51³Ô¹Ï

Les d¨¦cisions de la CPNU rel¨¨vent de la comp¨¦tence du Tribunal d¡¯appel des Nations Unies en vertu de l¡¯article 2.9 de son statut. D¨¨s lors, le Tribunal n¡¯est pas comp¨¦tent pour proc¨¦der ¨¤ un contr?le juridictionnel de la d¨¦cision attaqu¨¦e.

Decisions of UNSPC fall under the jurisdiction of the United Nations Appeals Tribunal under art. 2.9 of its Statute. Accordingly, the Dispute Tribunal has no jurisdiction to undertake a judicial review of the contested decision.

En l¡¯esp¨¨ce, le demandeur n¡¯a pas identifi¨¦ de d¨¦cision administrative susceptible de r¨¦vision et rien n¡¯indique qu¡¯il ait d¨¦pos¨¦ une demande d¡¯¨¦valuation de la direction avant de soumettre la demande.

In the present case, the Applicant has not identified a reviewable administrative decision and there is no indication that he filed a request for management evaluation before submitting the application.

Le tribunal a constat¨¦ que la contestation du demandeur de la d¨¦cision de placer une note sur le dossier officiel du demandeur et la d¨¦cision de l¡¯UNICEF de ne pas d¨¦terminer si le demandeur a commis une faute n¡¯est pas cr¨¦able. Les d¨¦conseilles n¡¯ont aucune cons¨¦quence directe sur les termes et conditions de l¡¯ancienne nomination du demandeur.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant¡¯s challenge of the decision to place a note on the Applicant¡¯s official status file and UNICEF¡¯s decision to not make a determination on whether or not the Applicant has committed misconduct is not receivable. The decsions haves no direct consequences on the terms and conditions of the Applicant¡¯s former appointment.

Les divers actes soumis par l'intim¨¦ - R¨¦solution de l'assemblage g¨¦n¨¦ral 76/245 (questions relatives au budget du programme propos¨¦ pour 2022) du 24 d¨¦cembre 2021; Rapport ACABQ A / 76/7 (premier rapport sur le budget du programme propos¨¦ pour 2022) dat¨¦ du 13 ao?t 2021; Projet de cinqui¨¨me r¨¦solution du comit¨¦ soumis par son pr¨¦sident ¨¤ la suite des consultations informelles A / C.5 / 77 / L.23 (questions relatives au budget du programme propos¨¦ pour 2023) du 30 d¨¦cembre 2022; R¨¦solution de l'Assembl¨¦e g¨¦n¨¦rale A / RES / 77/262 (soixante-septi¨¨me session, point de l'ordre du jour 138, budget...

The various acts submitted by the Respondent¡ªGeneral Assembly resolution 76/245 (Questions relating to the proposed programme budget for 2022) dated 24 December 2021; ACABQ report A/76/7 (First report on the proposed programme budget for 2022) dated 13 August 2021; Draft Fifth Committee resolution submitted by its Chair following informal consultations A/C.5/77/L.23 (Questions relating to the proposed programme budget for 2023) dated 30 December 2022; General Assembly resolution A/RES/77/262 (Seventy-seventh session, Agenda item 138, Proposed programme budget for 2023) dated 30 December 2022...

La requ¨¦rante n'¨¦tait pas ¨¦ligible pour demander et participer au processus de s¨¦lection du poste car, apr¨¨s avoir r¨¦ussi l'examen G ¨¤ N, elle s'est vu offrir un placement YPP et a refus¨¦ ce placement YPP. Le tribunal constate que le demandeur, un personnel de service g¨¦n¨¦ral qui ne figurait plus sur la liste des ?candidats retenus? pour l'examen comp¨¦titif, n'¨¦tait donc pas ¨¦ligible pour demander et participer au processus de s¨¦lection des postes dans la cat¨¦gorie professionnelle, y compris le Poste. La d¨¦cision d'exclure le demandeur de la proc¨¦dure de s¨¦lection du poste ¨¦tait donc l¨¦gale.

The Applicant was not eligible to apply for and participate in the selection process for the Post because, after she passed the G to N exam, she was offered a YPP placement, and refused that YPP placement. The Tribunal finds that the Applicant, a General Service staff who was no longer on the list of ¡°successful candidates¡± for the competitive examination, was therefore not eligible to apply for and participate in the selection process for positions in the Professional category, including the Post. The decision to exclude the Applicant from the selection procedure for the Post was therefore...

La demande n'est pas ¨¤ recevoir Ratione tempis comme barr¨¦ dans le temps.

The application is not receivable ratione temporis as time-barred.

Aucun des documents soumis par l'intim¨¦ n'avait le caract¨¨re officiel ou faisant autorit¨¦ d'un dossier budg¨¦taire et / ou financier pour d¨¦montrer comment le poste de demandeur a ¨¦t¨¦ ¨¦tabli et financ¨¦ et - par une exclusion ult¨¦rieure - a ¨¦galement montr¨¦ que le poste avait ¨¦t¨¦ aboli (voir, De m¨ºme, le jugement non attir¨¦ du Tribunal des litiges dans Quatrini UNDT / 2020/043). De plus, nulle part dans l¡¯une des documents n¡¯est impliqu¨¦ que le mandat du bureau des femmes de l¡¯ONU n¡¯a chang¨¦ d¡¯une mani¨¨re qui interdire l¡¯emploi d¡¯un conducteur au niveau 3 de la cat¨¦gorie du personnel de service...

