interdite.

En ce qui concerne l'inconduite, le Tribunal a conclu que le requ¨¦rant avait commis une fraude. Par cons¨¦quent, ses actions constituent une faute grave.

En ce qui concerne le volet relatif ¨¤ la r¨¦gularit¨¦ de la proc¨¦dure, le...

The Tribunal observed that the facts of this case were very clear from the testimony and record. The Tribunal further noted that the Applicant had admitted his wrongdoing during his interview by the investigator. Accordingly, the Tribunal found by clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant had committed fraud, a prohibited conduct.

Regarding misconduct, the Tribunal concluded that the Applicant committed fraud. Therefore, his actions amounted to serious misconduct.

On the due process prong, the Tribunal rejected the Applicant¡¯s argument that his due process rights were violated because...

The Tribunal found that in this case, the evidence adduced by the Respondent was neither clear nor convincing. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the Respondent had failed to show that it was highly probable that the Applicant had committed the alleged misconduct and thus had failed to meet its burden of proof. Accordingly, the Tribunal decided to:

a. Rescind the decision to separate the Applicant from service;

b. Set the amount of compensation that the Respondent may elect to pay in lieu of implementing the rescission at two years net salary with interest at the US prime rate from...

The Tribunal found that in this case, the evidence adduced by the Respondent was neither clear nor convincing. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the Respondent had failed to show that it was highly probable that the Applicant had committed the alleged misconduct and thus had failed to meet its burden of proof. Accordingly, the Tribunal decided to:

a. Rescind the decision to separate the Applicant from service;

b. Set the amount of compensation that the Respondent may elect to pay in lieu of implementing the rescission at two years net salary with interest at the US prime rate from...

[Le Tribunal DECIDE de : a. Rejeter la requ¨ºte du requ¨¦rant demandant d'ordonner au d¨¦fendeur de fournir les informations n¨¦cessaires ; b. Consid¨¦rer que la requ¨ºte n'est pas recevable et que, m¨ºme si elle l'¨¦tait, elle n'est pas fond¨¦e, et donc la rejeter ; et Rejeter la demande du d¨¦fendeur concernant l'attribution des d¨¦pens.

[t]he Tribunal DECIDES to: a. Reject the Applicant¡¯s motion requesting to order the Respondent to provide necessary information; b. Find that the application is not receivable and that, even if it were, there is no merit to it, thus it would dismiss it; and Deny the Respondent¡¯s request for an award of costs.