51³Ô¹Ï

Le Tribunal a jug¨¦ que la demande n'¨¦tait pas recevable parce qu'aucun des ¨¦l¨¦ments qui justifiaient une suspension d'action n'¨¦tait pr¨¦sent. Le Tribunal a jug¨¦ que la mesure administrative ¨¦tait sans objet et irr¨¦cevable parce que la mesure administrative contest¨¦e avait ¨¦t¨¦ expliqu¨¦e et qu'une mesure suppl¨¦mentaire avait ¨¦t¨¦ prise pour ¨¦liminer toute possibilit¨¦ de pr¨¦judice pour le recours.

Dans ce cas, la Section des conseils et de l'¨¦valuation de la gestion avait d¨¦j¨¤ ¨¦mis une r¨¦ponse ¨¤ la demande d'¨¦valuation de la gestion du retrait du 22 d¨¦cembre 2023. Aucune ¨¦valuation de gestion n'¨¦tait en cours et, par cons¨¦quent, l'une des exigences obligatoires pour l'examen des demandes de suspension d'action n'¨¦tait pas remplie. Au vu de ce qui pr¨¦c¨¨de, la demande de suspension d'ex¨¦cution dans l'attente de l'¨¦valuation de la direction a ¨¦t¨¦ rejet¨¦e comme irrecevable.

1. Le Tribunal a constat¨¦ qu'¨¤ la section VI de son formulaire de demande, le requ¨¦rant a d¨¦clar¨¦ ne pas avoir demand¨¦ d'¨¦valuation de gestion. En effet, il n'a pas joint de copie de sa demande d'¨¦valuation de gestion ¨¤ sa demande. Le dossier indiquait que le recours n'avait pas encore demand¨¦ d'¨¦valuation de gestion de la d¨¦cision dont il exigeait la suspension. 2. Le Tribunal a rappel¨¦ que les requ¨ºtes d¨¦pos¨¦es en vertu des articles 2.2 du Statut du Tribunal du contentieux administratif et 13.1 du Statut du Tribunal du contentieux administratif Les r¨¨gles de proc¨¦dure...

Dans ce cas, l' Unit¨¦ d'¨¦valuation de la direction avait d¨¦j¨¤ d¨¦termin¨¦ que la demande d'¨¦valuation de la direction du demandeur ¨¦tait prescrite et n'¨¦tait donc pas recevable . ?tant donn¨¦ qu'aucune ¨¦valuation de gestion n'¨¦tait en cours et que, par cons¨¦quent , l'une des conditions obligatoires pour l'examen des demandes de sursis ¨¤ ex¨¦cution n'¨¦tait pas remplie . En outre, conform¨¦ment ¨¤ l'art. 8.3 de son Statut, le Tribunal du contentieux ne peut suspendre ni renoncer aux d¨¦lais de contr?le de gestion.

In this case, the Management Advice and Evaluation Section had already issued a response to the Applicant¡¯s 22 December 2023 request for management evaluation. There was no management evaluation pending and, consequently, one of the mandatory requirements for the examination of applications for suspension of action was not met. In view of the foregoing, the application for suspension of action pending management evaluation was dismissed as not receivable.

In this case, the Management Evaluation Unit had already determined that the Applicant¡¯s request for a management evaluation was time-barred and was therefore not receivable. As there was no management evaluation pending and, consequently, one of the mandatory requirements for the examination of applications for suspension of action was not met. Additionally, pursuant to art. 8.3 of its Statute, the Dispute Tribunal shall not suspend or waive the deadlines for management evaluation.

The Court held that the application was not admissible because none of the elements that justified a stay of action were present. The Court held that the administrative measure was moot and inadmissible because the contested administrative measure had been explained and an additional step had been taken to eliminate any possibility of prejudice to the appeal.

1. The Tribunal noted that in sec. VI of his application form, the Applicant declared that he did not request management evaluation. Indeed, he did not file a copy of his management evaluation request with his application. The record showed that the Applicant was yet to request management evaluation of the decision he sought to have suspended. 2. The Tribunal recalled that applications filed pursuant to arts. 2.2 of the UNDT Statute and 13.1 of the Rules of Procedure must be predicated on a pending management evaluation. Consequently, since the Applicant had not requested...

Le requ¨¦rant ayant introduit la requ¨ºte devant le Tribunal pr¨¨s de deux mois apr¨¨s la mise en ?uvre de la d¨¦cision d'inclure son nom dans la base de donn¨¦es ClearCheck, la demande de sursis ¨¤ statuer n'¨¦tait donc pas recevable.

As the Applicant filed the application before the Dispute Tribunal almost two months after the decision to include his name in the ClearCheck database was implemented, the application for suspension of action was therefore not receivable.

Le Tribunal a tenu compte de la politique de ? tol¨¦rance z¨¦ro ? de l'Organisation ¨¤ l'¨¦gard du harc¨¨lement et des abus sexuels, ainsi que de la n¨¦cessit¨¦ pour l'Organisation de prot¨¦ger sa r¨¦putation et l'int¨¦grit¨¦ du lieu de travail.

Le Tribunal a not¨¦ que la norme requise au stade de l'imposition d'un cong¨¦ administratif sans solde n'est pas une ? preuve claire et convaincante ? mais des ? motifs raisonnables de croire ?, ce qui est une norme moins stricte. Tout bien consid¨¦r¨¦, le Tribunal a estim¨¦ que les premi¨¨res phases de l'enqu¨ºte avaient permis de d¨¦couvrir des ¨¦l¨¦ments de preuve...

