Règles de l'organisation (771,-666)

Votre recherche:
Mots-clés: Règles de l'organisation
Jugements trouvés: 12

• Jugement 5134

  
  141e session, 2026
  Organisation internationale pour les migrations
  Extraits: EN, FR
  Texte Intégral Du Jugement: EN, FR
  Synthèse: The complainant challenges the non-renewal of his contract based on his unsatisfactory performance.

  Considérants 8-9

  Extrait:

  The Tribunal finds that the record establishes the Organization’s failure to abide by its own policies and procedures, thereby violating the principle by which an organisation is bound by its own rules.
  […]
  By not undertaking in due course the required periodic appraisal of the complainant’s performance, through combined use of a SES, a Special SES and a PIP, the Organization not only violated Rule 1.2.2(b) and Instruction IN/181 but also breached its duty to act in good faith by failing to provide adequate time for the complainant to improve his performance.

  Mots-clés:

  Evaluation; Règles de l'organisation;
  

  
  
  

• Jugement 5122

  
  141e session, 2026
  Organisation pour l'interdiction des armes chimiques
  Extraits: EN, FR
  Texte Intégral Du Jugement: EN, FR
  Synthèse: The complainant challenges the decision to impose upon him the disciplinary measure of written censure and to bar him from any future employment with the OPCW for alleged breaches of his confidentiality obligations.

  Considérant 17

  Extrait:

  [U]nder the Tribunal’s case law, a complainant has no general right to legal representation in all circumstances during an investigation (see, for example, Judgment 2589, consideration 7). Moreover, there was no rule that mandated that a subject of an investigation was entitled to legal representation therein.

  Référence(s)

  Jugement(s) TAOIT: 2589
  

  Mots-clés:

  Assistance juridique; Droit; Enquête; Règles de l'organisation;
  

  Considérant 23

  Extrait:

  [T]here was a requirement to observe due process at the disciplinary stage prior to the imposition of any sanction upon the complainant. Notably, Rule 10.2.03 of the OPCW Staff Regulations and Interim Staff Rules, then in force, under the heading “Due process”, stated, in effect, that no disciplinary proceedings may be instituted against a staff member unless he or she had been notified of the allegations against him or her, as well as the right to seek assistance in his or her defence, as well as be given a reasonable opportunity to respond to those allegations. These steps were not taken before the Director-General issued the disciplinary measures against the complainant in the letter of 7 February 2020 to the extent that the complainant was not provided with the charges. He was also not provided with a copy of the full investigation report, as was required by paragraph 1.18 of Part IX of the Policy on Confidentiality. The complainant’s right to due process before those measures were imposed upon him was thereby violated.

  Mots-clés:

  Accusations disciplinaires; Application des règles de procédure; Assistance juridique; Droit; Notification des allégations; Patere legem; Procédure disciplinaire; Production des preuves; Rapport d'enquête; Règles de l'organisation; Sanction disciplinaire;
  

  
  
  

• Jugement 5115

  
  141e session, 2026
  Organisation des Etats d'Afrique, des Caraïbes et du Pacifique
  Extraits: EN, FR
  Texte Intégral Du Jugement: EN, FR
  Synthèse: Le requérant conteste la décision de résiliation de son contrat d’engagement pour violation grave des dispositions de ce contrat.

  Mots-clés du jugement

  Mots-clés:

  Epuisement des recours internes; Recevabilité de la requête; Requête rejetée; Règles de l'organisation;
  

  
  
  

• Jugement 5113

  
  141e session, 2026
  Conférence de la Charte de l'énergie
  Extraits: EN, FR
  Texte Intégral Du Jugement: EN, FR
  Synthèse: The complainant contests his Performance Appraisal Report (PAR) for the period from 1 June 2021 to 31 May 2022 and the decision not to renew his appointment due to unsatisfactory performance.

