Â鶹APP

L'argument de la requ¨¦rante selon lequel l'ancienne r¨¨gle du personnel 3.17(b) (aujourd'hui r¨¨gle du personnel 3.15) ¨¦tait/est pertinente aux fins du calcul du d¨¦lai dans lequel elle aurait d? demander une ¨¦valuation de la gestion est erron¨¦. L'ancienne r¨¨gle du personnel 3.17(b) (maintenant r¨¨gle du personnel 3.15) concerne la r¨¦troactivit¨¦ des paiements, et non la question de l'augmentation d'¨¦chelon qui est l'objet de sa demande.

The Applicant¡¯s argument that the former staff rule 3.17(b) (now staff rule 3.15) was/is relevant for purposes of computation of the time within which she should have sought management evaluation is flawed. The former staff rule 3.17(b) (now staff rule 3.15) relates to retroactivity of payments, and not to the issue of increase of step which is what her application is about.

Le courriel du conseil de la requ¨¦rante du 12 juin 2023 n'a pas r¨¦initialis¨¦ le d¨¦lai pour permettre ¨¤ la requ¨¦rante de contester tous les commentaires de son superviseur dans son RAP, et il n'¨¦tait pas non plus susceptible de suspendre le d¨¦lai, ¨¦tant donn¨¦ que le d¨¦lai de la requ¨¦rante pour contester tous les commentaires de son superviseur a expir¨¦ avant la discussion du 12 juin 2023. Et comme il a ¨¦t¨¦ dit, il s'agissait d'une proposition dans le cadre d'une discussion inter partes qui n'impliquait pas le Bureau du M¨¦diateur.

?tant donn¨¦ que la requ¨¦rante a obtenu le redressement qu'elle...

The Applicant¡¯s Counsel¡¯s email of 12 June 2023 did not reset the time limit for allowing the Applicant to contest all of her supervisor¡¯s comments in her PER, nor was it capable of suspending the time limit, given that the Applicant¡¯s deadline for contesting all of her supervisor¡¯s comments expired before the discussion of 12 June 2023. And as was submitted, it was a proposal in the context of inter partes discussion that did not involve the Office of the Ombudsman.

Since the Applicant got the relief which she sought regarding the one aspect of the PER which she subjected to management...

Le comit¨¦ d¡¯enqu¨ºte a enqu¨ºt¨¦ de mani¨¨re appropri¨¦e sur 13 des all¨¦gations de la requ¨¦rante (voir par. 113 du jugement). Il n¡¯a cependant pas enqu¨ºt¨¦ de mani¨¨re ad¨¦quate sur six des all¨¦gations de la requ¨¦rante (voir par. 115 du jugement).

Par cons¨¦quent, le fonctionnaire responsable a agi sur la base d¡¯un rapport partiellement d¨¦fectueux et la d¨¦cision de cl?turer le dossier par une action manag¨¦riale ne peut pas ¨ºtre maintenue en ce qui concerne les plaintes qui n¡¯ont pas fait l¡¯objet d¡¯une enqu¨ºte appropri¨¦e.

Compte tenu du temps ¨¦coul¨¦ depuis que les ¨¦v¨¦nements ¨¤ l¡¯appui des all¨¦gations de...

The investigation panel properly investigated 13 of the Applicant¡¯s allegations (see para. 113 of the Judgment). It did not however properly investigate six of the Applicant¡¯s allegations (see para. 115 of the Judgment).

Consequently, the responsible official acted on a partially defective report and the decision to close the case with managerial action cannot stand with respect to the complaints that were not properly investigated.

In view of the time lapse since the events in support of the Applicant¡¯s allegations that were not properly investigated occurred, the Tribunal does not find it...

Bien que la plainte contre l¡¯ancien Haut-Commissaire ait ¨¦t¨¦ d¨¦pos¨¦e sous le titre ST/SGB/2008/5, son enqu¨ºte et la d¨¦cision contest¨¦e ont ¨¦t¨¦ entreprises sous le titre ST/SGB/2019/8 et ST/AI/2017/1, conform¨¦ment ¨¤ l¡¯art. 8.3 de ST/SGB/2019/8.