The Tribunal was mindful of the Organization¡¯s ¡°zero-tolerance¡± policy against sexual harassment and abuse as well as of the need for the Organization to protect its reputation and the integrity of the workplace.

The Tribunal noted that the standard required at the stage of imposing the administrative leave without pay ("ALWOP") is not ¡°clear and convincing evidence¡± but ¡°reasonable grounds to believe¡±, which is a lower standard. On balance, the Tribunal was satisfied that the initial phases of the investigation uncovered sufficient evidence to support a reasonable suspicion that the Applicant...

Le Tribunal a estim¨¦ que la demande ¨¦tait recevable au motif qu'une ¨¦valuation n¨¦gative des performances a des cons¨¦quences juridiques pour le membre du personnel concern¨¦ et qu'elle peut faire l'objet d'un r¨¦examen.

De l'avis du Tribunal, le d¨¦fendeur n'a pas d¨¦montr¨¦ que le Secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral des Nations Unies avait engag¨¦ avec le requ¨¦rant une discussion appropri¨¦e sur ses performances ou qu'il lui avait fourni un retour d'information suffisant sur ses lacunes, comme l'exigent les sections 7.1, 7.2 et 10.1 de l'instruction administrative ST/AI/2021/4. 7.1, 7.2 et 10.1 de l'instruction ST...

The Tribunal found the application to be receivable on the basis that a negative performance rating does produce legal consequences for the affected staff member and is reviewable.

In the Tribunal¡¯s view, the Respondent failed to show that the USG engaged the Applicant in a proper performance discussion or provided sufficient feedback of a performance shortcoming as required by secs. 7.1, 7.2 and 10.1 of ST/AI/2021/4. he Tribunal found no evidence of a discussion between the USG and the Applicant which could be classified as a performance milestone discussion, one which sets out clear targets...

Si la preuve par ou?-dire est, en principe, admissible devant le Tribunal du contentieux administratif, sa force probante d¨¦pend des circonstances sp¨¦cifiques de l'affaire. A cet ¨¦gard, le Tribunal d'appel a estim¨¦ que ? les preuves par ou?-dire sont intrins¨¨quement peu fiables et de peu de poids, ¨¤ moins d'¨ºtre substantiellement corrobor¨¦es, parce que leur valeur probante d¨¦pend largement de la cr¨¦dibilit¨¦ d'une personne (...) autre que celle qui les a fournies ?. (Voir Requ¨¦rant 2022-UNAT-1187, para. 73.)
En examinant attentivement la requ¨ºte, il ressort clairement des faits expos¨¦s par le...

When closely perusing the application, it clearly followed from the facts set out by the Applicant that the only administrative decision under appeal pursuant to art. 2.1(a) of the Statute of the Dispute Tribunal is the ¡°non-renewal of [his] contract beyond 31 December 2023 due to lack of funds¡±. Accordingly, the issue under review in the present case can therefore be defined as the legality of this decision.

It explicitly followed from the contested decision that the non-renewal of the Applicant¡¯s fixed-term appointment was ¡°due to lack of funds¡±. The Appeals Tribunal has in various cases held...

Ce cas a r¨¦v¨¦l¨¦ un harc¨¨lement sexuel manifeste o¨´ des mots et des attouchements physiques ont ¨¦t¨¦ utilis¨¦s et tent¨¦s pour obtenir des faveurs sexuelles, mais m¨ºme si aucune faveur n'a ¨¦t¨¦ obtenue, le harc¨¨lement a caus¨¦ un pr¨¦judice ¨¤ la victime qui a craint de perdre son poste au sein de l'Organisation et a provoqu¨¦ des tensions inutiles dans les relations de travail entre les personnes impliqu¨¦es.

Dans ce cas, les mots et les actes ont ¨¦t¨¦ utilis¨¦s ensemble pendant une courte p¨¦riode de persistance.

Lorsque cela se produit dans un environnement de travail, cela peut causer un stress...

This case revealed overt sexual harassment where both words and physical touching were used and attempted to extract sexual favour, but even though no such favour was extracted, the harassment caused harm to the victim who was put in fear of loss of her position in the Organization and caused unnecessary tension in the staff relations between the persons involved.

In this case both words and acts were used together during a short period of persistence. When this happens in a work setting it can cause serious emotional stress and hurt. Based on the evidence this is what occurred in this case.

...

La d¨¦cision de faire consentir le requ¨¦rant ¨¤ une ¨¦valuation m¨¦dicale ind¨¦pendante ("EMI") a ¨¦t¨¦ raisonnablement prise dans l'int¨¦r¨ºt de l'Organisation.

Le Tribunal a estim¨¦ que le HCR n'avait pas eu de comportement ill¨¦gal en suivant et en mettant en ?uvre les recommandations de l'EMI. La d¨¦cision ¨¦tait rationnelle, proc¨¦duralement correcte et appropri¨¦e.

The decision to have the Applicant consent to an Independent Medical Evaluation ("IME") was reasonably taken in the interest of the Organization.

The Tribunal held that there was no unlawful behavior by UNHCR in following and implementing the recommendations arising from the IME. The decision was rational, procedurally correct and appropriate.