Â鶹APP

Given the reputational risk inherent in any investigation, it was incumbent on the Applicant as a staff member applying for or occupying such a senior position as Head of the Country Office, to notify UNFPA of the allegations, suspension and investigation. Considering the negative publicity that such a situation inevitably generates in the media, UNFPA would have been justified in questioning the Applicant¡¯s suitability as a staff member in general and for the position of Country Representative in particular.

Accordingly, the Tribunal found that the facts anterior in this case were directly...

Il ressort syst¨¦matiquement des r¨¦ponses d¡¯AA, ou de l¡¯absence de r¨¦ponses, aux nombreux textes du demandeur sur le ? pari ? propos¨¦ qu¡¯il trouvait ces messages importuns. Par exemple, AA a ¨¦crit au demandeur : ? Toujours sur ce sujet, mec ? ? ; ? J¡¯accorde plus de valeur ¨¤ ma dignit¨¦ que 2 000 $ ? ; ? Je ne parie pas ? ; "Je pensais que c¡¯¨¦tait un pari vraiment stupide haha que je ne me forcerais jamais ¨¤ me payer, mais vous n¡¯avez cess¨¦ d¡¯en parler 1298548065908 fois. C¡¯est pourquoi je dis que si vous continuez sur ce sujet ¨¦motionnel, je vous enverrai mon compte FCNU et c¡¯est tout" ; ? Le...

It consistently follows from AA¡¯s responses, or lack thereof, to the Applicant¡¯s many texts on the proposed ¡°bet¡± that he found these messages unwelcome. For instance, AA wrote to the Applicant that: ¡°Still on that topic man?¡±; ¡°I value my dignity more than $2.000¡±; ¡°I do not bet¡±; ¡°I thought it was a really stupid bet haha I would never [force you to pay] me, but you have kept bringing it up 1298548065908 times. That is why I say that if you continue with that emotional topic, I will send you my UNFCU account and that is it¡±; ¡°The bet. Now, man, stop the subject. It is over¡±. Despite this...

Le Tribunal a estim¨¦ que la contestation par le requ¨¦rant de la d¨¦cision du 19 juillet 2021 de le placer sous ALWP ¨¦tait prescrite car le requ¨¦rant n'a pas demand¨¦ l'¨¦valuation de la gestion de cette d¨¦cision dans le d¨¦lai imparti. Le Tribunal a estim¨¦ que les d¨¦cisions ult¨¦rieures de prolonger le placement du requ¨¦rant en ALWP ¨¦taient l¨¦gales.

Le Tribunal a estim¨¦ que le refus persistant du requ¨¦rant de remplir les ¨¦valuations e-PAS 2018/2019 pour les membres du personnel pour lesquels le requ¨¦rant ¨¦tait le premier notateur (? FRO ?) et de s'engager avec KJ constituait une faute. Le...

The Trinunal found that the Applicant¡¯s contest to the decision of 19 July 2021 to place him on ALWP was time-barred as the Applicant did not request management evaluation of that decision within the stipulated deadline. The Tribunal found that the subsquent decisions to extend the Applicant¡¯s placement on ALWP were lawful.

The Tribunal found that Applicant¡¯s persistent refusal to complete the 2018/2019 e-PAS evaluations for staff members for whom the Applicant was the First Reporting Officer ("FRO") and engage with KJ constituted misconduct. The Tribunal further found that the Applicant...

La demande d'¨¦valuation de la gestion pr¨¦sent¨¦e par le requ¨¦rant le 16 septembre 2023 n'a pas ¨¦t¨¦ d¨¦pos¨¦e dans les d¨¦lais, car elle a ¨¦t¨¦ d¨¦pos¨¦e apr¨¨s l'expiration du d¨¦lai de 60 jours pr¨¦vu par la r¨¨gle 11.2(c) du R¨¨glement du personnel. Toutefois, il n'y a pas de question d'autorit¨¦ de la chose jug¨¦e dans le cas pr¨¦sent.

En l'absence d'informations et/ou de preuves suppl¨¦mentaires, le DSS/SSS a en effet agi dans le cadre de son pouvoir discr¨¦tionnaire en vertu de l'article 1.2(c) du Statut du personnel et de l'art. 100.2 de la Charte des Nations Unies, en d¨¦cidant de ne pas donner suite ¨¤ la...

