Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Although the Applicant disagrees with the assessment made during the interview as to whether she satisfied particular competency requirements and regarding her overall suitability for the post, the interview panel was entitled to come to its own conclusions regarding the Applicant¡¯s suitability.

The Tribunals have consistently held that it is not its role to substitute its judgment for that of the hiring manager or the decision-maker. The Tribunal's review is limited to ensuring that the decision was made in accordance with the applicable rules and procedures, and that there was no improper...

On delegation on authority, the Respondent argued that the presumption of regularity avoids the need for proof absent a prima facie case. This argument is entirely correct. The Respondent was required to and submitted email correspondence between the ASG/OHRM and the USG/DMSPC regarding this case. In that correspondence, the ASG/OHRM attaches her recommendation to impose a disciplinary sanction on the Applicant, along with a ¡°detailed analysis in the body to the recommendation.¡± In response, the USG/DMSPC writes¡°Recommendation approved.¡± The Tribunal was therefore convinced that the contested...

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 application is therefore not receivable ratione materiae.

The Applicant¡¯s contention in respect of his putative privileges and immunities as a staff member of the United Nations is misconceived. Section 20 of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations is clear: Privileges and immunities are granted to officials in the interests of the United Nations and not for the personal benefit of the...

a. Regarding the first contested decision, the Tribunal established that based on the evidence on record, the Organization terminated the Applicant¡¯s appointment under staff rule 9.6(c) due to the abolishment of the post that he encumbered. Accordingly, the Tribunal concluded that the termination of the Applicant¡¯s permanent appointment on the basis of abolishment of his post was procedurally proper and lawful.

b. On the second issue, the Tribunal established that based on the evidence before it, the Organization had fulfilled its obligation under staff rule 9.6(c) to make reasonable and good...

The Tribunal found that the 29 February 2024 decision constituted a fresh administrative decision and not a mere reiteration of the 9 August 2023 decision as argued by the Respondent.

Just as a staff member may not reset the clock by repeatedly questioning the original decision, the Organization may not freeze the clock and deprive a staff member of their right to a new decision based on new circumstances.

The substantive issue in this case was whether the Administration properly exercised its discretion in not granting the Applicant telecommuting arrangements. The Tribunal found that the...

Le requ¨¦rant s'est vu notifier la d¨¦cision de rejeter sa demande pour n¨¦gligence grave le 8 avril 2024, ce qui ne correspond pas ¨¤ la d¨¦finition de ? d¨¦cision administrative ? au sens de l'article 2.1(a) du Statut du Tribunal. 2.1(a) du Statut du Tribunal.

La n¨¦gligence all¨¦gu¨¦e des fonctionnaires des Nations Unies n'¨¦tant pas une cause d'action accessible aux membres du personnel et ne relevant pas de la comp¨¦tence du Tribunal, le requ¨¦rant ne pouvait pas introduire une plainte pour n¨¦gligence grave.

Le requ¨¦rant a ¨¦t¨¦ inform¨¦ de la d¨¦cision de rejeter sa demande pour n¨¦gligence grave le 8...

The Applicant was notified of the decision to deny his gross negligence claim on 8 April 2024, it did not meet the definition of ¡°administrative decision¡± within the meaning of art. 2.1(a) of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute.

Because alleged negligence by United Nations officials is not a cause of action available to staff members and is beyond the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, the Applicant could not bring a claim of gross negligence.

The Applicant was notified of the decision to deny his gross negligence claim on 8 April 2024. He was required to request management evaluation within 60 calendar days from...

La demande a ¨¦t¨¦ accueillie en partie.

Le Tribunal a annul¨¦ la mesure disciplinaire de cessation de service impos¨¦e au requ¨¦rant et a ordonn¨¦ sa r¨¦int¨¦gration ou, ¨¤ titre subsidiaire, le versement d'une indemnit¨¦ calcul¨¦e sur la base de deux (2) ann¨¦es de salaire de base net.

Pour le reste, la d¨¦cision du d¨¦fendeur est AFFIRM?E et les requ¨ºtes du requ¨¦rant sont rejet¨¦es.

The Application was granted in part.

The Tribunal rescinded the disciplinary measure of separation from service imposed on the Applicant, and ordered reinstatement or, in the alternative, compensation in lieu, calculated at two (2) year¡¯s net base salary.

In all other respects, the Respondent¡¯s decision is AFFIRMED and the Applicant¡¯s prayers refused.

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT a estim¨¦ que l'imposition d'une sanction n'est pas un simple exercice m¨¦canique, puisque la sanction ne doit pas ¨ºtre ? plus excessive qu'il n'est n¨¦cessaire pour obtenir le r¨¦sultat souhait¨¦.

Un bl?me ¨¦crit aurait ¨¦t¨¦ une ? cons¨¦quence significative ? appropri¨¦e et suffisante pour faire comprendre au requ¨¦rant l'erreur de ses actions. Le dossier indique que le requ¨¦rant a reconnu qu'il aurait d? demander une autorisation avant d'enregistrer sa soci¨¦t¨¦.

Le Tribunal estime donc que la sanction en l'esp¨¨ce ¨¦tait disproportionn¨¦e par rapport ¨¤ la faute commise en ajoutant au bl?me ¨¦crit une...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that imposition of a sanction is not just a mechanical exercise, since the sanction should not be ¡°more excessive than is necessary for obtaining the desired result.

A written censure would have been a suitably ¡°meaningful consequence¡± and sufficient to impress upon the Applicant the error of his actions. The record indicates that he acknowledged that he should have sought authorisation before registering his company.

The Tribunal therefore finds that the sanction in this case was disproportionate to the misconduct by adding to the written censure an additional, unnecessary...

Le Tribunal a estim¨¦ que les faits ¨¤ l'origine de la sanction disciplinaire ¨¦taient prouv¨¦s par des preuves claires et convaincantes et qu'ils ¨¦taient tr¨¨s graves. La requ¨¦rante a admis les faits sur la base desquels la sanction disciplinaire a ¨¦t¨¦ prononc¨¦e. Le Tribunal a rejet¨¦ les divers arguments de la requ¨¦rante selon lesquels elle n'avait pas restitu¨¦ les sommes d¨¦pos¨¦es par erreur sur son compte personnel par l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFCU, estimant qu'il n'y avait aucune preuve que la requ¨¦rante avait droit ¨¤ l'annexe D ou ¨¤ des prestations de s¨¦paration, et que le fait que l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFCU n'ait pas pr¨¦cis¨¦ qui...

The Tribunal held that the facts upon which the disciplinary sanction was issued were proven by claer and convincing evidence and very serious. The Applicant admitted the facts upon which the discipline was imposted. The Tribunal rejected the Applicant's various arguments for which she failed to return monies erroneously deposited to her personal account by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFCU, holding that there was no evidence that the Applicant was entitled to Appendix D or separation benefits, that the failure by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFCU to provide specifics of who had made the erroneous transfer was irrelevant. The Tribunal further...