Â鶹´«Ã½

Le Tribunal a d¨¦fini les questions g¨¦n¨¦rales de la pr¨¦sente affaire comme suit :

Le requ¨¦rant a-t-il d¨¦lib¨¦r¨¦ment induit l'Organisation en erreur ?

Bien qu'il y ait eu de nombreux d¨¦saccords factuels entre les parties, y compris en ce qui concerne les d¨¦tails des gains financiers et des transactions dans lesquelles le requ¨¦rant ¨¦tait impliqu¨¦, le Tribunal a estim¨¦ qu'il n'¨¦tait pas n¨¦cessaire de r¨¦soudre tous ces diff¨¦rends dans le cadre de cet exercice de contr?le judiciaire. Le requ¨¦rant a admis ses relations financi¨¨res ¨¦tendues avec M. David Kendrick et qu'il n'avait pas divulgu¨¦ ces...

Apr¨¨s avoir examin¨¦ toutes les observations et les preuves au dossier, le Tribunal a estim¨¦ que la principale question ¨¤ trancher ¨¦tait de savoir si le responsable du recrutement avait proc¨¦d¨¦ ¨¤ une ¨¦valuation juste et impartiale de la candidature du requ¨¦rant, en lui accordant une attention compl¨¨te et ¨¦quitable.

La feuille de calcul soumise par le d¨¦fendeur en r¨¦ponse ¨¤ l'ordonnance n¡ã 57 (GVA/2024) ¨¦claire la question. Ce document contemporain montre l'¨¦valuation approfondie de l'exp¨¦rience professionnelle du candidat par le responsable du recrutement.

Les observations du candidat concernant...

Le requ¨¦rant a contest¨¦ la l¨¦galit¨¦, la raison et l¡¯¨¦quit¨¦ de la d¨¦cision du Bureau de l¡¯audit interne et des enqu¨ºtes (? OIAI ?) de ne pas ouvrir d¡¯enqu¨ºte sur sa plainte pour harc¨¨lement et abus de pouvoir pr¨¦sum¨¦s. Il a affirm¨¦ que si les questions li¨¦es au travail ne constituent normalement pas une conduite interdite, la politique de l¡¯UNICEF sur les conduites interdites n¡¯exclut pas que les questions li¨¦es au rendement soient consid¨¦r¨¦es comme du harc¨¨lement et de l¡¯abus de pouvoir.

La question soumise au Tribunal ¨¦tait de d¨¦terminer si les arguments du requ¨¦rant rel¨¨vent des d¨¦saccords...

The Applicant disputed whether the Office of Internal Audit and Investigations (¡°OIAI¡±) decision not to initiate an investigation into his complaint of alleged harassment and abuse of authority was lawful, reasonable, and fair. He asserted that while work-related matters normally do not constitute prohibited conduct, UNICEF¡¯s Policy on Prohibited Conduct does not exclude performance-related matters from being considered harassment and abuse of authority.

The issue before the Tribunal was determining whether the Applicant¡¯s contentions fall in the scope of regular disagreements on work...

La principale question juridique soumise au Tribunal ¨¦tait de savoir si la d¨¦cision de ne pas s¨¦lectionner le requ¨¦rant pour le poste de r¨¦viseur P-4 (russe) ¨¦tait l¨¦gale dans la mesure o¨´ sa candidature avait ¨¦t¨¦ examin¨¦e de mani¨¨re compl¨¨te et ¨¦quitable.

Le Tribunal a estim¨¦ que les proc¨¦dures applicables avaient ¨¦t¨¦ correctement suivies et que les all¨¦gations d¡¯irr¨¦gularit¨¦s proc¨¦durales formul¨¦es par le requ¨¦rant n¡¯¨¦taient pas fond¨¦es.

En ce qui concerne l¡¯examen complet et ¨¦quitable, le Tribunal a not¨¦ qu¡¯apr¨¨s avoir examin¨¦ les candidatures sur la base des crit¨¨res d¡¯¨¦valuation ¨¦tablis...

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the decision not to select the Applicant for the position of P-4 Reviser (Russian) was lawful in that he was given full and fair consideration for the position.

The Tribunal found that the applicable procedures were properly followed, and that the Applicant¡¯s allegations of procedural irregularities were unsubstantiated.

With respect to full and fair consideration, the Tribunal noted that after reviewing the applications based on the established evaluation criteria, four candidates were deemed not to be suitable and five candidates...