  Considérants 7-8

  Extrait:

  “[I]n terms of alleged unsatisfactory performance, a staff member should not only be warned but also given an opportunity to improve and correct the alleged poor or unsatisfactory performance. […] ‘[…] ‘an organisation may not in good faith end someone’s appointment for poor performance without first warning him and giving him an opportunity to do better [...]. Moreover, it cannot base an adverse decision on a staff member’s unsatisfactory performance if it has not complied with the rules established to evaluate that performance [...].’” […] in Judgment 3026, consideration 8, the Tribunal recalled that “[a]n opportunity to improve requires not only that the staff member be made aware of the matters requiring improvement, but, also, that he or she be given a reasonable time for that improvement to occur”.”
  The Tribunal finds that the organisation breached its duty of care in its treatment of the complainant. […]
  There is no evidence that the concerns regarding the complainant’s performance were brought to his attention at any time prior to […], when the completed PAR was forwarded to him. The decision not to renew his appointment was taken just three weeks later. As a result, he was not afforded an opportunity to address or rectify the alleged shortcomings in his performance, nor was he granted a reasonable period within which any improvement could have been expected to occur.”

  Mots-clés:

  Application des règles de procédure; Appréciation des services; Avertissement; Evaluation; Non-renouvellement de contrat; Patere legem; Performance; Rapport d'appréciation; Règles de l'organisation; Services insatisfaisants; Violation;
  

  
  
  

• Jugement 4958

  
  139e session, 2025
  Organisation européenne pour la sécurité de la navigation aérienne
  Extraits: EN, FR
  Texte Intégral Du Jugement: EN, FR
  Synthèse: Les requérants contestent la décision implicite d’Eurocontrol de rejeter leur demande de versement de l’indemnité forfaitaire pour travail par roulement au lieu des rémunérations accessoires qui leur sont actuellement versées pour le travail par roulement qu’ils effectuent.

  Mots-clés du jugement

  Mots-clés:

  Heures supplémentaires; Indemnité; Requête rejetée; Règles de l'organisation;
  

  Considérant 8

  Extrait:

  The complainants seek to avoid the consequences of Attachment 4 to Office Notice No. 20/06 by calling in aid the principle of clausula rebus sic stantibus. This Latin expression refers to a principle whereby a clause in a contract or treaty is to be treated as ineffective or inoperative because there had been a fundamental change in circumstances. Even if this principle permits the Tribunal to ignore express provisions in normative and statutory texts or treat their terms as modified, which may be doubted, the principle’s application depends on the complainants producing evidence of new, unforeseen circumstances, which would have required notional revision of the express provisions (see Judgment 1879, consideration 7(c)). In this matter, the complainants have singularly failed to do so.

  Référence(s)

  Jugement(s) TAOIT: 1879
  

  Mots-clés:

  Changement de règles; Heures supplémentaires; Indemnité; Règles de l'organisation; Règles écrites;
  

  
  
  

• Jugement 4915

  
  139e session, 2025
  Bureau international des poids et mesures
  Extraits: EN, FR
  Texte Intégral Du Jugement: EN, FR
  Synthèse: Le requérant conteste la décision du BIPM de classer sa plainte pour harcèlement et de rejeter ses demandes d’indemnité.

  Considérant 5

  Extrait:

  The contention that the allegations against the Director should have been decided by the CIPM as a whole, rather than by its President, is unfounded. The CIPM is the Director’s appointing authority, and, pursuant to the relevant rules, it is competent to terminate the Director’s appointment, to initiate a disciplinary action against the Director, and to take the decisions related to the conditions of employment of the Director. The relevant rules do not expressly address the issue at stake in the present proceedings, but the structure of the rules as a whole makes it sufficiently clear that they intend to confine the CIPM’s competence to the main decisions directly involving the Director, that is to say the appointment, the termination of the appointment, the conditions of employment, and does not include harassment proceedings lodged by other staff members and involving the Director, unless the decision to be taken is a disciplinary sanction against the Director. In the present case, the process in question was not a disciplinary process against the Director, but a process prompted by a harassment complaint. The competent authority was, in principle, the Director, and, as the Director could not decide upon a harassment complaint lodged against himself, he was lawfully replaced by the CIPM President and not by the CIPM as a whole.

