91Â鶹ÌìÃÀ

Le Tribunal n'a pas trouv¨¦ de fondement ¨¤ la requ¨ºte. En particulier, le Tribunal n'a trouv¨¦ aucun fondement ¨¤ l'all¨¦gation des requ¨¦rants selon laquelle les d¨¦cisions contest¨¦es ¨¦taient ill¨¦gales ou qu'elles faisaient l'objet d'une discrimination fond¨¦e sur le sexe. Le Tribunal a conclu qu'aucun des requ¨¦rants ne remplissait les conditions requises pour b¨¦n¨¦ficier de l'article 6.3(a)(i). 6.3(a)(i) du cong¨¦ parental en vertu de l'article 1.2 de l'instruction ST/AI/20. 1.2 de l'instruction administrative ST/AI/2023/2, qui fixait la date limite au 1er janvier 2023, et qu'elles ne remplissaient...

The Tribunal found no merit in the application. In particular, the Tribunal found no grounds for the Applicants¡¯ claim that the contested decisions were unlawful or that they were subject to gender discrimination. The Tribunal found that neither Applicant qualified for sec. 6.3(a)(i) parental leave by operation of sec. 1.2 of ST/AI/2023/2, which set a cutoff date of 1 January 2023, nor did they qualify for the 10 weeks special leave under the transitional measures since they did not give birth and were not on maternity leave on 1 January 2023. The Tribunal found that since the Applicants did...

Le Tribunal a estim¨¦ que la d¨¦cision de placer le requ¨¦rant en ALWP ¨¦tait l¨¦gale, raisonnable et proportionn¨¦e, et que le RSSG a raisonnablement exerc¨¦ son autorit¨¦ pour prot¨¦ger le travail du comit¨¦ d'¨¦tablissement des faits (conform¨¦ment ¨¤ l'article 11.3(b) du ST/AI). /2017/1) et pour ¨¦viter tout pr¨¦judice aux int¨¦r¨ºts et ¨¤ la r¨¦putation de l¡¯Organisation (conform¨¦ment ¨¤ la section 11.3(c) du ST/AI/2017/1). Le demandeur n'a pas r¨¦ussi ¨¤ ¨¦tablir que la d¨¦cision contest¨¦e ¨¦tait arbitraire ou capricieuse, motiv¨¦e par un parti pris ou d'autres facteurs ¨¦trangers, ou ¨¦tait entach¨¦e d'une...

The Tribunal found that the decision to place the Applicant on ALWP was lawful, reasonable and proportionate, and that the SRSG reasonably exercised his authority to protect the work of the fact-finding panel (pursuant to sec. 11.3(b) of ST/AI/2017/1) and to avoid any prejudice to the interests and reputation of the Organization (pursuant to sec. 11.3(c) of ST/AI/2017/1). The Applicant failed to discharge the burden of establishing that the contested decision was arbitrary or capricious, motivated by prejudice or other extraneous factors, or was flawed by procedural irregularity or error of...

Compte tenu de la jurisprudence susmentionn¨¦e, le Tribunal estime que le requ¨¦rant doit d¨¦montrer : a) que les d¨¦cisions contest¨¦es lui ¨¦taient sp¨¦cifiquement adress¨¦es sur une base individuelle et qu'elles n'¨¦taient pas d'application g¨¦n¨¦rale pour les autres membres du personnel, et b) que c'est l'Administration qui a pris les d¨¦cisions et non une autre entit¨¦ ou personne ext¨¦rieure ¨¤ l'Organisation des Nations Unies.  

Les dispositions de la circulaire ST/SGB/2019/8, sur lesquelles le requ¨¦rant cherche ¨¤ fonder sa demande, ne sont opposables qu'¨¤ des personnes, et non ¨¤ des gouvernements...

Considering the above jurisprudence, the Tribunal determines that the Applicant must demonstrate: (a) that the contested decisions were specifically addressed to him on an individualized basis and that they were not of general application to other staff members, and (b) that it was the Administration which took the decisions and not some other entity or person outside the United Nations.  

The provisions of ST/SGB/2019/8, on which the Applicant seeks to base his claim are only enforceable against persons, and not governments. The Tribunal therefore has no jurisdiction to adjudicate complaints...

Le Tribunal a estim¨¦ que le requ¨¦rant n¡¯avait pas prouv¨¦ qu¡¯il avait subi un effet d¨¦favorable direct en raison de la d¨¦cision attaqu¨¦e. La d¨¦cision attaqu¨¦e n¡¯est donc pas une d¨¦cision administrative au sens de l¡¯article 2(1) du Statut du Tribunal du contentieux administratif.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant had not proved that he suffered any direct adverse effect on account of the contested decision. The contested decision is therefore not an administrative decision within the meaning of art. 2(1) of the Dispute Tribunal¡¯s Statute.

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...

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...