None of the documents submitted by the REspondent had the official or authoritative character of a budgetary and/or financial record to demonstrate how the Applicant¡¯s post was established and funded and¡ªby a subsequent exclusion¡ªalso showed that the post had been abolished (see, similarly, the Dispute Tribunal¡¯s non-appealed judgment in Quatrini UNDT/2020/043). Also, nowhere in any of the documentation is it implied that the mandate of UN Women¡¯s office had changed in a way that would disallow the employment of a driver at 3 level of the General Service staff category (¡°G-3¡±). The Respondent...

Le tribunal note qu'il r¨¦sulte de ST / SGB / 2019/2 que le Secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral a d¨¦l¨¦gu¨¦ l'autorit¨¦ pertinente au sous-secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral pour la strat¨¦gie de gestion, la politique et la conformit¨¦ (?l'USG?), qui ¨¤ son tour, a ¨¤ son tour, Sous-d¨¦l¨¦gu¨¦e ¨¤ l'ASG conform¨¦ment ¨¤ un tableau de sous-d¨¦l¨¦gation dat¨¦ du 1er mars 2021 que l'intim¨¦ a soumis en preuve. Dans une note sur les ?d¨¦tails de d¨¦l¨¦gation? valides ¨¤ partir du 15 avril 2021, est indiqu¨¦ que ?cette sous-d¨¦l¨¦gation de l'autorit¨¦ d¨¦cisionnelle aborde une erreur technique dans l'attachement de la sous-d¨¦l¨¦gation de l'autorit¨¦...

The Tribunal notes that it follows from ST/SGB/2019/2 that the Secretary-General has delegated the relevant authority to the Under-Secretary-General for Management Strategy, Policy and Compliance (¡°the USG¡±), who in turn, has sub-delegated it to the ASG in accordance with a table of sub-delegation dated 1 March 2021 that the Respondent has submitted in evidence. In a note on ¡°delegation details¡± valid from 15 April 2021 is stated that, ¡°This sub-delegation of decision-making authority addresses a technical error in the attachment of the sub-delegation of decision-making authority issued on...

L'application est en partie non r¨¦ceptable et est rejet¨¦e sur le fond. L¡¯objection du demandeur ¨¤ la d¨¦cision de l¡¯Assembl¨¦e g¨¦n¨¦rale de restructurer le poste de niveau D-1 et de soumettre la s¨¦lection du secr¨¦taire du conseil d¡¯administration ¨¤ un processus concurrentiel par le comit¨¦ de planification de la succession n¡¯est pas r¨¦visable par le tribunal. Le Tribunal a constat¨¦ que le demandeur avait re?u une contrepartie compl¨¨te et ¨¦quitable et que la d¨¦cision de non-s¨¦lection ¨¦tait l¨¦gale. Le tribunal a constat¨¦ que l'USG / DMSPC avait l¨¦galement attribu¨¦ le demandeur ¨¤ un poste appropri¨¦...

The application is partly non-receivable and, is rejected on the merits. The Applicant¡¯s objection to General Assembly¡¯s decision to restructure the D-1 level position and to submit the selection of the Secretary of the Board to a competitive process by the Succession Planning Committee is not reviewable by the Tribunal. The Tribunal found that the Applicant was afforded full and fair consideration and the non-selection decision was lawful. The Tribunal found that the USG/DMSPC lawfully assigned the Applicant to a suitable position in the Secretariat in order to retain his employment at the D...

La situation de la pr¨¦sente affaire est que seules deux personnes, ¨¤ savoir le demandeur et AA, ¨¦taient pr¨¦sentes lorsque les abus sexuels all¨¦gu¨¦s ont eu lieu et qu'elles ont pr¨¦sent¨¦ des t¨¦moignages contradictoires. S'agissant d'une affaire de licenciement, la question que le Tribunal doit d¨¦terminer est donc de savoir si le d¨¦fendeur a ¨¦tabli, ¨¤ l'aide de preuves claires et convaincantes, que le contexte factuel sur lequel la sanction disciplinaire est bien fond¨¦e. Cela signifie que le t¨¦moignage d¡¯AA est hautement probable alors que, par cons¨¦quent, celui du Requ¨¦rant n¡¯est pas fiable.

En...

The situation of the present case is that only two persons, namely the Applicant and AA, were present when the alleged sexual abuse occurred, and they have presented contradictory witness testimonies. As the case involves termination, the question for the Tribunal to determine is therefore whether the Respondent has established with clear and convincing evidence that the factual background upon which the disciplinary sanction is well-founded. This means that AA¡¯s testimony is highly probable whereas, in consequence, the Applicant¡¯s testimony is not reliable.

With reference to the Tribunal¡¯s...