  Mots-clés:

  Auteur de la décision; Décision; Harcèlement; Règles de l'organisation; Récusation;
  

  Considérants 5-6

  Extrait:

  As to the contention that the CIPM President and the Director were both in a conflict of interest, the Tribunal recalls its precedents concerning conflicts of interest. The Tribunal’s case law states that it is a general rule of law that officials who are called upon to take a decision affecting the rights or duties of other persons subject to their jurisdiction must withdraw in cases in which their impartiality may be open to question on reasonable grounds. It further states that it is immaterial that, subjectively, the officials may consider themselves able to take an unprejudiced decision; nor is it enough for the persons affected by the decision to suspect its author of prejudice (see, for example, Judgments 4240, consideration 10, and 4234, consideration 3). A conflict of interest occurs in situations where a reasonable person would not exclude partiality, that is, a situation that gives rise to an objective partiality. Even the mere appearance of partiality, based on facts or situations, gives rise to a conflict of interest (see Judgment 3958, consideration 11). However, an allegation of conflict of interest or lack of impartiality has to be substantiated and based on specific facts, not on mere suspicions or hypotheses. The complainant bears the burden of proof of conflict of interest (see Judgments 4711, consideration 5, 4617, consideration 9, and 4616, consideration 6).
  In light of the Tribunal’s case law, there is no evidence of a conflict of interest with regard to the CIPM President. Firstly, contrary to the complainant’s contention, there is no evidence in the file that the CIPM President had, in the past, reviewed any of the complainant’s claims. In his 24 February 2021 decision, the CIPM President only acknowledged that over the years he “was kept informed of the situation, and [he] had personal experience of how some of the issues were handled”. Secondly, in any event, even if it were to be assumed that the CIPM President had, in the past, reviewed some of the complainant’s claims, this mere fact does not prove that he had prejudice against the complainant when he decided the harassment complaint.
  As to the Director’s alleged conflict of interest, the Tribunal considers that his impartiality was open to question on reasonable grounds. The complainant’s harassment complaint [...] accused the Director and four other officials of harassment. The complainant contended that he was the victim of an orchestrated harassment, and that not only did the Director harass him, he also tolerated the alleged hostile work environment, and, instead of seeking to manage the strained working relationships, he “let them develop and expand”. The Director was one of the five officials subject to the external investigation and was interviewed during the investigation process. In such a situation, the Director could not decide upon the harassment allegations lodged against himself. Nor could he decide on the harassment allegations lodged against the four other officials. Indeed, the complainant did not report separate and independent harassing behaviours by each of the accused officials individually, but, rather, an orchestrated harassment against him and accused the Director of tolerating that harassment against him. Thus, the allegations against the Director and the four other officials were interconnected and, in deciding the allegations against the four officials, the Director might have had an interest in denying the harassment in order to shield himself from the allegation of having tolerated it. The Director should have recused himself from the whole case and not only from deciding upon the allegations against himself, which is what he did in his 12 November 2020 email, by which he delegated to the CIPM President the authority to decide upon only the allegations against himself.
  The mere fact that the Director decided to close the case against the other four officials only after the CIPM President had closed the case against the Director, did not eliminate the conflict of interest. On the one hand, the Director’s failure to delegate the decision-making authority on the whole case to the CIPM President was unlawful. On the other hand, the CIPM President’s decision on the allegations against the Director was a decision open to challenge. Thus, for as long as the CIPM President’s decision was open to challenge, the Director maintained an interest in deciding the allegations against the other four officials in a way which would not negatively affect his personal position with regard to the related harassment allegations brought against him.
  In the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal considers that the Director had a conflict of interest that required him to withdraw from the case completely. This alone casts doubt on the Director’s impartiality. Considering the whole situation, a reasonable person would think that the Director would not bring a detached, impartial mind to the issues involved. In brief, since the complainant reported an orchestrated harassment against him, the case should not have been split into two separate decisions; it should have been decided as one case in a single decision by the CIPM President. Accordingly, the decisions adopted by the Director […] are unlawful as they are tainted with a conflict of interest. […]
  The Tribunal’s finding on the Director’s conflict of interest constitutes a decisive and fatal flaw in the impugned decision […].

