±¬ÁÏÍø

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...

En ce qui concerne la question de savoir si les faits ont ¨¦t¨¦ ¨¦tablis par des preuves claires et convaincantes, le Tribunal a estim¨¦ que, sur la base des t¨¦moignages cr¨¦dibles et des autres ¨¦l¨¦ments de preuve figurant dans le dossier, le d¨¦fendeur avait ¨¦tabli par des preuves claires et convaincantes que le requ¨¦rant avait commis les actes ¨¤ l'origine de la mesure disciplinaire impos¨¦e. Le Tribunal a estim¨¦ que le t¨¦moignage de la victime ¨¦tait cr¨¦dible et a ¨¦tabli que le requ¨¦rant avait effectivement harcel¨¦ sexuellement la victime. En ce qui concerne l'inconduite, le Tribunal a conclu qu'il...

On whether the facts were established by clear and convincing evidence, the Tribunal held that, based on the credible testimony and the other evidence in the record, the Respondent had established by clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant committed the acts upon which the disciplinary measure was imposed. The Tribunal found the testimony of the victim to be credible and established that the Applicant had indeed sexually harassed the victim. Regarding misconduct, the Tribunal concluded that there was sufficient evidence of sexual harassment and which did constitute serious misconduct...

En ce qui concerne la question de savoir si les faits ont ¨¦t¨¦ ¨¦tablis par des preuves claires et convaincantes, le Tribunal a estim¨¦ que le t¨¦moignage de chacun des t¨¦moins du d¨¦fendeur ¨¦tait cr¨¦dible et que le t¨¦moignage du requ¨¦rant ne m¨¦ritait pas d'¨ºtre cru. Sur la base des t¨¦moignages cr¨¦dibles et des autres ¨¦l¨¦ments de preuve figurant dans le dossier, le Tribunal a estim¨¦ que le d¨¦fendeur avait ¨¦tabli par des preuves claires et convaincantes que le requ¨¦rant avait commis les actes ¨¤ l'origine de la mesure disciplinaire.

En ce qui concerne l'inconduite, le Tribunal a conclu qu'il y avait...

On whether the facts were established by clear and convincing evidence, the Tribunal found the testimony of each of the Respondent¡¯s witnesses to be credible and the testimony of the Applicant to be not worthy of belief. Based on the credible testimony and the other evidence in the record, the Tribunal held that the Respondent had established by clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant committed the acts upon which the disciplinary measure was imposed.

Regarding misconduct, the Tribunal concluded that there was sufficient evidence of sexual harassment, harassment, and abuse of...

Having received the management evaluation response on 25 October 2022, the Applicant had 90 days to file an application in accordance with art. 8(1)(d)(i)(a) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute, that is, by 23 January 2023, but failed to do so. Therefore, insofar that the application is premised on the management evaluation response of 25 October 2022, it is not receivable ratione temporis.

In respect to the 4 October 2022 decision, the Applicant did not request management evaluation of said decision and the application is therefore not receivable ratione materiae.

To the extent that the Applicant received...

Ayant re?u la r¨¦ponse de l'¨¦valuation de la gestion le 25 octobre 2022, le requ¨¦rant disposait de 90 jours pour d¨¦poser une demande conform¨¦ment ¨¤ l'article 8(1)(d)(i(a) du Statut de l'±¬ÁÏÍøDT. 8(1)(d)(i)(a) du Statut de l'±¬ÁÏÍøDT, c'est-¨¤-dire avant le 23 janvier 2023, mais ne l'a pas fait. Par cons¨¦quent, dans la mesure o¨´ la demande est fond¨¦e sur la r¨¦ponse de l'¨¦valuation de la gestion du 25 octobre 2022, elle n'est pas recevable ratione temporis.

En ce qui concerne la d¨¦cision du 4 octobre 2022, le requ¨¦rant n'a pas demand¨¦ l'¨¦valuation de ladite d¨¦cision par la direction et la requ¨ºte n'est...

Le Tribunal a jug¨¦ que la d¨¦cision de modifier le rattachement hi¨¦rarchique d'un membre du personnel n'est pas une d¨¦cision administrative susceptible de recours en vertu de l'article 2(1)(a) du Statut du Tribunal du contentieux administratif. 2(1)(a) du Statut du Tribunal. Le Tribunal a ¨¦galement ¨¦tabli que la d¨¦cision contest¨¦e n'a pas eu de cons¨¦quences juridiques d¨¦favorables directes sur le contrat de travail du requ¨¦rant. Le requ¨¦rant a continu¨¦ ¨¤ exercer ses fonctions au niveau P-4. Le seul changement ¨¦tait qu'il rendait compte ¨¤ des personnes diff¨¦rentes. En cons¨¦quence, la requ¨ºte a...

The Tribunal held that the decision to change a staff member¡¯s reporting lines is not a reviewable administrative decision under art. 2(1)(a) of the Dispute Tribunal's Statute. The Tribunal, further, established that the contested decision did not produce direct adverse legal consequences to the Applicant¡¯s employment contract. The Applicant continued to perform his functions at the P-4 level. The only change was that he reported to different persons. Accordingly, the application was dismissed as not receivable.