L¡¯aspect de la requ¨ºte dont le d¨¦fendeur a contest¨¦ la recevabilit¨¦ concerne la mani¨¨re dont les plaintes pour abus de pouvoir du requ¨¦rant, d¨¦pos¨¦es au titre des ST/SGB/2008/5 et ST/SGB/2019/8, ont fait l¡¯objet d¡¯une enqu¨ºte. Ce fait am¨¨ne cet aspect de la demande dans le cadre de Nwuke 2010-UNAT-099. Par cons¨¦quent, la totalit¨¦ de la requ¨ºte est...

Although the complaint against the former High Commissioner was made under ST/SGB/2008/5, its investigation and the contested decision were undertaken under ST/SGB/2019/8 and ST/AI/2017/1, in keeping with sec. 8.3 of ST/SGB/2019/8.

The aspect of the application whose receivability the Respondent objected to relates to the way the Applicant¡¯s complaints of abuse of authority, which were laid under ST/SGB/2008/5 and ST/SGB/2019/8, were investigated. This fact brings that aspect of the application into the ambit of Nwuke 2010-UNAT-099. Consequently, the totality of the application is receivable...

La section 10.1 du bulletin ST/SGB/2017/2/Rev.1 pr¨¦voit que l'action ou l'inaction de l'Administration suite ¨¤ une recommandation du Bureau de l'¨¦thique en vertu de l'article 8 constituera une d¨¦cision administrative contestable en vertu du chapitre XI du R¨¨glement du personnel si elle a un fondement juridique direct. cons¨¦quences affectant les modalit¨¦s et conditions d¡¯engagement du plaignant. Le Tribunal a donc jug¨¦ la requ¨ºte recevable.

Afin de d¨¦terminer si la d¨¦cision de ne pas mettre en ?uvre les recommandations du pr¨¦sident suppl¨¦ant de mars 2020 ¨¦tait arbitraire, le Tribunal a examin¨¦...

Sec. 10.1 of ST/SGB/2017/2/Rev.1 provides that the action or inaction of the Administration on a recommendation from the Ethics Office under section 8 will constitute a contestable administrative decision under chapter XI of the Staff Rules if it has direct legal consequences affecting the terms and conditions of appointment of the complainant. The Tribunal, therefore, found that the application was receivable.

To determine whether the decision not to implement the March 2020 Alternate Chair¡¯s recommendations was arbitrary, the Tribunal examined the grounds on which it was based.

The...

Il est courant que les recommandations, actes ou d¨¦terminations de l¡¯UNEO soient sans cons¨¦quences juridiques directes et ne constituent pas des d¨¦cisions administratives. Le rejet par l¡¯Administration du rapport du pr¨¦sident suppl¨¦ant de mars 2020 n'a pas constitu¨¦ une demande adress¨¦e au Bureau de l¡¯¨¦thique pour son examen, c¡¯est-¨¤-dire ? un examen de l¡¯examen ?. Les documents disponibles montrent que, dans le cadre juridique applicable, des ¨¦changes ont eu lieu entre l'Administration, le Bureau de la d¨¦ontologie et le BSCI concernant l'acceptation ou la non-acceptation du rapport et des...

It is common cause that the recommendations, acts, or determinations of the UNEO are without direct legal consequences and do not constitute administrative decisions. The Administration¡¯s rejection of the March 2020 Alternate Chair¡¯s report did not represent a request to the Ethics Office for its review, i.e., ¡°a review of the review¡±. Available documentary evidence is that, within the applicable legal framework, exchanges took place between the Administration, the Ethics Office and OIOS concerning the acceptance or non-acceptance of the March 2020 Alternate Chair¡¯s report and recommendations...

Il a ¨¦t¨¦ ¨¦tabli par les preuves au dossier que le requ¨¦rant s'est engag¨¦ dans des contacts non autoris¨¦s avec les ?tats membres et l'UE, les m¨¦dias et les m¨¦dias sociaux. Il n'a pas non plus ¨¦t¨¦ contest¨¦ que ces communications externes contenaient des all¨¦gations selon lesquelles l'ONU et ses fonctionnaires ¨¦taient impliqu¨¦s dans des actes graves de mauvaise conduite et des crimes de droit international, y compris la complicit¨¦ de g¨¦nocide.
Il restait ¨¤ d¨¦terminer si la requ¨¦rante avait une justification l¨¦gale pour sa conduite en vertu de la politique de protection contre les repr¨¦sailles...