  Référence(s)

  Jugement(s) TAOIT: 3958, 4234, 4240, 4616, 4617, 4711
  

  Mots-clés:

  Auteur de la décision; Conflit d'intérêts; Décision; Règles de l'organisation; Récusation;
  

  Considérant 7

  Extrait:

  The Tribunal observes that Rule 18.5.3 of the BIPM Staff Manual, entitled “Incompatibilities of Appeals Committee members”, provides that:
  “The Appeals Committee shall not include any member involved in the process leading up to the case, in relation with his functions or a mediation procedure. This member is hence replaced by his substitute.”
  The Tribunal notes that, in principle, persons who played a role as parties, decision-making authorities, or witnesses in administrative proceedings should not act as members of the internal appeal body in ensuing internal appeal proceedings. In the context of the BIPM, failure to respect this would amount to “incompatibility” within the meaning of Rule 18.5.3, and would, in any event, be inconsistent with the Tribunal’s case law concerning due process and the impartiality of an internal appeal body. Relevantly, in Judgment 3732, consideration 3, the Tribunal held that the member, whose participation in the internal appeal body was contested in that case, could not be a member of the internal appeal body assessing the complainant’s appeal if he had been interviewed by the Internal Auditor, since the internal appeal body had to assess the testimonies on which the Internal Auditor’s report was based. In those circumstance, the contested member’s impartiality might be open to question as there were reasonable grounds for concluding that there was an actual conflict of interest, not merely a perceived conflict (see Judgments 2671, consideration 10, and 2225, consideration 19). The fact that the decision of an appeal body is reached unanimously does not eliminate the flaw in the process due to the participation in the decision-making of a member who should have recused themselves. Indeed, the participation in an appeal body of a member having a conflict of interest may influence the decision-making of the other members (see Judgment 4772, consideration 12). Accordingly, the Appeals Committee member […] who was heard as a witness in the investigation process, and in this capacity referred to specific episodes involving the complainant and the Director, should not have participated in the appeal proceedings as a member of the Appeals Committee, irrespective of the fact that the Appeals Committee adopted its opinion unanimously.

  Référence(s)

  Jugement(s) TAOIT: 2225, 2671, 3732, 4772
  

  Mots-clés:

  Composition de l'organe de recours interne; Conflit d'intérêts; Impartialité; Membre d'un organe interne; Règles de l'organisation; Récusation;
  

  
  
  

• Jugement 4856

  
  138e session, 2024
  Organisation des Nations Unies pour l'alimentation et l'agriculture
  Extraits: EN, FR
  Texte Intégral Du Jugement: EN, FR
  Synthèse: Le requérant attaque la décision de le renvoyer pour inconduite.

  Considérant 4

  Extrait:

  [T]he FAO/WFP’s regulatory framework prohibits a staff member from engaging in any political activities or being a candidate for a public office of a political character. WFP Human Resources (HR) Manual Section I.2.2.3 relevantly states that staff members wishing to submit their candidacy for a public office, provided that it is not political in nature, must obtain prior authorization from the Executive Director. This section however refers to Staff Regulation 301.1.7, which states that any staff member who becomes a candidate for public office of a political character, while still employed with the WFP, shall resign from the Organization. This makes it obvious that a staff member’s participation in such political activity is inimical to the interest of the WFP and is strictly forbidden. Notably, the Tribunal has stated, in Judgment 1061, consideration 5, that the reason for the provision in Staff Regulation 301.1.7 is that an international civil servant, though entitled to hold his own political views, must stand aloof from demonstrations of adherence to a political party and that integrity, loyalty to the international civil service, independence and impartiality are the standards required of an international civil servant and they require him or her to keep clear of involvement in national party politics.

  Référence(s)

  Jugement(s) TAOIT: 1061
  

  Mots-clés:

  Activités politiques; Activités privées; Conflit d'intérêts; Intérêt de l'organisation; Obligations du fonctionnaire; Principes de la fonction publique internationale; Règles de l'organisation;
  

  
  
  

• Jugement 4840

  
  138e session, 2024
  Organisation internationale pour les migrations
  Extraits: EN, FR
  Texte Intégral Du Jugement: EN, FR
  Synthèse: La requérante conteste la décision de ne pas renouveler son contrat de durée déterminée en raison de résultats insuffisants après qu’elle a été soumise à un plan d’amélioration des performances de trois mois.