The Tribunal defined the overall issues of the present case as follows:

Whether the Applicant wilfully misled the Organization

While there were many factual disagreements between the parties, including with respect to the details of the financial gains and dealings the Applicant was involved with, the Tribunal found that it was not necessary to resolve all those disputes during this exercise of judicial review. The Applicant admitted his extensive financial relationships with Mr. David Kendrick and that he failed to disclose these relationships to the Organization. These admissions were...

Having considered all the submissions and the evidence on record, the Tribunal considered that the main issue for determination was whether the hiring manager conducted a fair and unbiased assessment of the Applicant¡¯s candidacy, giving it full and fair consideration.

The spreadsheet submitted by the Respondent in response to Order No. 57 (GVA/2024) sheds a light into the matter. This contemporaneous document showcases the hiring manager¡¯s thorough assessment of the Applicant¡¯s professional experience.

The Applicant¡¯s submissions concerning his title, long satisfactory service, OiC experience...

Apr¨¨s avoir examin¨¦ les ¨¦l¨¦ments de preuve au dossier, le Tribunal identifie les questions suivantes ¨¤ trancher :

Le requ¨¦rant a-t-il droit ¨¤ un cong¨¦ parental en vertu de la disposition 6.3 du R¨¨glement du personnel ?

Le droit au cong¨¦ parental en vertu de la nouvelle disposition 6.3 du R¨¨glement du personnel n¡¯entre en vigueur qu¡¯¨¤ compter du 1er janvier 2023 et son application est soumise aux ? conditions ¨¦tablies par le Secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral ? conform¨¦ment ¨¤ la disposition 6.3(a) du R¨¨glement du personnel. Ces conditions sont ¨¦nonc¨¦es dans la ST/AI/2023/2.

L¡¯article 1.2 de la ST/AI/2023/2...

Having examined the evidence on record, the Tribunal identifies the following issues for determination:

Whether the Applicant is entitled to parental leave under staff rule 6.3

The entitlement under new staff rule 6.3 on parental leave is only effective as of 1 January 2023, and its application is subject to the ¡°conditions established by the Secretary-General¡± as per staff rule 6.3(a). These conditions are set out in ST/AI/2023/2.

Section 1.2 of ST/AI/2023/2 provides that said administrative instruction governs the administration of parental leave in respect of a child born or adopted on or...

Il n¡¯a pas ¨¦t¨¦ contest¨¦ et ¨¦tabli par des preuves claires et convaincantes que la requ¨¦rante s¡¯est livr¨¦e ¨¤ plusieurs activit¨¦s ext¨¦rieures. Il n¡¯a pas non plus ¨¦t¨¦ contest¨¦ qu¡¯il lui avait ¨¦t¨¦ conseill¨¦ de demander une autorisation pour ses activit¨¦s en ligne. La contestation de la requ¨¦rante se limite donc ¨¤ la caract¨¦risation de la conduite ¨¦tablie comme activit¨¦s ext¨¦rieures et, par cons¨¦quent, comme faute.

Que les faits sur lesquels la mesure disciplinaire ¨¦tait fond¨¦e aient ¨¦t¨¦ ¨¦tablis par des preuves claires et convaincantes

Sur la base des ¨¦l¨¦ments de preuve vers¨¦s au dossier, le...

It was undisputed and established by clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant engaged in several instances of outside activities. It was further undisputed that the Applicant was advised to seek authorization for her online activities. The Applicant¡¯s challenge, therefore, is limited to the characterization of the established conduct as outside activities and, consequently, as misconduct.

Whether the facts on which the disciplinary measure was based have been established by clear and convincing evidence

Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal found that the Applicant was aware that...

Apr¨¨s avoir examin¨¦ les ¨¦l¨¦ments de preuve au dossier, le Tribunal identifie les questions suivantes ¨¤ trancher :

Le requ¨¦rant a-t-il droit ¨¤ un cong¨¦ parental en vertu de la disposition 6.3 du R¨¨glement du personnel ?

Le Tribunal a conclu que le requ¨¦rant, dont l¡¯enfant est n¨¦ le 2 mai 2022, avait droit ¨¤ quatre semaines de cong¨¦ de paternit¨¦ ou ¨¤ huit semaines de cong¨¦ d¡¯adoption en vertu du R¨¨glement du personnel de 2018 et de la ST/AI/2005/2, qu¡¯il a exerc¨¦. Il n¡¯a pas ¨¦t¨¦, comme il le pr¨¦tend, ? plac¨¦ dans un no man¡¯s land entre deux [instructions administratives] ?.

