Â鶹APP

La demande peut ¨ºtre tranch¨¦e par un arr¨ºt sommaire car il n'y a pas eu de controverse sur les faits et la question juridique en jeu a d¨¦j¨¤ ¨¦t¨¦ tranch¨¦e par ce Tribunal dans son arr¨ºt Krioutchkov UNDT/2021/052.

Le requ¨¦rant a d¨¦cid¨¦ de ne pas participer ¨¤ l'¨¦valuation ¨¦crite, qui ¨¦tait une ¨¦tape obligatoire de la proc¨¦dure de recrutement. Il s'ensuit que sa non-s¨¦lection pour le poste vacant ¨¦tait exclusivement la cons¨¦quence de ses propres actions et, conform¨¦ment ¨¤ Loeber 2018-UNAT-836, il s'est emp¨ºch¨¦ de contester le r¨¦sultat de la s¨¦lection.

Bien que le calendrier de l'¨¦valuation ¨¦crite...

The application can be decided through a summary judgment as there was no controversy on the facts, and the legal matter at stake was already been decided by this Tribunal in its Judgment Krioutchkov UNDT/2021/052.

The Applicant decided not to participate in the written assessment, which was a compulsory step in the recruitment process. It follows that his non-selection for the vacant post was exclusively a consequence of his own actions and, as per Loeber 2018-UNAT-836, he stopped himself from contesting the selection outcome.

Although the schedule of the written assessment was probably...

La question qui se pose en l'esp¨¨ce est de savoir si le requ¨¦rant a un int¨¦r¨ºt l¨¦gitime ¨¤ maintenir la proc¨¦dure judiciaire en cours.

Les preuves au dossier montrent que le d¨¦fendeur a annul¨¦ la d¨¦cision contest¨¦e le 23 mars 2023. La requ¨¦rante l'a reconnu dans sa duplique mais consid¨¨re que ses griefs ne sont pas r¨¦solus parce qu'elle "a ¨¦galement demand¨¦ que de nouvelles affectations soient envisag¨¦es et que la lettre du 3 ao?t 2022 soit r¨¦¨¦mise".
Cependant, la lettre du 23 mars 2023, qui annule clairement la d¨¦cision contest¨¦e, ¨¦quivaut ¨¤ une r¨¦¨¦mission de la lettre du 3 ao?t 2022.

Il s...

?tant donn¨¦ que la requ¨¦rante a opt¨¦ pour le paiement de la prime de rapatriement au taux de d¨¦pendance, deux options s'offraient ¨¤ son mari :

a. Demander une prime de rapatriement au taux simple pour la p¨¦riode de service post¨¦rieure ¨¤ la cessation de service de la requ¨¦rante jusqu'¨¤ la date de sa cessation de service ; ou

b. Si elle a droit ¨¤ un taux pour personnes ¨¤ charge, de demander ce taux pour toute la p¨¦riode de service ouvrant droit ¨¤ la prime, moins le montant de la prime vers¨¦e ¨¤ la requ¨¦rante.

Les preuves au dossier montrent que le mari de la requ¨¦rante a servi...

La requ¨¦rante affirme que l'¨¦valuation pr¨¦liminaire de sa plainte ¨¦tait erron¨¦e, car elle ne prenait pas en compte la totalit¨¦ des preuves, et que l'OIAI ¨¦tait partial et appliquait une norme illusoire au niveau de gravit¨¦ impliqu¨¦ dans le harc¨¨lement et l'abus d'autorit¨¦ all¨¦gu¨¦s.

Cependant, malgr¨¦ le nombre d'all¨¦gations faites par le requ¨¦rant, le Tribunal note qu'aucune preuve n'a ¨¦t¨¦ fournie pour ¨¦tayer la conclusion que la d¨¦cision contest¨¦e est ill¨¦gale, d¨¦raisonnable ou inappropri¨¦e, ni que l'¨¦valuation pr¨¦liminaire ¨¦tait erron¨¦e.

Au contraire, il est clair que le Bureau de l...

Il incombe ¨¤ la requ¨¦rante d'all¨¦guer et de prouver que sa plainte n'a pas ¨¦t¨¦ trait¨¦e conform¨¦ment aux proc¨¦dures applicables et/ou qu'il n'y a pas eu d'¨¦valuation correcte des ¨¦l¨¦ments de preuve pertinents et disponibles, ce qui a conduit ¨¤ une d¨¦cision manifestement d¨¦raisonnable.

