ºÚÁÏרÇø

Le Tribunal a ordonn¨¦ au d¨¦fenseur de pr¨¦senter des preuves de l'activit¨¦ d'enqu¨ºte l¨¦gitime qui a ¨¦t¨¦ men¨¦e dans le cadre de cette affaire ¨¤ partir de la date ¨¤ laquelle l'Administration a re?u le rapport de faute possible jusqu'¨¤ la date de la d¨¦cision de retirer les droits d¨¦finitifs et les documents de pension du renouvellement. Afin de d¨¦terminer si les retards dans cette affaire constituaient une aberration ou des exemples de probl¨¨mes syst¨¦matiques, le Tribunal a ¨¦galement ordonn¨¦ au d¨¦fenseur de soumettre des informations similaires pour l'ensemble des 225 enqu¨ºtes sur la fraude au...

Au-del¨¤ de simples expressions de surprise, le recours n'a pr¨¦sent¨¦ aucun argument contestant ni le droit ni les faits de la r¨¦ponse du d¨¦fendeur ¨¤ sa demande de production de preuves. Le Tribunal a estim¨¦ que les preuves demand¨¦es n'¨¦taient pas pertinentes. Le Tribunal a reconnu les probl¨¨mes de s¨¦curit¨¦ l¨¦gitimes impliqu¨¦s dans la demande, en particulier ¨¤ la lumi¨¨re de l'affirmation sans d¨¦tour du pr¨¦alable selon laquelle un expert identifi¨¦ n'avait pas besoin de ces documents pour ¨¦laborer ou ¨¦tayer une opinion non divulgu¨¦e. La demande g¨¦n¨¦rale de registres de s¨¦curit¨¦ surveillant les...

Le Tribunal a estim¨¦ que la demande avait fourni suffisamment d'informations pour justifier l'octroi d'une br¨¨ve prolongation du d¨¦lai pour d¨¦poser sa demande. Un ordinateur en panne avait pour effet d'emp¨ºcher m¨ºme l'acc¨¨s au plus essentiel. Le Tribunal a estim¨¦ qu'il ¨¦tait dans l'int¨¦r¨ºt de la justice d'autoriser cette br¨¨ve prolongation pour permettre ¨¤ la demande de faire entendre sa cause sur le fond, et que le d¨¦fendeur ne subirait aucun pr¨¦judice du fait d'une telle prolongation du d¨¦lai.

La requ¨ºte n'a pas identifi¨¦ les faits litigieux pour lesquels le t¨¦moignage propos¨¦ est pertinent. M¨ºme en supposant les faits all¨¦gu¨¦s par la demande concernant ses futures r¨¦clamations, il ¨¦tait clair que chaque d¨¦cision serait prise ou rejet¨¦e selon son propre bien-fond¨¦. Demander au demandeur de d¨¦poser de nouvelles demandes dans l'affaire entra?nerait un retard dans le r¨¨glement de l'affaire.

Apr¨¨s avoir d¨¦pos¨¦ une requ¨ºte demandant une prolongation du d¨¦lai pour d¨¦poser une demande alors que la date limite approche rapidement, l'avocat aurait d? surveiller le dossier pour obtenir une d¨¦cision, mais il ne l'a pas fait. Compte tenu du temps que l'avocat a pass¨¦ ¨¤ r¨¦diger et ¨¤ d¨¦poser des requ¨ºtes en prolongation de d¨¦lai, il aurait pu d¨¦poser une demande ¨¤ la place. Cela a entra?n¨¦ des ressources suppl¨¦mentaires pour l'avocat du recours et le Tribunal dans le traitement des requ¨ºtes. Cependant, le requ¨¦rant ne devrait pas subir de pr¨¦judice en raison de la n¨¦gligence de son avocat...

Le Tribunal a convenu avec le d¨¦fendeur que le recours doit se conformer aux exigences relatives au d¨¦p?t d'une demande ¨¦crite aux paragraphes 5, 6, 22 et 23 de la directive de pratique n¡ã 4 en ce qui concerne le nombre de pages et le contenu des annexes d'un formulaire de demande. Le renouvellement n'a pas respect¨¦ ces dispositions. Plus pr¨¦cis¨¦ment, il a d¨¦pos¨¦, en annexe, dix pages d'arguments et de faits suppl¨¦mentaires ¨¤ ceux expos¨¦s dans le formulaire de demande. Il a ¨¦t¨¦ demand¨¦ au demandeur de d¨¦poser une demande modifi¨¦e, conforme aux paragraphes 5, 6, 22 et 23 de la directive de...

1. Le Tribunal a not¨¦ que le recours avait pr¨¦c¨¦demment avanc¨¦ la m¨ºme question devant le Tribunal du contentieux administratif ( Fultang UNDT/2022/102) et le Tribunal d'appel ( Fultang UNAT-2023-1403). Le Tribunal du contentieux administratif avait jug¨¦ les documents en question recevables. Le Tribunal d'appel a confirm¨¦ cette conclusion. 2. Le Tribunal a donc jug¨¦ que, la question ayant ¨¦t¨¦ pleinement d¨¦battue par les parties, elle ¨¦tait soumise ¨¤ la doctrine de la chose jug¨¦e. Les documents en question ont donc ¨¦t¨¦ jug¨¦s recevables dans la proc¨¦dure. 3. Le...