Le fait que le requ¨¦rant...

Having examined the evidence on record, the Tribunal identifies the following issues for determination:

Whether the Applicant is entitled to parental leave under staff rule 6.3

The Tribunal found that the Applicant, whose child was born on 2 May 2022, was entitled to four weeks of paternity leave or eight weeks of adoption leave under the 2018 Staff Rules and ST/AI/2005/2, which he exercised. He was not, as he contends, ¡°placed in a no-man¡¯s land between two [Administrative Instructions]¡±.

The fact that the Applicant requested and was exceptionally granted additional leave after 1 January 2023 is...

La mesure transitoire pr¨¦vue par le nouveau r¨¦gime de cong¨¦ parental accorde 10 semaines suppl¨¦mentaires de cong¨¦ sp¨¦cial avec plein salaire (? SLWFP ?) aux membres du personnel qui ¨¦taient d¨¦j¨¤ en cong¨¦ de maternit¨¦ au 1er janvier 2023. Cette mesure a ¨¦t¨¦ cr¨¦¨¦e pour faciliter la transition entre l¡¯ancien r¨¦gime de cong¨¦ parental et le nouveau, et pour permettre un traitement ¨¦quitable et juste des membres du personnel devenus parents en donnant naissance.

Le Tribunal a estim¨¦ que la mesure transitoire ¨¦tait une solution juste, raisonnable et rationnelle. En vertu de cette mesure, tous les...

La mesure transitoire pr¨¦vue par le nouveau r¨¦gime de cong¨¦ parental accorde 10 semaines suppl¨¦mentaires de cong¨¦ parental ¨¤ dur¨¦e d¨¦termin¨¦e aux membres du personnel qui ¨¦taient d¨¦j¨¤ en cong¨¦ de maternit¨¦ au 1er janvier 2023. Cette mesure a ¨¦t¨¦ cr¨¦¨¦e pour faciliter la transition entre l¡¯ancien r¨¦gime de cong¨¦ parental et le nouveau, et pour permettre un traitement ¨¦quitable et juste des membres du personnel devenus parents en donnant naissance. La requ¨¦rante avait cependant ¨¦puis¨¦ ses droits au cong¨¦ de maternit¨¦ et ¨¦tait en cong¨¦ annuel au 1er janvier 2023.

Le Tribunal n¡¯a pas jug¨¦ fond¨¦ son...

The transitional measure under the new parental leave scheme grants an additional 10 weeks of SLWFP to staff members who were already on maternity leave on 1 January 2023. This measure was created to facilitate the transition from the previous parental leave scheme to the new one, and to enable equity and fairness in the treatment of staff members who became parents by giving birth. The Applicant, however, had exhausted her maternity leave entitlements and was instead on annual leave on 1 January 2023.

The Tribunal found no merit in her argument that she should be considered as still on...

The transitional measure under the new parental leave scheme grants an additional 10 weeks of special leave with full pay ("SLWFP") to staff members who were already on maternity leave on 1 January 2023. This measure was created to facilitate the transition from the previous parental leave scheme to the new one, and to enable equity and fairness in the treatment of staff members who became parents by giving birth.

The Tribunal found that the transitional measure was a fair, reasonable, and rational solution. Under it, all birthing parents that were still on maternity leave when the new policy...

Le Tribunal a rappel¨¦ qu'il n'est pas comp¨¦tent pour examiner les requ¨ºtes ¨¦manant de personnes qui ne sont pas membres du personnel.

Le Tribunal a estim¨¦ que la requ¨ºte n'¨¦tait pas recevable ratione personae parce qu'¨¤ la date d'introduction de la pr¨¦sente requ¨ºte, le requ¨¦rant n'¨¦tait pas membre du personnel des Nations Unies et que la d¨¦cision contest¨¦e n'avait aucune incidence sur le statut du requ¨¦rant en tant qu'ancien membre du personnel ou ne violait pas les termes de son ancienne nomination ou de son ancien contrat d'emploi.

Dans ces circonstances et compte tenu du fait que la requ¨ºte n...

The Tribunal recalled that it lacks jurisdiction to consider applications from non-staff members.

The Tribunal found that the application was not receivable ratione personae because at the date of the filing of the present application, the Applicant was not a staff member of the United Nations and the contested decision had no bearing on the Applicant¡¯s status as a former staff member or otherwise breached the terms of his former appointment or contract of employment.

Under the circumstances and considering that the application was not receivable, there was no need for the Tribunal to examine...