ÉñÂíÎçÒ¹¸£ÀûÍø

Le Tribunal a observé que les faits de cette affaire étaient très clairs d'après les témoignages et le dossier. Le Tribunal a également noté que le requérant avait admis sa faute lors de son entretien avec l'enquêteur. Par conséquent, le Tribunal a conclu, sur la base de preuves claires et convaincantes, que le requérant avait commis une fraude, une conduite interdite.

En ce qui concerne l'inconduite, le Tribunal a conclu que le requérant avait commis une fraude. Par conséquent, ses actions constituent une faute grave.

En ce qui concerne le volet relatif à la régularité de la procédure, le...

The Tribunal observed that the facts of this case were very clear from the testimony and record. The Tribunal further noted that the Applicant had admitted his wrongdoing during his interview by the investigator. Accordingly, the Tribunal found by clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant had committed fraud, a prohibited conduct.

Regarding misconduct, the Tribunal concluded that the Applicant committed fraud. Therefore, his actions amounted to serious misconduct.

On the due process prong, the Tribunal rejected the Applicant’s argument that his due process rights were violated because...

The Tribunal found that in this case, the evidence adduced by the Respondent was neither clear nor convincing. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the Respondent had failed to show that it was highly probable that the Applicant had committed the alleged misconduct and thus had failed to meet its burden of proof. Accordingly, the Tribunal decided to:

a. Rescind the decision to separate the Applicant from service;

b. Set the amount of compensation that the Respondent may elect to pay in lieu of implementing the rescission at two years net salary with interest at the US prime rate from...

The Tribunal found that in this case, the evidence adduced by the Respondent was neither clear nor convincing. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the Respondent had failed to show that it was highly probable that the Applicant had committed the alleged misconduct and thus had failed to meet its burden of proof. Accordingly, the Tribunal decided to:

a. Rescind the decision to separate the Applicant from service;

b. Set the amount of compensation that the Respondent may elect to pay in lieu of implementing the rescission at two years net salary with interest at the US prime rate from...

[Le Tribunal DECIDE de : a. Rejeter la requête du requérant demandant d'ordonner au défendeur de fournir les informations nécessaires ; b. Considérer que la requête n'est pas recevable et que, même si elle l'était, elle n'est pas fondée, et donc la rejeter ; et Rejeter la demande du défendeur concernant l'attribution des dépens.

[t]he Tribunal DECIDES to: a. Reject the Applicant’s motion requesting to order the Respondent to provide necessary information; b. Find that the application is not receivable and that, even if it were, there is no merit to it, thus it would dismiss it; and Deny the Respondent’s request for an award of costs.

Le Tribunal n'est pas compétent pour statuer sur le fond de cette demande, étant donné qu'elle conteste une décision qui n'a pas été soumise à l'évaluation de la direction dans les délais impartis.

Le Tribunal a également examiné le bien-fondé des arguments du requérant en ce qui concerne la légalité de la décision contestée. Le requérant a encouru des dépenses qui lui ont été clairement communiquées comme étant non autorisées avant son voyage. Il n'y a rien dans le dossier qui montre que la décision était entachée d'irrégularité, qu'elle n'avait pas été prise correctement ou qu'elle était...

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 Tribunal also considered the merits of the Applicant’s submissions in respect of the propriety of the impugned decision. The Applicant incurred expenses that were clearly communicated to him as unauthorised prior to his travel. There is nothing on the record to show that the decision was tainted, improperly made or otherwise unlawful. In other words, even if the application had been found to be receivable, it would...

The Tribunal observed that as reflected in the documents on record, the Applicant filed his application on 21 June 2024, but requested management evaluation on 16 August 2024. Furthermore, at the time the Tribunal issued the judgment, the management evaluation response period was still running. It was thus clear that the Applicant filed his application prematurely. Accordingly, the application was rejected as irreceivable. The Tribunal, however, informed the Applicant that he was free to file a new application on the merits, if submitted within the prescribed statutory timelines.

The Tribunal observed that as reflected in the documents on record, the Applicant filed his application on 21 June 2024, but requested management evaluation on 16 August 2024. Furthermore, at the time the Tribunal issued the judgment, the management evaluation response period was still running. It was thus clear that the Applicant filed his application prematurely. Accordingly, the application was rejected as irreceivable. The Tribunal, however, informed the Applicant that he was free to file a new application on the merits, if submitted within the prescribed statutory timelines.