Le recours est rejet¨¦ dans son int¨¦gralit¨¦..

The application is DISMISSED in its entirety.

Le Tribunal a estim¨¦ que la sanction impos¨¦e ¨¦tait proportionn¨¦e compte tenu de toutes les circonstances pertinentes. Compte tenu de la gravit¨¦ et de la dur¨¦e de l'inconduite et du fait que le requ¨¦rant n'a pas corrig¨¦ sa conduite malgr¨¦ les conseils r¨¦p¨¦t¨¦s d'autres personnes, il ¨¦tait clair qu'une "mesure administrative" non disciplinaire n'aurait pas permis d'atteindre le r¨¦sultat escompt¨¦. Apr¨¨s avoir examin¨¦ en d¨¦tail les ¨¦l¨¦ments de preuve vers¨¦s au dossier et, en particulier, les t¨¦moignages entendus lors de l'audience sur le fond, le Tribunal a estim¨¦ que la sanction de r¨¦trogradation...

The Tribunal found that the sanction imposed was proportionate under all the relevant circumstances. Given the serious and protracted nature of the misconduct, and the Applicant¡¯s failure to correct his misconduct despite repeated input from others, it was clear that a non-disciplinary ¡°administrative action¡± would not have achieved the required result. Following its detailed examination of the evidence on file and, particularly, the testimonies heard at the hearing on the merits, the Tribunal found that the sanction of demotion and deferred promotion eligibility was suitable to the facts and...

Cette demande ne r¨¦pond pas aux exigences de l'art. 12(3) du Statut de l'±¬ÁÏÍøDT et l'art. 30 du R¨¨glement int¨¦rieur de l'±¬ÁÏÍøDT. Il n'est pas n¨¦cessaire de clarifier le sens de l'arr¨ºt Ocokoru ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2015/004 puisqu'il a ¨¦t¨¦ pleinement mis en ?uvre il y a des ann¨¦es. En outre, les motifs soumis par le requ¨¦rant comme base d'interpr¨¦tation ont d¨¦j¨¤ ¨¦t¨¦ clairement et sans ambigu?t¨¦ d¨¦termin¨¦s par ce Tribunal auparavant. Par cons¨¦quent, le Tribunal rejette la requ¨ºte dans son int¨¦gralit¨¦.

This application does not meet the requirements of art. 12(3) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute and art. 30 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Rules of Procedure. There is no need to clarify the meaning of Judgment Ocokoru ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2015/004 since it was fully implemented years ago. Furthermore, the grounds submitted by the Applicant as a basis for interpretation have already been clearly and unambiguously determined by this Tribunal previously. Consequently, the Tribunal dismisses the application in its entirety.

Le Tribunal a not¨¦ qu'il n'y avait aucune observation au dossier indiquant que la d¨¦cision contest¨¦e avait eu des cons¨¦quences n¨¦gatives pour le requ¨¦rant. Le Tribunal a donc estim¨¦ qu'il n'avait pas ¨¦t¨¦ ¨¦tabli que la d¨¦cision contest¨¦e avait eu des cons¨¦quences n¨¦gatives sur l'emploi du requ¨¦rant. En cons¨¦quence, le Tribunal a estim¨¦ que les contraintes juridictionnelles ne lui permettaient pas d'entendre et de statuer sur la demande en l'absence d'un cas particulier fond¨¦ sur des faits. La demande a donc ¨¦t¨¦ rejet¨¦e comme irrecevable.

The Tribunal noted that there was no submission on record indicating that the contested decision imposed adverse consequences on the Applicant. The Tribunal, thus, found that it was not established how the contested decision adversely affected the Applicant¡¯s employment. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the jurisdictional constraints did not allow it to hear and decide the application in the absence of a particular facts-based case. Therefore, the application was dismissed as not receivable.

Le Tribunal a not¨¦ que le requ¨¦rant soutenait qu'il avait ¨¦t¨¦ licenci¨¦ pour des raisons non disciplinaires, tandis que le d¨¦fendeur a fourni des preuves indiquant que la d¨¦cision de licenciement avait ¨¦t¨¦ prise le 11 mars 2022 et d¨¦coulait d'un incident survenu le 2 octobre 2019, au cours duquel le requ¨¦rant aurait conduit un v¨¦hicule des Nations Unies alors qu'il ¨¦tait sous l'influence de l'alcool et qu'il avait endommag¨¦ ce v¨¦hicule.

Le Tribunal a donc jug¨¦ que : a) dans la mesure o¨´ la d¨¦cision de licenciement ¨¦tait motiv¨¦e par des raisons autres que disciplinaires, le Statut du Tribunal...

The Tribunal noted that the Applicant contended that he was separated for non-disciplinary reasons, while the Respondent provided proof indicating that the termination decision was made on 11 March 2022 and rose from an incident on 2 October 2019 in which the Applicant allegedly drove a United Nations vehicle while under the influence of alcohol and damaged that vehicle.

The Tribunal thus held that: a) to the extent that the termination decision was for reasons other than disciplinary, the Statute of the United Nations Dispute Tribunal required that, to be receivable, the Applicant ought to...