  Considérant 10

  Extrait:

  [A]n international organization must comply with the procedures it has established for evaluating performance before deciding to terminate or not to renew a contract for unsatisfactory performance. In Judgment 4666, consideration 4, the Tribunal aptly stated the following in this respect:
  “An examination of a staff member’s assessment report before taking any decision not to renew that person’s contract on the basis of unsatisfactory performance is a fundamental obligation, non-compliance with which constitutes a procedural flaw that has the effect of an essential fact being overlooked (see, in particular, Judgments 2992, consideration 18, 2096, consideration 13, and the case law cited therein).”
  In Judgment 3417, also involving IOM, this principle was enunciated in no uncertain terms at consideration 6:
  “However while there is an undoubted right of an organisation to decide not to renew a fixed-term contract, it does not follow that an organisation is, additionally, immune from any liability if it has failed to follow its own procedures designed to monitor, assess and evaluate staff performance and progress. The fundamental purpose of such procedures is to explicitly alert a staff member to identified deficiencies in her or his performance and thus give the staff member an opportunity to address those deficiencies and improve performance. The interaction of such procedures and decisions not to renew fixed-term contracts was discussed by the Tribunal in Judgment 2991, under 13:
  ‘It is a general principle of international civil service law that there must be a valid reason for any decision not to renew a fixed-term contract. If the reason given is the unsatisfactory nature of the performance of the staff member concerned, who is entitled to be informed in a timely manner as to the unsatisfactory aspects of his or her service, the organisation must base its decision on an assessment of that person’s work carried out in compliance with previously established rules [...].’”
  This is entirely consistent with the related principle to the effect that an organization cannot base an adverse decision on a staff member’s unsatisfactory performance if it has not complied with the rules established to evaluate that performance (see, for example, Judgments 3932, consideration 21, and 3252, consideration 8, and the case law cited therein).

  Référence(s)

  Jugement(s) TAOIT: 2096, 2991, 2992, 3252, 3417, 3932, 4666
  

  Mots-clés:

  Application des règles de procédure; Durée déterminée; Evaluation; Non-renouvellement de contrat; Obligation de motiver une décision; Patere legem; Règles de l'organisation; Services insatisfaisants; Violation;
  

  Considérant 18

  Extrait:

  [I]n the process leading up to the 6 October 2019 decision that ended up being confirmed by the impugned decision, IOM breached Rule 1.2.2(b) and Instruction IN/181 by not undertaking in due course the required periodic appraisal of the complainant’s work. The leap to the PIP was, in this sense, premature and a breach of due process, as much as a failure to adhere to explicit organizational rules.

  Mots-clés:

  Application des règles de procédure; Evaluation; Patere legem; Performance; Rapport d'appréciation; Règles de l'organisation; Violation;
  

  Considérant 29

  Extrait:

  Firm and constant precedent has it that an international organization has a duty to provide valid reasons for a decision not to renew a fixed-term contract. For example, in Judgment 4503, consideration 7, the Tribunal stated the following in support of this principle:
  “Even though an organization is generally under no obligation to extend a fixed-term contract or to reassign someone whose fixed-term contract is expiring, unless it is specifically provided by a provision in the staff rules or regulations, the reason for the non-renewal must be valid (and not an excuse to get rid of a staff member) and be notified within a reasonable time (see Judgments 1128, consideration 2, 1154, consideration 4, 1983, consideration 6, 2406, consideration 14, 3353, consideration 15, 3582, consideration 9, 3586, consideration 10, 3626, consideration 12, and 3769, consideration 7).
  An international organization is under an obligation to consider whether or not it is in its interests to renew a contract and to make a decision accordingly: though such a decision is discretionary, it cannot be arbitrary or irrational; there must be a good reason for it and the reason must be given (see Judgment 1128, consideration 2).”
  In Judgment 3586, consideration 6, the Tribunal further clarified that “[t]hese grounds of review are applicable notwithstanding that the Tribunal has consistently stated, in Judgment 3444, [consideration] 3, for example, that an employee who is in the service of an international organization on a fixed-term contract does not have a right to the renewal of the contract when it expires and the complainant’s terms of appointment contained a similar provision”.