The Applicant¡¯s 16 September 2023 request for management evaluation was not filed in a timely manner as it was filed after the expiry of the 60-day deadline stipulated in staff rule 11.2(c). There was, however, no issue of res judicata in the present case.

In the absence of any further information and/or evidence, DSS/SSS indeed acted within its scope of discretion under staff regulation 1.2(c) and art. 100.2 of the Â鶹APP Charter, when deciding not to take any further action on the Applicant¡¯s request for action regarding his complaint concerning the relevant law enforcement agency.

l'administration avait ill¨¦galement mis fin ¨¤ son engagement de mani¨¨re anticip¨¦e en raison de son ¨¦tat de sant¨¦ n'¨¦tait pas fond¨¦e. Le Tribunal a estim¨¦ que le recours du requ¨¦rant aux instructions ST/AI/2019 et ST/AI/1999/16 ¨¦tait mal fond¨¦, car il n'a pas ¨¦t¨¦ mis fin ¨¤ son engagement pour des raisons de sant¨¦.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant¡¯s appointment was lawfully terminated under staff regulation 9.3(a)(i) following the termination of MINUSMA¡¯s mandate. The Tribunal found that there is no basis for the Applicant¡¯s claim that the Administration unlawfully terminated his appointment early because of his health. The Tribunal found that the Applicant¡¯s reliance on ST/AI/2019 and ST/AI/1999/16 was misguided since his appointment was not terminated on health grounds.

In the context of the present case, the Tribunal finds that the electronic UMOJA notifications regarding the Applicant¡¯s time and attendance records, which were automatically sent to him on a monthly basis during the relevant four-year time period, were nothing but status updates on his leave records. None of the status updates therefore constituted separate and individual administrative decisions in accordance with art. 2.1(a) of the Dispute Tribunal¡¯s Statute against which the Applicant must file a request for management evaluation in accordance staff rule 11.2.

Applying either evidentiary...

La d¨¦cision de licencier le requ¨¦rant ¨¦tait l¨¦gale. L'administration a l¨¦galement entrepris la proc¨¦dure de licenciement pour abandon de poste en vertu de la disposition 9.6(b) du R¨¨glement du personnel. Le Tribunal a estim¨¦ que, compte tenu du contexte des absences prolong¨¦es non autoris¨¦es de la requ¨¦rante, ainsi que de son inaction et de son incapacit¨¦ ¨¤ r¨¦pondre aux diverses communications de l'Administration, y compris la demande de fournir la preuve requise que son absence ¨¦tait involontaire et caus¨¦e par des forces ind¨¦pendantes de sa volont¨¦ avant le 9 mai 2023, l'Administration a...

The decision to separate the Applicant from service was lawful. The Administration lawfully undertook the process of separation for abandonment of post under staff rule 9.6(b). The Tribunal found that given the context of the Applicant¡¯s prolonged unauthorized absences from work, together with her inaction and failure to respond to the Administration¡¯s various communications to her, including the request to provide the requisite proof that her absence was involuntary and was caused by forces beyond her control by 9 May 2023, the Administration reasonably determined that the Applicant did not...

Compte tenu de l'absence de preuves directes devant le Tribunal, la victime pr¨¦sum¨¦e ayant refus¨¦ de t¨¦moigner, le Tribunal a estim¨¦ que le d¨¦fendeur n'avait pas r¨¦ussi ¨¤ prouver de mani¨¨re claire et convaincante, ni m¨ºme de mani¨¨re pr¨¦pond¨¦rante, les all¨¦gations factuelles ayant conduit ¨¤ la conclusion de l'USG/DMSPC selon laquelle le requ¨¦rant l'avait harcel¨¦e sexuellement. Dans le m¨ºme ordre d'id¨¦es, la partie d¨¦fenderesse n'a pas non plus d¨¦montr¨¦ que le requ¨¦rant avait cr¨¦¨¦ un environnement de travail hostile pour elle.

Bien que les actions et le comportement du requ¨¦rant n'aient pas...

Considering the lack of any direct evidence before the Tribunal as the alleged victim declined to provide witness testimony, it found that the Respondent had not managed to prove with clear and convincing evidence, or even with the preponderance of evidence, the factual allegations leading to the USG/DMSPC¡¯s conclusion that the Applicant had sexually harassed her. In the same vein, the Respondent also failed to demonstrate that the Applicant created a hostile work environment for her.