Apr¨¨s un examen minutieux du dossier et des ¨¦l¨¦ments de preuve dont il dispose, le Tribunal n'a identifi¨¦ aucune irr¨¦gularit¨¦ de proc¨¦dure commise par le BSCI dans son ¨¦valuation pr¨¦liminaire, ni aucun acte r¨¦pr¨¦hensible. Au contraire, le Tribunal estime que la d¨¦cision de classer la plainte sans suite ¨¦tait bien...

La demande de contr?le hi¨¦rarchique pr¨¦sent¨¦e par le requ¨¦rant le 15 novembre 2021 contre l'in¨¦ligibilit¨¦ ¨¤ l'allocation scolaire des ressortissants fran?ais r¨¦sidant en France voisine et servant ¨¤ Gen¨¨ve ¨¦tait prescrite. En tant que tel, cet aspect de la requ¨ºte n'est pas recevable ratione materiae. N¨¦anmoins, compte tenu des circonstances de l'esp¨¨ce, le refus de l'Administration du 22 septembre 2021 de la demande d'allocation scolaire 2020/2021 de la requ¨¦rante constitue une nouvelle d¨¦cision administrative. En tant que tel, le d¨¦lai de 60 jours pour demander l'¨¦valuation de la gestion de...

Le Tribunal a ¨¦valu¨¦ les preuves recueillies par les enqu¨ºteurs concernant chaque incident et a conclu que, dans la plupart des cas, il n'y avait aucune preuve directe ou corroborante de harc¨¨lement ou de harc¨¨lement sexuel, et que les enqu¨ºteurs avaient fond¨¦ leurs conclusions uniquement sur le r¨¦cit de V01. ?tant donn¨¦ que presque toutes les preuves ¨¤ l'appui de la conclusion de mauvaise conduite proviennent du t¨¦moignage de V01, par opposition ¨¤ celui du requ¨¦rant, l'¨¦tablissement de la cr¨¦dibilit¨¦ de V01 est un exercice essentiel pour un jugement appropri¨¦ de l'affaire.

Cependant, l...

La recevabilit¨¦ de la requ¨ºte

Apr¨¨s avoir examin¨¦ la demande dans son int¨¦gralit¨¦, le Tribunal note que le requ¨¦rant a identifi¨¦ la d¨¦cision du 1er octobre 2021 comme ¨¦tant la d¨¦cision administrative finale, et que dans sa demande d'¨¦valuation de la gestion, il a explicitement mentionn¨¦ la d¨¦cision du 1er octobre 2021 comme ¨¦tant la d¨¦cision ¨¤ ¨¦valuer.

Compte tenu de la diff¨¦rence entre l'¨¦l¨¦ment fondamental des d¨¦cisions du 12 ao?t 2021 et du 1er octobre 2021, ¨¤ savoir le montant du trop-per?u ¨¤ recouvrer, le Tribunal ne peut que conclure que la d¨¦cision du 1er octobre 2021 constitue une...

La sanction impos¨¦e ¨¦tait-elle conforme ¨¤ la pratique pass¨¦e ?
Le demandeur n¡¯a pas r¨¦ussi ¨¤ d¨¦montrer que la sanction impos¨¦e ¨¦tait incompatible avec la pratique ant¨¦rieure pour les raisons suivantes :
Premi¨¨rement, il appartient ¨¤ l¡¯Administration d¡¯identifier des cas ant¨¦rieurs comparables. En effet, il n¡¯appartient ni au Tribunal ni au requ¨¦rant de ? choisir ? quels pr¨¦c¨¦dents l¡¯Administration devrait prendre en consid¨¦ration pour d¨¦terminer la sanction appropri¨¦e. Deuxi¨¨mement, apr¨¨s une analyse minutieuse de la lettre de sanction de 2022, le Tribunal estime que l¡¯Administration a...

Considering that the Applicant opted for payment of the repatriation grant at the dependency rate, two options were open to her husband:

a.To claim a repatriation grant at the single rate for the period of service subsequent to the Applicant¡¯s separation up to the date of his separation from service; or

b.If eligible to a dependency rate, to claim that rate for the whole period of qualifying service, minus the amount of the grant paid to the Applicant.

The evidence on record shows that the Applicant¡¯s husband served three years after the Applicant¡¯s separation. For these three years of non...

Whether the application is receivable

Having reviewed the application in its entirety, the Tribunal notes that the Applicant identified the decision of 1 October 2021 as the final administrative decision, and that in his request for management evaluation he explicitly listed the decision of 1 October 2021 as the decision to be evaluated.

