51ÁÔÆæ

The UNAT held that it did not have personal jurisdiction over Ms. Fogarty because she was a former staff member of the IMO and the decision that she challenged, the IMO¡¯s failure to investigate the Director of Administration, did not impact the terms of her former employment.The UNAT noted that it had already determined in Judgment No. 2026-UNAT-1620 that there was no negative consequence to Ms. Fogarty from the conduct that she complained of by the Director of Administration, with respect to Ms. Fogarty¡¯s claim to Appendix D benefits. Other than the Appendix D claim, which was adjudicated...

The UNAT found that in the absence of an express mandate in the legal framework that a continuing appointment can be extended or a staff member be re-instated for the purpose of utilizing sick leave, Mr. Iacovino¡¯s entitlement to sick leave ceased on the date specified in his termination letter, 31 December 2023. The UNAT recognized that pursuant to ST/AI/2005/3, staff on fixed-term appointments may be granted an extension to utilize an entitlement to sick leave, but there is no analogous rule applicable to staff serving on a continuing appointment, much less to staff whose appointments have...

The UNAT held that the UNDT did not err in refusing to call an expert witness to demonstrate that the former staff member¡¯s personal information had been improperly leaked by other UNICEF staff members with access to Vision, a system that stores UNICEF staff information.The UNAT found that the investigators¡¯ conclusion that it was not possible to identify the staff member, if any, who had leaked the former staff member¡¯s personal information to a third party stood unrefuted. It further found that it had not been shown that, had the investigators sought third-party expert assistance, they...

The staff member who was on a roster of suitable candidates for the Senior Service Desk Officer (SSDO) post was informed that the SSDO post was reclassified to the IT Service Delivery Officer (ISDO) post and the job description had changed to the degree that his membership in the SSDO roster was not applicable to the ISDO post. He expressed interest in applying for the ISDO post but did not apply.

The UNAT noted that the staff member was not the incumbent of the SSDO post at the time of reclassification. The UNAT held that the reclassification of the SSDO post to the ISDO post had not...

The UNAT found that the staff member failed to provide any grounds for his appeal as he did not address the findings of the Appeals Board regarding the non-receivability of his application before the Board, and thereby failed to meet the burden of making a case on appeal. No arguments were made that would have permitted the UNAT to review whether the Appeals Board decision was defective.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Appeals Board decision.

The Appeals Tribunal dismissed Mr. Jin¡¯s claim that the UNDT erred in finding no prejudice since, by his calculations, the decision to score Part 2 perfectly for each candidate resulted in a larger interview pool which was disadvantageous to him. The Appeals Tribunal found that this argument was speculative, predicated on one hypothetical counterfactual outcome, and failed to meet Mr. Jin¡¯s burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that he had been denied a fair chance of selection.

The Appeals Tribunal found that the circumstances in Mr. Jin¡¯s case were fundamentally and...

At the outset, the UNAT noted that the staff member¡¯s sole challenge on appeal concerned the lawfulness of the sanction imposed on her, which merely repeated contentions she had already raised before the UNRWA DT. For example, she argued that the imposition of fines was inconsistent with human rights and ILO directives on receiving pay for work delivered. The UNAT held that, although the UNRWA DT did not expressly address this argument, it had no chance of success, as the applicable legal framework explicitly lists fines as one of the possible sanctions that may be imposed on UNRWA staff...

The UNAT held that the UNDT erred in finding that the referral to OIOS constituted a reviewable administrative decision.It found that, contrary to the UNDT¡¯s finding, being subject to an investigation did not, in itself, transform the referral for investigation into an administrative decision, in the absence of additional legal consequences.It further concluded that, as the staff member¡¯s request for parental leave was eventually granted, and he had not identified any harm resulting from the delay in granting it, the referral to OIOS did not have sufficient legal effect to constitute a...

The Appeals Tribunal found that the UNDT erred in law when it awarded in-lieu compensation in the amount of 6 months' net base salary without providing reasons to support said amount. The Appeals Tribunal found that had Mr. Isufi's appointment not been unlawfully not renewed and all other relevant considerations being equal, he might reasonably have expected to have enjoyed another one-year fixed-term appointment. Factoring in a variety of applicable contingencies, including his known history of consistent and repeated less-than-satisfactory performance, together with the other usual...

The UNAT held that, while there was a lack of adequate reasons for declining to open investigations into misconduct allegations raised by the former staff member, his reports concerned ordinary administrative matters that were of themselves likely not misconduct and certainly not serious misconduct.The UNAT further found that the UNDT correctly concluded that the former staff member did not provide evidence demonstrating ill motivation on the part of the alleged perpetrators. Accordingly, applying the ¡°no difference principle¡±, the UNAT found that the lack of adequate reasons for declining...

