Considérations financières (833,-666)

Votre recherche:
Mots-clés: Considérations financières
Jugements trouvés: 3

• Jugement 4844

  
  138e session, 2024
  Organisation internationale de police criminelle
  Extraits: EN, FR
  Texte Intégral Du Jugement: EN, FR
  Synthèse: Le requérant conteste la décision de supprimer son poste.

  Considérant 2

  Extrait:

  Dans son mémoire en réponse, l’Organisation demande au Tribunal d’ordonner la jonction de ces deux requêtes aux motifs que les deux recours internes que le requérant avait introduits à l’encontre des décisions initiales […] ont fait l’objet d’une jonction ordonnée par la Commission mixte de recours, que le lien qui unit les deux requêtes serait «indéfectible» et qu’une telle jonction lui permettrait de réaliser des économies dans les frais de gestion que représente chaque affaire examinée séparément par le Tribunal.
  Le requérant déclare s’opposer fermement à cette demande de jonction en faisant notamment valoir qu’en «favoris[ant] une jonction économique des affaires devant le Tribunal», l’Organisation violerait ses propres règles en matière de jonction des recours internes, ralentirait les procédures de recours et aggraverait les conditions d’exercice du droit de recours, administratif et contentieux, y portant ainsi atteinte.
  Le Tribunal rappelle sa jurisprudence selon laquelle, en principe, le critère déterminant pour joindre des requêtes est qu’elles soulèvent des questions de droit ou de fait identiques ou similaires et il n’est pas suffisant qu’elles s’inscrivent dans la même série d’événements (voir le jugement 4753, au considérant 6). Il a précisé récemment que le coût des jugements est une considération inopérante à cet égard (voir le jugement 4822, au considérant 3).
  En l’espèce, le Tribunal admet qu’un certain lien existe entre la décision de suppression du poste du requérant […] et celle de résilier son engagement du fait qu’il n’a pas été possible de procéder à sa réaffectation par suite de ladite suppression. Néanmoins, les décisions en question sont de nature distincte, s’inscrivent dans un contexte juridique qui leur est en partie propre et soulèvent des questions de fond différentes. Il convient, en outre, d’observer qu’il n’y a pas d’interdépendance totale entre les deux décisions, étant donné qu’une mesure de suppression de poste peut ensuite être suivie d’une décision de réaffectation, ce qui conduirait à un tout autre résultat qu’une résiliation d’engagement. Il importe peu à cet égard que la Commission mixte de recours ait considéré, dans le cadre de ses propres prérogatives, qu’il y avait lieu de joindre les deux recours internes qui lui étaient soumis.
  Pour ces raisons, le Tribunal n’ordonnera pas la jonction de ces deux requêtes au regard de la jurisprudence précitée.

  Référence(s)

  Jugement(s) TAOIT: 4753, 4822
  

  Mots-clés:

  Considérations financières; Jonction;
  

  
  
  

• Jugement 4822

  
  138e session, 2024
  Organisation européenne pour des recherches astronomiques dans l'hémisphère austral
  Extraits: EN, FR
  Texte Intégral Du Jugement: EN, FR
  Synthèse: The complainant challenges the decision not to renew his fixed-term contract.

  Considérant 4

  Extrait:

  The Organisation asked that the two complaints be joined because it considers that they rest on the same facts and originate from the same decision of 29 January 2020. But, while it is true that the facts in each of these complaints are part of a same continuum of events, the legal issues raised in each of them are different. The two complaints also do not pertain to the same impugned decision. The provisions of the Staff Rules and Regulations involved are furthermore not the same, and the processes that led to the impugned decisions identified by the complainant were not the same either. Finally, the reasons developed by the parties, notably on the issues of receivability, are different from one complaint to the other.
  Accordingly, the complaints will not be joined. But, if necessary, the Tribunal will refer to the two judgments to avoid any potential overlapping.
  In this regard, the Tribunal observes that one of the motivations for the request for joinder of the Organisation is pecuniary. In the proceedings it filed in the second complaint, ESO mentioned that a joinder “would absolve [the Organisation] from having to pay twice the Tribunal’s substantial court expenses irrespective of the outcome of the proceedings”.
  The starting point in dealing with this issue is whether the cost to the organisation is a relevant consideration in determining whether there should be joinder. The principles applied by the Tribunal on the general issue of joinder have developed over a period of more than 45 years. As discussed in Judgment 4753, consideration 3:
  “Plainly the Tribunal can, and often does, consider related complaints at the same session and by the same panel of judges. The joinder of two complaints is a legal device deployed by the Tribunal in order that one judgment can be rendered, and orders then made disposing of the joined complaints. When considering the scope and purpose of a joinder, it must be borne in mind that while such an order can be made in relation to multiple complaints by one complainant, they can also be made in relation to complaints by two or more individuals who, in substance, raise the same grievance. This latter situation illustrates the need for such orders to be made only in quite explicit circumstances and to be guided by focused principles and not loosely expressed generalities. This is particularly important given the res judicata effect of the Tribunal’s judgments. It would be wrong, in principle, to burden one individual with the legal outcome of proceedings where her or his complaint has been joined with the complaints of others in which legal issues have arisen and are resolved, but not legal issues raised by that individual.”
  And later in consideration 6:
  “The question that arises is whether it is appropriate to join the two complaints. The touchstone for formal joinder has historically been that the complaints involve the same or, more recently, similar questions of fact and law, and it is not sufficient that they stem from the same continuum of events. [...]”
  The cost to the organisation of multiple judgments has no part to play in the exercise of the discretionary power concerning joinder. It is an irrelevant consideration.
  Additionally, while ESO pleads that having only one judgment would protect the Organisation “against the cost[s] and administrative demands of unnecessary litigation issues”, the Tribunal cannot ignore that ESO itself acknowledged that “it is the law of its Staff Rules and Regulations which provide that different procedures apply for challenging the Director General’s decisions not to grant [the] complainant an indefinite contract and not to extend his fixed-term contract beyond the one year granted”. In other words, there are two different and separate complaints filed not because of unnecessary litigation issues raised by the complainant, but because of the way the Staff Rules and Regulations of ESO are organized.
  That said, the Tribunal notes, however, that, while arguing that the submission of two complaints was not chosen by him since he had no other alternative than to follow the procedural paths imposed by the Organisation, the complainant still disputes the assertion of ESO that it should not “be punished twice for the same conduct”. As a result, he maintained the separate claims for relief sought in both complaints even though there was clearly some overlapping between the two. Conceding there was indeed some overlapping here would have been the expected and logical position to adopt on the part of the complainant. It is regrettable to see that he did not do so.

  Référence(s)

  Jugement(s) TAOIT: 4753
  

  Mots-clés:

  Considérations financières; Jonction;
  

  
  
  

• Jugement 3135

  
  113e session, 2012
  Centre technique de coopération agricole et rurale
  Extraits: EN, FR
  Texte Intégral Du Jugement: EN, FR

  Considérant 25

  Extrait:

  [L]e fait que la modification de cette condition d’emploi procède ainsi de considérations d’ordre financier ne la rend pas, en soi, illégitime (voir, par exemple, les jugements 832, 2682 et 2986 [...]).

  Référence(s)

  Jugement(s) TAOIT: 832, 2682, 2986
  

  Mots-clés:

  Considérations financières; Modification des règles;