Â鶹APP

Le Tribunal n'est pas comp¨¦tent pour statuer sur le fond de cette demande, ¨¦tant donn¨¦ qu'elle conteste une d¨¦cision qui n'a pas ¨¦t¨¦ soumise ¨¤ l'¨¦valuation de la direction dans les d¨¦lais impartis.

Le Tribunal a ¨¦galement examin¨¦ le bien-fond¨¦ des arguments du requ¨¦rant en ce qui concerne la l¨¦galit¨¦ de la d¨¦cision contest¨¦e. Le requ¨¦rant a encouru des d¨¦penses qui lui ont ¨¦t¨¦ clairement communiqu¨¦es comme ¨¦tant non autoris¨¦es avant son voyage. Il n'y a rien dans le dossier qui montre que la d¨¦cision ¨¦tait entach¨¦e d'irr¨¦gularit¨¦, qu'elle n'avait pas ¨¦t¨¦ prise correctement ou qu'elle ¨¦tait...

The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to determine this application on the merits as it challenges a decision that was not submitted for management evaluation in a timely manner.

The Tribunal also considered the merits of the Applicant¡¯s submissions in respect of the propriety of the impugned decision. The Applicant incurred expenses that were clearly communicated to him as unauthorised prior to his travel. There is nothing on the record to show that the decision was tainted, improperly made or otherwise unlawful. In other words, even if the application had been found to be receivable, it would...

The Tribunal observed that as reflected in the documents on record, the Applicant filed his application on 21 June 2024, but requested management evaluation on 16 August 2024. Furthermore, at the time the Tribunal issued the judgment, the management evaluation response period was still running. It was thus clear that the Applicant filed his application prematurely. Accordingly, the application was rejected as irreceivable. The Tribunal, however, informed the Applicant that he was free to file a new application on the merits, if submitted within the prescribed statutory timelines.

The Tribunal observed that as reflected in the documents on record, the Applicant filed his application on 21 June 2024, but requested management evaluation on 16 August 2024. Furthermore, at the time the Tribunal issued the judgment, the management evaluation response period was still running. It was thus clear that the Applicant filed his application prematurely. Accordingly, the application was rejected as irreceivable. The Tribunal, however, informed the Applicant that he was free to file a new application on the merits, if submitted within the prescribed statutory timelines.

Le Tribunal DECIDE de rejeter le recours dans son int¨¦gralit¨¦

The Tribunal DECIDES to dismiss the application in its entirety.

Le Tribunal a observ¨¦ que, d'apr¨¨s les ¨¦l¨¦ments de preuve figurant dans le dossier, le requ¨¦rant a re?u la d¨¦cision contest¨¦e le 28 ao?t 2023. Pour respecter le d¨¦lai de 60 jours calendaires pour demander une ¨¦valuation de la gestion, la requ¨¦rante aurait d? la soumettre au plus tard le 27 octobre 2023. Or, elle l'a soumise le 8 novembre 2023, soit pr¨¨s de deux semaines plus tard. En cons¨¦quence, le Tribunal a conclu que la demande de contr?le hi¨¦rarchique ¨¦tait prescrite et que, par cons¨¦quent, la requ¨ºte n'¨¦tait pas recevable ratione materiae. Le Tribunal a rejet¨¦ la demande.

The Tribunal observed that according to the evidence on the record, the Applicant received the contested decision on 28 August 2023. To comply with the 60-day calendar days deadline to request management evaluation, the Applicant ought to have submitted it by 27 October 2023. However, she submitted it on 8 November 2023, nearly two weeks later. Accordingly, the Tribunal found that the request for management evaluation was time-barred and, as a result, that the application was not receivable ratione materiae. The Tribunal dismissed the application.

Le Tribunal a not¨¦ que l'ordonnance n¡ã 20 (NBI/2024) dans l'affaire n¡ã UNDT/NBI/2024/008 a rejet¨¦ la demande de suspension de l'action du requ¨¦rant en vertu de l'art. 13 du r¨¨glement int¨¦rieur du Tribunal. Le requ¨¦rant a soutenu que le Tribunal a mal interpr¨¦t¨¦ sa demande dans l'affaire n¡ã UNDT/NBI/2024/008 comme ¨¦tant d¨¦pos¨¦e en vertu de l'art. 13 du R¨¨glement int¨¦rieur de l'UNDT (r¨¦gissant la suspension de l'action pendant une ¨¦valuation de la gestion), plut?t que de l'art. 14 (r¨¦gissant la suspension de l'action pendant la proc¨¦dure) de ces r¨¨gles.

Le Tribunal a estim¨¦ que, dans la mesure...

The Tribunal noted that Order No. 20 (NBI/2024) in Case No. UNDT/NBI/2024/008 rejected the Applicant's application for suspension of action under art. 13 of the UNDT Rules of Procedure. The Applicant maintained that the Tribunal misconstrued his application in Case No. UNDT/NBI/2024/008 as being filed under art. 13 of the UNDT Rules of Procedure (governing suspension of action during a management evaluation), rather than art. 14 (governing suspension of action during the proceedings) of those Rules.

The Tribunal held that to the extent that the Applicant¡¯s intent was to file an application...