Le Tribunal DECIDE de rejeter le recours dans son intégralité

The Tribunal DECIDES to dismiss the application in its entirety.

Le Tribunal a observé que, d'après les éléments de preuve figurant dans le dossier, le requérant a reçu la décision contestée le 28 août 2023. Pour respecter le délai de 60 jours calendaires pour demander une évaluation de la gestion, la requérante aurait dû la soumettre au plus tard le 27 octobre 2023. Or, elle l'a soumise le 8 novembre 2023, soit près de deux semaines plus tard. En conséquence, le Tribunal a conclu que la demande de contrôle hiérarchique était prescrite et que, par conséquent, la requête n'était pas recevable ratione materiae. Le Tribunal a rejeté la demande.

The Tribunal observed that according to the evidence on the record, the Applicant received the contested decision on 28 August 2023. To comply with the 60-day calendar days deadline to request management evaluation, the Applicant ought to have submitted it by 27 October 2023. However, she submitted it on 8 November 2023, nearly two weeks later. Accordingly, the Tribunal found that the request for management evaluation was time-barred and, as a result, that the application was not receivable ratione materiae. The Tribunal dismissed the application.

Le Tribunal a noté que l'ordonnance n° 20 (NBI/2024) dans l'affaire n° UNDT/NBI/2024/008 a rejeté la demande de suspension de l'action du requérant en vertu de l'art. 13 du règlement intérieur du Tribunal. Le requérant a soutenu que le Tribunal a mal interprété sa demande dans l'affaire n° UNDT/NBI/2024/008 comme étant déposée en vertu de l'art. 13 du Règlement intérieur de l'UNDT (régissant la suspension de l'action pendant une évaluation de la gestion), plutôt que de l'art. 14 (régissant la suspension de l'action pendant la procédure) de ces règles.

Le Tribunal a estimé que, dans la mesure...

The Tribunal noted that Order No. 20 (NBI/2024) in Case No. UNDT/NBI/2024/008 rejected the Applicant's application for suspension of action under art. 13 of the UNDT Rules of Procedure. The Applicant maintained that the Tribunal misconstrued his application in Case No. UNDT/NBI/2024/008 as being filed under art. 13 of the UNDT Rules of Procedure (governing suspension of action during a management evaluation), rather than art. 14 (governing suspension of action during the proceedings) of those Rules.

The Tribunal held that to the extent that the Applicant’s intent was to file an application...

Le Tribunal a noté que, sur la base des éléments de preuve dont il disposait et qui n'étaient pas contestés par le requérant, la lettre de sanction avait été émise le 1er juillet 2022 et que le requérant l'avait reçue le 5 juillet 2022. Conformément à la règle 11.2(b) du Règlement du personnel, les décisions disciplinaires ne font pas l'objet d'un contrôle hiérarchique. Cela signifie que le requérant aurait dû déposer sa requête au plus tard le mardi 4 octobre 2022 pour respecter le délai de 90 jours calendaires. Il a déposé sa demande le 31 janvier 2024, soit plus d'un an après le délai légal...

The Tribunal noted that based on the evidence before it and not contested by the Applicant, the sanction letter was issued on 1 July 2022 and the Applicant received it on 5 July 2022. Pursuant to staff rule 11.2(b), disciplinary decisions are not subject to management evaluation. This meant that the Applicant ought to have filed his application no later than Tuesday, 4 October 2022 to comply with the 90-calendar day deadline. He filed his application on 31 January 2024, which was more than a year after the statutory deadline. Accordingly, the Tribunal found the application not receivable ratio...

Le Tribunal a observé que l'examen des éléments de preuve dans cette affaire indiquait que l'évaluation de l'entretien du requérant par le jury était correcte. Par conséquent, le Tribunal a estimé que le requérant avait bénéficié d'un examen complet et équitable et que l'administration avait suivi toutes les procédures applicables.

The Tribunal observed that a review of the evidence in this case indicated that the panel’s assessment of the Applicant’s interview was proper. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the Applicant received full and fair consideration and that the Administration followed all applicable procedures.