1. La d¨¦cision des Ressources humaines de la MONUSCO de retenir le formulaire P.35 ¨¦tait ill¨¦gale car l'autorit¨¦ de retenir ledit formulaire est express¨¦ment d¨¦l¨¦gu¨¦e uniquement ¨¤ l'USG/DMSPC. 2. L'Administration n'a pas r¨¦agi rapidement dans cette affaire. 3. La demande a ¨¦chou¨¦ quant ¨¤ l'exigence d'un pr¨¦judice irr¨¦parable. Une simple perte ¨¦conomique ne suffit pas ¨¤ satisfaire ¨¤ l'exigence d'un pr¨¦judice irr¨¦parable. 4. Les dommages indirects que le recours ¨¤ la demande en raison de la perte ¨¦conomique (son incapacit¨¦ all¨¦gu¨¦e ¨¤ payer la nourriture, le logement et l'¨¦ducation) sont tous des...

The Tribunal held:

a. Some of the contested decisions were manifestly irreceivable as already determined by the Tribunal in Likukela Order No. 161 (NBI/2024) and Likukela UNDT/2025/006. These matters would not be considered again by the Tribunal in accordance with the doctrine of res judicata.

b. The claims regarding the alleged theft of the Applicant's wages, lack of a legal basis for recovery of her final pay and illegally withholding her final pay were not receivable ratione materiae for failure to file a timely request for management evaluation.

c. The claim alleging prevention of the payment...

The Tribunal rejected the Applicant¡¯s arguments and found that the decision to recover a portion of the Applicant¡¯s Home Leave lump sum was lawful.

The Applicant manifestly abused the judicial review process by filing a frivolous application. The Applicant repeatedly lied to the Administration for over six months in seeking to obtain and keep a Home Leave lump sum payment to which he was not entitled.

Still seeking to keep the lump sum in full, he filed an application with the Tribunal. In his application, and his subsequent submissions, the Applicant repeated his lies and even expanded upon...

The Tribunal noted the Applicant¡¯s persistence in raising previously rejected arguments.While no costs were awarded, the Tribunal warned the Applicant and his counsel against vexatious litigation, referencing similar cases and jurisprudence. The application was dismissed in its entirety as not receivable.

Bien que la candidature soit en d¨¦saccord avec l'¨¦valuation faite lors de l'entretien quant ¨¤ savoir si elle satisfaisait ¨¤ des exigences de comp¨¦tence particuli¨¨re et quant ¨¤ son aptitude g¨¦n¨¦rale au poste, le comit¨¦ d'entretien ¨¦tait en droit de tirer ses propres conclusions concernant l'aptitude de la candidature.

Les tribunaux ont toujours soutenu qu'il ne leur appartient pas de substituer leur jugement ¨¤ celui du responsable du recrutement ou du d¨¦cideur. Leur contr?le se limite ¨¤ v¨¦rifier que la d¨¦cision a ¨¦t¨¦ prise conform¨¦ment aux r¨¨gles et proc¨¦dures applicables et qu'elle n'a ¨¦t¨¦...

The Tribunal observed that unlike the Applicant¡¯s First Reporting Officer¡¯s (¡°FRO¡±) comments which were entirely consistent with the ePAS rating of ¡°Successfully Meets Expectations¡±, the comments of the Applicant¡¯s Second Reporting Officer (¡°SRO¡±) seriously undercut and detract from the overall appraisal rating." The Tribunal further noted that after the initial sentence recognizing that the Applicant ¡°consistently performed her tasks and duties effectively¡± and commending her ¡°ambition and dedication in her role, the SRO added seven sentences which were completely negative about the...

The Tribunal rejected the Applicant¡¯s arguments and found that the decision to recover a portion of the Applicant¡¯s Home Leave lump sum was lawful.

The Applicant manifestly abused the judicial review process by filing a frivolous application. The Applicant repeatedly lied to the Administration for over six months in seeking to obtain and keep a Home Leave lump sum payment to which he was not entitled.

Still seeking to keep the lump sum in full, he filed an application with the Tribunal. In his application, and his subsequent submissions, the Applicant repeated his lies and even expanded upon...

The Tribunal noted that the issue of contention was whether a staff member seconded to the Secretariat, from a fund or programme in the ºÚÁÏרÇø System, is ¡°serving with the ºÚÁÏרÇø Secretariat under a fixed-term appointment¡± for purposes of eligibility for a continuing appointment. At the time of the contested decision, the Applicant was a staff member of UNICEF (a Programme) but serving on secondment in UNEP (part of the Secretariat).

Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal concluded that it was clear that under the Inter-Organization Agreement and the letters of...

The Tribunal noted that by Order No. 160 (NBI/2024) issued on 9 December 2024, it directed the Applicant to provide a copy of the contested administrative decision and proof of his management evaluation request. Whereas the Applicant filed a response to Order No. 160 (NBI/2024) on 20 December 2024, he failed to provide the requested documents. The Tribunal also observed that the Applicant failed to provide the documents up to the date of the issuance of the judgment.

In line with the above, the Tribunal recalled that its Statute places on the Applicant the burden of establishing ¡°non...

The Respondent argued that the discontinuation of the Applicant¡¯s position was distinct from the non-renewal of his position. The Tribunal rejected this argument. The Tribunal found that the decision-maker linked the discontinuation of the Applicant's post with the non-renewal. The Tribunal held that the discontinuation and non-renewal were inextricably interrelated and therefore the application was receivable. The Respondent¡¯s argument that the claim was not receivable ratione temporis was rejected.

The Respondent¡¯s distinction, while perhaps academically correct, would make receivability no...