  Référence(s)

  Jugement(s) TAOIT: 1128, 3444, 3586, 4503
  

  Mots-clés:

  Application des règles de procédure; Durée déterminée; Evaluation; Non-renouvellement de contrat; Obligation de motiver une décision; Patere legem; Règles de l'organisation; Services insatisfaisants; Violation;
  

  Considérant 20

  Extrait:

  [A]s a result, the complainant was ultimately not provided with a full three months to improve her performance, even though it was initially determined by the organization that this was the necessary period established for improvement. In addition, while the draft PIP contemplated holding meetings every two weeks, in the end only four meetings took place to discuss the complainant’s PIP (24 July, 28 August, 4 September and 6 October 2019). And while the complainant was told at the 4 September meeting that her fixed-term contract would be renewed for six months, at the 6 October meeting that followed, she was rather notified of the non-renewal of that fixed-term contract beyond its expiry on 31 October 2019 because of the alleged sudden deterioration of her performance after mid-September.
  It follows that, on this basis alone, the PIP process was irregular and procedurally flawed, as was the subsequent decision not to renew the complainant’s contract based on the results of that PIP.

  Mots-clés:

  Application des règles de procédure; Evaluation; Patere legem; Performance; Rapport d'appréciation; Règles de l'organisation; Services insatisfaisants; Violation;
  

  Considérants 23-24

  Extrait:

  [T]he CoM thus failed to give the complainant reasonable time to improve her performance between the time that he recognized that it had improved sufficiently enough to warrant a longer contract renewal and the last-minute reversal of this view that led to the sudden imposition of the decision of non-renewal.
  In this regard, the Tribunal considers that the Organization breached its duty to act in good faith by failing to provide adequate time for the complainant to improve her performance. The Tribunal recalls its well-settled case law that in terms of alleged unsatisfactory performance, a staff member should not only be warned but also given an opportunity to improve and correct the alleged poor or unsatisfactory performance. In Judgment 3282, consideration 5, it stated the following in this respect:
  “As in Judgment 2916, under 4, the Tribunal holds that ‘an organisation may not in good faith end someone’s appointment for poor performance without first warning him and giving him an opportunity to do better [...]. Moreover, it cannot base an adverse decision on a staff member’s unsatisfactory performance if it has not complied with the rules established to evaluate that performance [...].’”
  Similarly, in Judgment 3026, consideration 8, the Tribunal recalled that “[a]n opportunity to improve requires not only that the staff member be made aware of the matters requiring improvement, but, also, that he or she be given a reasonable time for that improvement to occur”.

  Référence(s)

  Jugement(s) TAOIT: 2916, 3026, 3282
  

  Mots-clés:

  Application des règles de procédure; Appréciation des services; Avertissement; Evaluation; Non-renouvellement de contrat; Patere legem; Performance; Rapport d'appréciation; Règles de l'organisation; Services insatisfaisants; Violation;
  

  Mots-clés du jugement

  Mots-clés:

  Admission partielle; Application des règles de procédure; Durée déterminée; Evaluation; Non-renouvellement de contrat; Obligation de motiver une décision; Patere legem; Requête admise; Règles de l'organisation; Services insatisfaisants; Violation;
  

  
  
  

• Jugement 4746

  
  137e session, 2024
  Organisation internationale pour les migrations
  Extraits: EN, FR
  Texte Intégral Du Jugement: EN, FR
  Synthèse: La requérante conteste la décision de classer sa plainte pour harcèlement à l’issue d’une évaluation préliminaire et sans mener d’enquête.