The UNAT noted that the UNDT Order was issued 31 July 2025, and that the staff member filed his interlocutory appeal on 5 September 2025, beyond the applicable time limit and without having sought a waiver or extension of that limit.

The UNAT accordingly held that the appeal was not receivableratione temporis and dismissed the appeal.

The UNAT held that the UNDT did not err in law in its interpretation of Staff Rule 10.1(b) and properly held that ¡°financial loss¡± requires a demonstrable and quantifiable monetary detriment to the Organization, directly caused by the staff member¡¯s wilful, reckless, or grossly negligent misconduct, and not offset by equivalent or greater value received.

The UNAT rejected the Secretary-General¡¯s argument that any unauthorized use of funds constitutes ¡°financial loss¡±, holding that this conflates misconduct with loss.Accordingly, it held that the failure to follow procurement procedures...

The Appeals Tribunal considered that Mr. Egenhoff had failed to disclose his conflict of interest, he had failed to recuse himself from the procurement exercise, and he had repeatedly shared confidential information with AH. This conduct was intentional; it occurred over a prolonged period and was not in the interest of the United Nations. Moreover, Mr. Egenhoff was in a position of significant responsibility and as such, he was supposed to be a role model for the staff members he supervised. Considering other factors, Mr. Egenhoff had no prior disciplinary record, and there was no evidence of...

The UNAT held that BK¡¯s appeal of a case management order does not fall in the narrow set of cases where the UNDT manifestly exceeded its jurisdiction or powers in determining an interlocutory issue. His requests for anonymity in both of his UNDT cases were granted, and there is no indication that despite anonymity, any identifying material could have been disclosed in any of the publicly available records. Nor did the UNDT¡¯s decision to proceed to final judgment exceed its jurisdiction.

The UNAT held that the UNDT¡¯s denial of BK¡¯s inadequately supported requests for a stay, and proceeding to...

The UNAT held that the former staff member filed his appeal within the statutory deadline. It noted that since he filed his application before the UNDT in French, the 60-day time limit for filing his appeal ran from the date of receipt of the UNDT Judgment in that same language. As he received the UNDT Judgment in French on 11 July 2025 and filed his appeal on 13 August 2025, the UNAT held that it was filed in a timely manner.

Nevertheless, the UNAT found that the former staff member¡¯s application before the UNDT was not receivable. In this regard, the UNAT first rejected his contention...

The UNAT held that the staff member¡¯s challenge to Staff Rule 3.3(b) ¨Cspecifically, the distinction drawn between internal and external candidates with respect to step determination ¨C in force at the time of his selection and whose reestablishment was ordered by the General Assembly, could not be subject to judicial review, as it would be tantamount to testing the substantive content of a resolution against higher normative values, a question that fell outside the remit of the UNAT or the UNDT.

The UNAT further found that, since the staff member was selected for the position on 17 May 2024, af...

The UNAT found that the UNDT did not err in its framing of the scope of Mr. Kebede¡¯s application, and that his claim of systemic retaliation was not properly before the UNDT. Mr. Kebede only contested the non-selection decision both in his request for management evaluation and application to the UNDT.

The UNDT agreed with the Secretary-General that there was no evidence of material falsehood or misrepresentation by the Administration to the UNDT relating to Mr. Kebede¡¯s rating during the interview for the post. The UNAT noted that the ¡°Partially Satisfactory¡± rating was an assessment of how Mr...

Although the Secretary-General was not a party to the impugned Order, the UNAT held that the Secretary-General had a direct and cognizable interest in an appeal which considers whether the UNDT is entitled to determine whether his legal representative should be disbarred from appearing in future cases and unrelated cases before the UNDT. If the UNDT is empowered to order as much, it raises a significant risk of harm to the Secretary-General¡¯s authority to appoint staff members to perform legal functions, allocate its legal resources, and hold staff members accountable in accordance with the...

The UNAT noted that the decision to place Mr. Flekal on an OTI process is only an intermediate step in the performance management process and has had no direct impact or adverse consequence on his terms of appointment or the contract of employment and therefore is not an administrative decision subject to judicial review.

The UNAT found that Mr. Flekal was separated for medical reasons, declared incapacitated and awarded a disability pension. He was not separated from the Agency due to non-renewal of his fixed-term appointment. Therefore, Mr. Flekal¡¯s challenge of the 29 August 2023 decision...

The UNAT found that Mr. Flekal, by consenting to the referral of the harassment claim on 3 March 2024, for managerial action, had essentially waived the right to pursue a remedy before the Tribunals for the lack of an investigation into his complaints of harassment, including bullying. The UNAT noted that under the relevant technical instruction of the Department of Internal Oversight Services, bullying is not a separate category of misconduct, it is considered a kind of harassment.

The UNAT noted that Mr. Flekal had also waived his ¡°abuse of power¡± claim because it was not pled in his...