It was established by the evidence on record that the Applicant engaged in unauthorized contacts with Member States and the EU, media outlets and social media. It was also undisputed that said external communications included allegations that the UN and its officials were involved in serious acts of misconduct and crimes of international law, including complicity in genocide.

What was left to be determined was whether the Applicant had a lawful justification for her conduct under the Protection Against Retaliation (PAR) Policy, and whether said conduct legally amounted to misconduct.

With...

Les all¨¦gations selon lesquelles le requ¨¦rant a utilis¨¦ de mani¨¨re inappropri¨¦e son ordinateur portable fourni par le PNUD pour acc¨¦der ¨¤ des sites Internet contenant de la pornographie et d'autres contenus sexuellement explicites et faisant la publicit¨¦ de services d'escorte, ont ¨¦t¨¦ ¨¦tablies par des preuves claires et convaincantes bas¨¦es sur le rapport d'expertise de son ordinateur, les aveux partiels du requ¨¦rant et plusieurs contradictions.
Il existe ¨¦galement des preuves claires et convaincantes que le requ¨¦rant s'est engag¨¦ dans trois cas d'activit¨¦s ext¨¦rieures non autoris¨¦es en tant...

The allegations that the Applicant improperly used his UNDP-issued laptop to access websites that contained pornography and other sexually explicit material and advertised escort services, has been established by clear and convincing evidence based on the investigations forensic report of his computer, the Applicant's partial admittance and several contradictions.There is also clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant engaged in three instances of unauthorised outside activities by being the Director and major shareholder of a company, and engaging in other business ventures in...

Le d¨¦fendeur n'a pas r¨¦ussi ¨¤ obtenir la pr¨¦sence de deux victimes ¨¤ l'audience de renvoi. Quatre t¨¦moins ont d¨¦pos¨¦ devant le Tribunal, dont une seule victime. Aucun de leurs t¨¦moignages ne corrobore les accusations port¨¦es. Au contraire, ils sont ¨¤ d¨¦charge dans la mesure o¨´ les trois t¨¦moins ont d¨¦clar¨¦ qu'ils n'avaient pas vu le requ¨¦rant faire quoi que ce soit de r¨¦pr¨¦hensible lors de l'¨¦v¨¦nement en question. En cons¨¦quence, il n'y a pas de r¨¦ponse effective aux pr¨¦occupations qui ont form¨¦ la base de la d¨¦cision des Tribunaux d'appel de renvoyer l'affaire pour une nouvelle audience.

Ni...

The Respondent failed to secure the attendance of two victims at the remanded hearing. Four witnesses testified before the Tribunal, including only one victim. None of their testimonies corroborates the charges as laid. On the contrary, they are exculpatory in so far as all three witnesses testify that they did not see the Applicant doing anything improper at the event in question. Accordingly, there is no effective response to the concerns that formed the basis for the Appeals Tribunals¡¯ decision to remand the case for a fresh hearing.

Neither the allegations memorandum nor the sanction...

La question qui se pose en l'esp¨¨ce est de savoir si EG et SEG constituent deux prestations ind¨¦pendantes qui peuvent ¨ºtre accord¨¦es de mani¨¨re combin¨¦e.
Conform¨¦ment ¨¤ la sec. 6.1(a) de ST/AI/2018/2/Amend.1, le montant maximum global de SEG doit ¨ºtre ¨¦gal ¨¤ la limite sup¨¦rieure de la tranche sup¨¦rieure de l'¨¦chelle mobile globale applicable au r¨¦gime d'allocation d'¨¦tudes. La loi ne permet pas une interpr¨¦tation o¨´ EG et SEG peuvent ¨ºtre "superpos¨¦s".
En effet, la diff¨¦rence entre AE et AES r¨¦side dans les pourcentages de remboursement auxquels les membres du personnel ¨¦ligibles ont droit...

The issue in this case is whether EG and SEG consist of two independent benefits that can be granted in combination.

Pursuant to sec. 6.1(a) of ST/AI/2018/2/Amend.1, the overall maximum amount of SEG shall be equal to the upper limit of the top bracket of the global sliding scale applicable to the education grant scheme. The law does not allow an interpretation where EG and SEG can be ¡°stacked¡±.

Indeed, the difference between EG and SEG is in the percentages of reimbursement that eligible staff members are entitled to receive. This difference in reimbursement percentage addresses the...