Le Tribunal a not¨¦ que, sur la base des ¨¦l¨¦ments de preuve dont il disposait et qui n'¨¦taient pas contest¨¦s par le requ¨¦rant, la lettre de sanction avait ¨¦t¨¦ ¨¦mise le 1er juillet 2022 et que le requ¨¦rant l'avait re?ue le 5 juillet 2022. Conform¨¦ment ¨¤ la r¨¨gle 11.2(b) du R¨¨glement du personnel, les d¨¦cisions disciplinaires ne font pas l'objet d'un contr?le hi¨¦rarchique. Cela signifie que le requ¨¦rant aurait d? d¨¦poser sa requ¨ºte au plus tard le mardi 4 octobre 2022 pour respecter le d¨¦lai de 90 jours calendaires. Il a d¨¦pos¨¦ sa demande le 31 janvier 2024, soit plus d'un an apr¨¨s le d¨¦lai l¨¦gal...

The Tribunal noted that based on the evidence before it and not contested by the Applicant, the sanction letter was issued on 1 July 2022 and the Applicant received it on 5 July 2022. Pursuant to staff rule 11.2(b), disciplinary decisions are not subject to management evaluation. This meant that the Applicant ought to have filed his application no later than Tuesday, 4 October 2022 to comply with the 90-calendar day deadline. He filed his application on 31 January 2024, which was more than a year after the statutory deadline. Accordingly, the Tribunal found the application not receivable ratio...

Le Tribunal a observ¨¦ que l'examen des ¨¦l¨¦ments de preuve dans cette affaire indiquait que l'¨¦valuation de l'entretien du requ¨¦rant par le jury ¨¦tait correcte. Par cons¨¦quent, le Tribunal a estim¨¦ que le requ¨¦rant avait b¨¦n¨¦fici¨¦ d'un examen complet et ¨¦quitable et que l'administration avait suivi toutes les proc¨¦dures applicables.

The Tribunal observed that a review of the evidence in this case indicated that the panel¡¯s assessment of the Applicant¡¯s interview was proper. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the Applicant received full and fair consideration and that the Administration followed all applicable procedures.

Le Tribunal a conclu que la promulgation de l'instruction ST/AI/2018/Rev.1/Amend.1, qui red¨¦finit de mani¨¨re restrictive les frais d'inscription, n'¨¦tait pas conforme ¨¤ la r¨¦solution 70/244 de l'Assembl¨¦e g¨¦n¨¦rale. En tant que telle, sa promulgation constituait un abus du pouvoir discr¨¦tionnaire de l'Administration et son application dans le cadre de l'examen de l'allocation scolaire de la requ¨¦rante pour son fils ¨¦tait ill¨¦gale.
En cons¨¦quence, le Tribunal a estim¨¦ que la requ¨¦rante avait raison de dire que les frais qu'elle r¨¦clamait ¨¦taient admissibles en tant que frais de scolarit¨¦, en...

The Tribunal concluded that the promulgation of ST/AI/2018/Rev.1/Amend.1, which restrictively redefined enrolment-related fees, did not conform to General Assembly resolution 70/244. As such, its promulgation was an abuse of the Administration¡¯s discretion and its application in reviewing the Applicant¡¯s education grant for her son was unlawful.

Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the Applicant was correct in that the fees that she claimed were admissible as tuition, in addition to being enrolment-related. Thus, the decision to deny reimbursement for those fees was unlawful.

The Tribunal...

Le Tribunal a rappel¨¦ qu'en vertu de l'art. 2.1(a) de son statut, il est comp¨¦tent pour conna?tre et juger d'un recours contre "une d¨¦cision administrative dont il est all¨¦gu¨¦ qu'elle n'est pas conforme aux conditions de nomination ou au contrat d'engagement". Le Tribunal d'appel a expliqu¨¦ que cette disposition ¨¦tablit une "condition pr¨¦alable de comp¨¦tence, ¨¤ savoir l'impact imm¨¦diat, direct et n¨¦gatif" de la d¨¦cision administrative contest¨¦e sur le membre du personnel.

Apr¨¨s avoir examin¨¦ le dossier, le Tribunal a conclu qu'en l'esp¨¨ce, il n'y avait pas de preuve d'un tel impact n¨¦gatif...

The Tribunal recalled that under art. 2.1(a) of its Statute, it is competent to hear and pass judgment on an appeal from ¡°an administrative decision that is alleged to be in non-compliance with the terms of appointment or the contract of employment¡±. The Appeals Tribunal explained that this provision establishes a ¡°jurisdictional precondition of an immediate, direct, and adverse impact¡± of the challenged administrative decision upon the staff member.

Having examined the record, the Tribunal concluded that, in this case, there was no showing of such adverse impact on the Applicant. Accordingly...

Le Tribunal a observ¨¦ que les faits de cette affaire ¨¦taient tr¨¨s clairs d'apr¨¨s les t¨¦moignages et le dossier. Le requ¨¦rant a admis que les re?us d'h?tel qu'il avait fournis ¨¤ l'Organisation ¨¦taient faux. Le Tribunal a donc estim¨¦ que le d¨¦fendeur avait prouv¨¦ par des preuves accablantes, au-del¨¤ de tout doute possible, que le requ¨¦rant avait pr¨¦sent¨¦ de faux re?us ¨¤ des fins de remboursement et que, par cons¨¦quent, il avait re?u 18 519,12 USD. Le Tribunal a en outre ¨¦tabli qu'il existait des preuves claires et convaincantes que le requ¨¦rant devait au moins 17 213 USD ¨¤ l'Organisation.

En ce...

The Tribunal observed that the facts of this case were very clear from the testimony and record. The Applicant admitted that the hotel receipts he provided to the Organization were false. The Tribunal, thus, held that the Respondent had proven by overwhelming evidence, beyond all possible doubt, that the Applicant submitted false receipts for reimbursement and that, as a result, he was paid USD18,519.12. The Tribunal, further, established that there was clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant owed the Organization at least USD17,213.

Regarding misconduct, the Tribunal concluded that...