Noting the difference in the fundamental element of the decisions of 12 August 2021 and 1 October 2021, i.e., the amount of the overpayment to be recovered, the Tribunal cannot but conclude that the decision of 1 October 2021 constitutes a new administrative...

The Applicant claims that the preliminary assessment of her complaint was flawed, for not taking into consideration the totality of the evidence, and that OIAI was biased and applied an illusory standard to the level of gravity involved in the alleged harassment and abuse of authority.

However, notwithstanding the number of allegations made by the Applicant, the Tribunal notes that no evidence was provided to support a finding that the contested decision is illegal, unreasonable or improper, nor that the preliminary assessment was flawed.

On the contrary, it is clear that OIAI did in fact...

Whether the sanction imposed was consistent with past practice.

The Applicant failed to demonstrate that the sanction imposed was inconsistent with past practice for the following reasons:

First, it is within the Administration¡¯s discretion to identify comparable previous cases. Indeed, it is neither for the Tribunal nor for the Applicant to ¡°pick and choose¡± what precedents the Administration should take into consideration in determining the appropriate sanction. Second, after a careful analysis of the 2022 Sanction Letter, the Tribunal finds that the Administration has properly considered...

It is incumbent on the Applicant to allege and to prove that her complaint was not handled following the applicable procedures and/or that there was a failure to properly assess relevant and available evidence, which led to a manifestly unreasonable decision. After a careful review of the case file and the evidence before it, the Tribunal has not identified any procedural irregularity committed by OIOS in its preliminary assessment nor any wrongdoing. Instead, the Tribunal finds that the decision to close the complaint without any further action was well?substantiated and in line with the...

The Applicant¡¯s request for management evaluation on 15 November 2021 against the ineligibility to the education grant for French nationals residing in neighbouring France and serving in Geneva was time- barred. As such, this aspect of the application is not receivable ratione materiae. Nevertheless, considering the circumstances of the case, the 22 September 2021 Administration¡¯s denial of the Applicant¡¯s 2020/2021 education grant claim constitutes a new administrative decision. As such, the 60-day deadline for requesting management evaluation of this decision started to run from 22 September...

The issue at stake in the case at hand is whether the Applicant has a legitimate interest in maintaining current legal proceedings. The evidence on record shows that the Respondent rescinded the contested decision on 23 March 2023. The Applicant acknowledged this in her rejoinder but considers that her grievances are not resolved because she ¡°also requested consideration for new assignments and a reissuance of the 3 August 2022 letter¡±.However, the 23 March 2023 letter, which clearly rescinded the contested decision, amounts to a reissuance of the 3 August 2022 letter. It follows that the...

L'Administration a ¨¦tabli qu'il existe des preuves claires et convaincantes que le requ¨¦rant s'est livr¨¦ ¨¤ un conflit d'int¨¦r¨ºts dans les proc¨¦dures de passation de march¨¦s et qu'il a fait un usage abusif des biens du PNUD.

En vertu des r¨¨gles et r¨¨glements applicables, le requ¨¦rant avait clairement l'obligation de divulguer de mani¨¨re compl¨¨te et pr¨¦cise ses liens personnels avec Prime Options et St. Paul's, qui constituaient des motifs de conflit d'int¨¦r¨ºts, et de se r¨¦cuser de toute participation aux proc¨¦dures de passation de march¨¦s impliquant ces deux vendeurs. Cependant, le requ¨¦rant n...

The Tribunal assessed the evidence gathered by the investigators in relation to each incident and concluded that, in most instances, there was no direct or corroboratory evidence of harassment or sexual harassment, and the investigators based their conclusions solely on V01¡¯s narrative. Since almost all the evidence in support of the finding of misconduct comes from V01¡¯s testimony, in opposition to that of the Applicant, establishing V01¡¯s credibility is an essential exercise for a proper adjudication of the case.

However, the investigation failed to adequately establish the reliability of...

The Administration has established that there is clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant engaged in a conflict of interest in procurement processes and that he misused UNDP property.

Under relevant rules and regulations, the Applicant clearly had an obligation to disclose fully and accurately his personal connection with Prime Options and St. Paul¡¯s, which were grounds to support a conflict of interest, and to recuse himself from any involvement in the procurement processes involving those two vendors. However, neither did the Applicant disclose the actual or possible conflicts of...