Whereas the Applicant¡¯s actions and behavior were not up to the standard to be expected of a supervisor...

L'instruction ST/AI/2020/5 ne s'applique qu'aux d¨¦cisions de s¨¦lection prises ¨¤ partir (a) d'une ? liste de candidats ? qui a ¨¦t¨¦ ? approuv¨¦e par un organe central de contr?le ? ou (b) d'une liste de candidats ¨¤ un concours. Aucune de ces situations ne s'applique en l'esp¨¨ce. Il est incontest¨¦ que la d¨¦cision de s¨¦lection contest¨¦e ¨¦tait r¨¦gie par l'instruction administrative ST/AI/2010/3/Rev.1 (Syst¨¨me de s¨¦lection du personnel), dont la section 3.1 dispose que ? [l]a d¨¦cision de s¨¦lection doit ¨ºtre prise sur la base d'une liste de candidats ?. 3.1 pr¨¦voit que ? [l]a proc¨¦dure de s¨¦lection et...

ST/AI/2020/5 only applies to selection decision where the selection decision is made from either (a) ¡°a list of candidates¡± that was ¡°endorsed by a central review body¡± or (b) a competitive examination roster. None of these situations apply in this case. It is unchallenged that the contested selection decision was governed by ST/AI/2010/3/Rev.1 (Staff selection system), which in sec. 3.1 provides that ¡°[t]he process leading to selection and appointment to the D-2 level shall be governed by the provisions of the present administrative instruction¡±. As per sec. 7.7 of ST/AI/2010/3/Rev.1, for a...

Le Tribunal a estim¨¦ que le requ¨¦rant s'¨¦tait livr¨¦ ¨¤ de multiples actions qui constituaient des fautes graves. Par cons¨¦quent, sa conduite a non seulement montr¨¦ un manquement grave aux normes minimales d'int¨¦grit¨¦ conf¨¦r¨¦es ¨¤ un fonctionnaire international, mais elle a ¨¦galement montr¨¦ un m¨¦pris flagrant des r¨¨gles de l'Organisation. La conduite du requ¨¦rant a sap¨¦ la confiance que l'UNICEF avait plac¨¦e en lui. Cette confiance est essentielle ¨¤ la poursuite d'une relation de travail. Dans ces circonstances, le Tribunal a consid¨¦r¨¦ qu'il ¨¦tait appropri¨¦ pour l'UNICEF de mettre fin ¨¤ sa...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant engaged in multiple actions which amounted to serious misconduct. Therefore, his conduct not only displayed a serious failure to uphold the minimal standards of integrity conferred on an international civil servant, but it also displayed a flagrant disregard of the rules of the Organization. The Applicant¡¯s conduct undermined the trust and confidence placed in him by UNICEF. Such trust and confidence are essential for the continuation of an employment relationship. In these circumstances, the Tribunal considered that it was appropriate for UNICEF to end...

Le Tribunal a estim¨¦ que la demande n'¨¦tait pas recevable en ce qui concerne les cinq d¨¦cisions contest¨¦es dans la demande du requ¨¦rant. Le Tribunal a constat¨¦, entre autres, que le requ¨¦rant n'avait pas demand¨¦ d'¨¦valuation de la gestion d'une d¨¦cision contest¨¦e ou que l'¨¦valuation de la gestion du requ¨¦rant ¨¦tait prescrite. En ce qui concerne la d¨¦cision contest¨¦e n¡ã 5, le Tribunal a estim¨¦ que la demande n'¨¦tait pas recevable ratione materiae parce que le requ¨¦rant n'avait pas clairement identifi¨¦ une d¨¦cision administrative susceptible d'¨ºtre r¨¦examin¨¦e.

The Tribunal found that the application was not receivable in respect to the five contested decsions in the Applicant's application. The Tribunal found that, inter alia, the Applicant failed either to request management evaluation of a contested decision or because the Applicant¡¯s management evaluation was time barred. With respect to contested decision 5, the Tribunal found that the application was not receivable ratione materiae because the Applicant had failed to clearly identify a reviewable administrative decision.