  Considérant 10

  Extrait:

  [L]e Tribunal estime que [le Bureau de l'Inspecteur général] a effectué un examen approfondi du dossier volumineux que l’intéressée lui a soumis et qu’il a réalisé une analyse détaillée de ses allégations. La conclusion de l’OIG selon laquelle la plainte pour harcèlement de la requérante devait être classée était fondée sur les résultats de son évaluation préliminaire, à savoir qu’«il n’y avait pas de preuve suffisante à première vue de harcèlement, d’abus de pouvoir, de représailles ou de toute autre faute». Lorsqu’il a conclu que la plainte devait être classée parce qu’il n’y avait pas de preuve suffisante à première vue, [le Bureau de l'Inspecteur général] a agi conformément au pouvoir qui était le sien et en totale conformité avec les dispositions des directives relatives aux enquêtes [du Bureau de l'Inspecteur général].
  

  Mots-clés:

  Enquête; Organe d'enquête; Règles de l'organisation;
  

  
  
  

• Jugement 4233

  
  129e session, 2020
  Office international des épizooties
  Extraits: EN, FR
  Texte Intégral Du Jugement: EN, FR
  Synthèse: Le requérant conteste la décision de ne pas l’indemniser au titre du préjudice qui lui aurait été causé par le harcèlement moral dont il prétend avoir été victime.

  Considérant 2

  Extrait:

  Il est de jurisprudence constante qu’une organisation internationale a, à l’égard de ses fonctionnaires, le devoir d’enquêter de façon approfondie et objective sur des allégations de harcèlement (voir, par exemple, les jugements 3071, au considérant 36, 3314, au considérant 14, 3337, au considérant 11, et 4013, au considérant 10). Cette obligation s’impose à l’OIE, même en l’absence de procédure particulière prévue par les textes en vigueur en cas de plainte pour harcèlement. Il serait d’ailleurs souhaitable que l’Organisation comble cette lacune et institue une telle procédure en s’inspirant éventuellement de celles qui existent dans la plupart des organisations internationales et de la jurisprudence du Tribunal.

  Référence(s)

  Jugement(s) TAOIT: 3071, 3314, 3337, 4013
  

  Mots-clés:

  Enquête; Enquête; Harcèlement; Règles de l'organisation;
  

  
  
  

• Jugement 3365

  
  118e session, 2014
  Organisation mondiale de la santé
  Extraits: EN, FR
  Texte Intégral Du Jugement: EN, FR
  Synthèse: Le requérant attaque la décision rejetant sa plainte pour harcèlement et déni de justice.

  Considérant 15

  Extrait:

  La politique sur la prévention du harcèlement à l’OMS, entrée en vigueur le 7 septembre 2010, prévoit en son paragraphe 8.5 que, «lorsque le CRA ou le CAS est saisi d’un appel contenant une allégation de harcèlement […], il statue sur ce volet de l’appel conformément à son Règlement intérieur».
  En outre, l’addendum provisoire du 22 novembre 2010 au Règlement intérieur du CAS (révision no 1) était une mesure provisoire qui devait s’appliquer jusqu’à ce que le CAS adapte son Règlement intérieur à la politique sur la prévention du harcèlement.
  Cet addendum prévoyait que, lorsque le CAS est saisi d’un appel qui inclut une allégation de harcèlement, le Comité soumet cet aspect de l’appel au directeur de l’IOS et suspend l’examen de l’appel en attendant de recevoir la décision finale du Directeur général à ce sujet. À la réception de la décision du Directeur général (laquelle comprend, le cas échéant, le rapport de l’IOS), le CAS reprend l’examen de l’appel originel. Le Comité «sera guidé» par la décision du Directeur général pour l’aspect de l’appel qui concerne le harcèlement.

  Mots-clés:

  Harcèlement; Règles de l'organisation;
  

  
  
  

• Jugement 3240

  
  115e session, 2013
  Organisation des Nations Unies pour l'alimentation et l'agriculture
  Extraits: EN, FR
  Texte Intégral Du Jugement: EN, FR
  Synthèse: Le Tribunal a condamné l’Organisation pour manquement au respect de ses propres règles sur l’évaluation du travail et les périodes probatoires.

  Mots-clés du jugement

  Mots-clés:

  Annulation de la décision; Evaluation; Période probatoire; Requête admise; Règles de l'organisation;