Â鶹APP

Le Tribunal a ¨¦tabli qu'il n'y avait aucune preuve pour soutenir la position de l'administration. Par cons¨¦quent, le Tribunal a jug¨¦ que la d¨¦cision contest¨¦e ¨¦tait arbitraire, capricieuse et ill¨¦gale.

En ce qui concerne la demande de dommages-int¨¦r¨ºts du requ¨¦rant, le Tribunal a conclu qu'aucune preuve n'avait ¨¦t¨¦ pr¨¦sent¨¦e par le requ¨¦rant et qu'il n'avait donc pas r¨¦ussi ¨¤ s'acquitter de la charge de production et de preuve qui lui incombait. Par cons¨¦quent, la demande de dommages-int¨¦r¨ºts moraux a ¨¦t¨¦ rejet¨¦e.

? la lumi¨¨re des conclusions du Tribunal, le d¨¦fendeur a ¨¦t¨¦ condamn¨¦ ¨¤...

The Tribunal established that there was no evidence to support the Administration¡¯s position. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the contested decision was arbitrary, capricious, and unlawful.

Regarding the Applicant¡¯s claim for damages, the Tribunal concluded that no evidence was presented by the Applicant and thus he failed to sustain his burden of both production and proof. As a result, the request for moral damages was denied.

In light of the Tribunal¡¯s findings, the Respondent was ordered to pay to the Applicant four months of interest on the money that was due to him, calculated at the...

This application is not receivable ratione materiae because the management evalulation request was time-barred.

The application is dismissed.

Le Tribunal a estim¨¦ que les requ¨¦rants n'avaient produit aucune preuve ¨¤ l'appui de l¡¯argument selon lequel les couples h¨¦t¨¦rosexuels se verraient accorder plus de jours de cong¨¦ que les couples homosexuels. Le Tribunal a donc conclu que l'all¨¦gation d'in¨¦galit¨¦ de traitement n'avait pas ¨¦t¨¦ prouv¨¦e par les requ¨¦rants. En cons¨¦quence, la demande a ¨¦t¨¦ rejet¨¦e.

The Tribunal held that the Applicants had produced no evidence to support the premise that heterosexual couples would be awarded more days of leave than same-sex couples. The Tribunal, therefore, concluded that the claim of unequal treatment had not been proven by the Applicants. Accordingly, the application was denied.

Ce recours n'est pas recevable ratione materiae car la demande d'¨¦valuation de la gestion ¨¦tait prescrite.

Le recours est rejet¨¦.

Le Tribunal a not¨¦ que les ¨¦l¨¦ments de preuve dont il disposait comprenaient deux notifications Microsoft Outlook qui ¨¦tablissaient que la d¨¦cision administrative avait ¨¦t¨¦ remise au requ¨¦rant et lue par lui le 28 mars 2023. Le Tribunal a ¨¦galement not¨¦ que le requ¨¦rant n'a pas ni¨¦ l'authenticit¨¦ des notifications Microsoft Outlook.

Le Tribunal a donc estim¨¦ que le requ¨¦rant aurait d? d¨¦poser sa requ¨ºte au plus tard le 26 juin 2023 pour respecter le d¨¦lai de 90 jours calendaires. Il a d¨¦pos¨¦ sa requ¨ºte le 28 juin 2023, soit deux jours apr¨¨s le d¨¦lai l¨¦gal. En cons¨¦quence, la requ¨ºte a ¨¦t¨¦...

The Tribunal noted that the evidence before it included two Microsoft Outlook notifications which established that the administrative decision was delivered to and read by the Applicant on 28 March 2023. The Tribunal further noted that the Applicant did not deny the authenticity of the Microsoft Outlook notifications.

The Tribunal thus held that that the Applicant should have filed his application no later than 26 June 2023 to comply with the 90-calendar day deadline. He filed his application on 28 June 2023, which was two days after the statutory deadline. Accordingly, the application was...

i. Le Tribunal a not¨¦ que, d'apr¨¨s les ¨¦l¨¦ments de preuve vers¨¦s au dossier, le requ¨¦rant n'a jamais ¨¦t¨¦ membre du personnel de la CEA, de la DOS ou de toute autre entit¨¦ de l'Organisation des Nations Unies. Par cons¨¦quent, il n'avait pas de locus standi devant le Tribunal. La requ¨ºte a donc ¨¦t¨¦ rejet¨¦e.

ii. Le Tribunal a ¨¦galement estim¨¦ que la requ¨ºte ¨¦tait frapp¨¦e de l'autorit¨¦ de la chose jug¨¦e. Il a ¨¦t¨¦ rappel¨¦ que le Tribunal avait pr¨¦c¨¦demment rejet¨¦ une requ¨ºte du requ¨¦rant contestant les m¨ºmes griefs que ceux soulev¨¦s dans la pr¨¦sente requ¨ºte. Dans le...

i. The Tribunal noted that based on the evidence on the record, the Applicant was never a staff member of ECA, DOS or any other entity of the Â鶹APP. Accordingly, he had no locus standi before the Tribunal. The application was thus dismissed.

ii. The Tribunal also held that the application was barred by res judicata. It was recalled that the Tribunal had previously rejected an application by the Applicant contesting the same claims he raised in the present application. In Judgment No. UNDT/2022/078, the Tribunal had found that the Applicant was not a staff member and had no legal...

Le Tribunal, sur la base des ¨¦l¨¦ments de preuve figurant au dossier, a ¨¦tabli qu'il existait des preuves claires et convaincantes que le requ¨¦rant ¨¦tait impliqu¨¦ dans le syst¨¨me frauduleux et dans la tentative d'interf¨¦rer avec l'enqu¨ºte sur ce syst¨¨me en incitant un t¨¦moin ¨¤ mentir aux enqu¨ºteurs.

En ce qui concerne la faute, le Tribunal a conclu qu'il ¨¦tait clair que les faits ¨¦tablis constituaient une faute grave.

En ce qui concerne les droits de la d¨¦fense, le Tribunal a conclu que les droits de la d¨¦fense du requ¨¦rant avaient ¨¦t¨¦ respect¨¦s au cours de l'enqu¨ºte et de la proc¨¦dure...

The Tribunal, based on the evidence on the record, established that there was clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant was involved in the fraudulent scheme and in the attempt to interfere with the investigation into that scheme by inducing a witness to lie to investigators.

Regarding misconduct, the Tribunal concluded that it was clear that the established facts qualified as serious misconduct.

On the due process prong, the Tribunal concluded that the Applicant¡¯s due process rights were respected during the investigation and disciplinary process.

On whether the sanction was...