51ÁÔÆæ

The UNAT found that the UNDT committed an error of law by misapplying the jurisprudence on anonymization and, in particular, by failing to consider the nature of the matter before it and its impact on the former staff member, as well as by failing to distinguish between the different considerations applicable to the anonymization of the identity of perpetrators, as opposed to complainants or witnesses.

The UNAT observed that the former staff member was a complainant in respect of alleged sexual misconduct and, accordingly, the allegations raised by her were of a uniquely sensitive 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 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.

L¡¯ancien membre du personnel a ¨¦t¨¦ mis en cong¨¦ administratif sans solde (ALWOP) dans l¡¯attente de la conclusion d¡¯une enqu¨ºte men¨¦e ¨¤ son encontre pour faute professionnelle. Au moment o¨´ le d¨¦cideur a envisag¨¦ de prolonger la dur¨¦e de l¡¯ALWOP, seul un projet de rapport du Bureau des services de contr?le interne (BSCI) ¨¦tait disponible.

L¡¯UNAT a estim¨¦ que l¡¯UNDT avait, ¨¤ tort et de mani¨¨re d¨¦finitive, substitu¨¦ sa propre appr¨¦ciation des faits ¨¤ celle de
l¡¯Administration. Elle a admis ¨¤ tort des rapports d¡¯expertise ind¨¦pendants ¨¦tablis a posteriori comme pertinents pour la fiabilit¨¦ des...

L¡¯UNAT a estim¨¦ que l¡¯UNDT n¡¯avait pas commis d¡¯erreur en concluant que la demande d¡¯indemnisation de Mme Johnson-Simmons au titre des imp?ts non per?us n¡¯¨¦tait pas recevable, dans la mesure o¨´ non seulement Mme Johnson-Simmons n¡¯avait pas identifi¨¦ la d¨¦cision administrative contest¨¦e concernant le remboursement des imp?ts sur le revenu, mais o¨´ elle avait ¨¦galement admis ne pas avoir soumis la question ¨¤ l¡¯¨¦valuation de la direction, et o¨´ rien n¡¯indiquait qu¡¯elle ait pay¨¦ des imp?ts.

L¡¯UNAT a estim¨¦ que Mme Johnson-Simmons avait sciemment et intentionnellement dissimul¨¦ ¨¤ l¡¯Organisation des...

The staff member based in Geneva applied for the post in Suva, Fiji, and was offered the temporary appointment as a result. After many rounds of communications regarding the date of reporting for duty, the Administration informed him that his suggested date was not acceptable, and it was proceeding to contact the next candidate.

The UNAT noted that the offer of appointment had specified that it was ¡°for an initial period effective as soon as possible to 31 December 2024¡±. The UNAT found that by unconditionally accepting the offer of appointment, the staff member was in a quasi-contractual...

The former staff member was placed on Administrative Leave Without Pay (ALWOP) pending the conclusion of an investigation into him for misconduct. At the time that the decision-maker considered extending the ALWOP period, only a Draft Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) Report was available.

The UNAT held that the UNDT erroneously and definitively substituted its own determination of the facts for that of the Administration. It erroneously admitted after-the-fact independent forensic reports as relevant to the reliability of the evidence cited by OIOS, when these reports were not...

The UNAT found that the UNDT did not err in finding that Ms. Johnson-Simmons¡¯s claim to compensation for unpaid taxes not receivable, as not only did Ms. Johnson-Simmons fail to identify the contested administrative decision regarding reimbursement for income tax payments, but she also admitted that she did not submit the matter for management evaluation, and there was no indication that she had paid any taxes.

The UNAT found that Ms. Johnson-Simmons knowingly and intentionally concealed relevant information about her changed residency status from the Organization, and she also willfully...

L¡¯UNAT a estim¨¦ que l¡¯inscription du nom de l¡¯ancien fonctionnaire dans la base de donn¨¦es ClearCheck r¨¦sultait de la d¨¦cision
d¨¦finitive de l¡¯Administration selon laquelle il avait commis des abus sexuels et du harc¨¨lement sexuel ¨¤ l¡¯encontre de la plaignante, et que, dans la mesure o¨´ cette inscription l¡¯emp¨ºchait d¡¯occuper ¨¤ l¡¯avenir un emploi au sein du syst¨¨me commun des Nations Unies, elle constituait en r¨¦alit¨¦ une mesure disciplinaire et devait ¨ºtre examin¨¦e en tant que telle.

L¡¯UNAT a estim¨¦ que le recours du Secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral concernant le recours ¨¤ un expert en psychologie dans l...

L¡¯UNAT a not¨¦ qu¡¯une partie de la demande d¡¯¨¦valuation par la direction formul¨¦e par la fonctionnaire ne semblait pas avoir ¨¦t¨¦ prise en compte par le TDNU. L¡¯UNAT a estim¨¦ que les informations figurant dans le formulaire type MER constituaient une demande d¡¯¨¦valuation par la direction des d¨¦cisions contest¨¦es, y compris le non-respect d¡¯une promesse pr¨¦sum¨¦e de maintenir son emploi en garantissant le financement de son poste pendant une p¨¦riode donn¨¦e. L¡¯UNAT a estim¨¦ que la fonctionnaire avait suffisamment soulev¨¦ les questions relatives ¨¤ la l¨¦galit¨¦ de la suppression de son poste et de la...

The UNAT held that entering the former staff member's name into the ClearCheck database was because of the Administration¡¯s final determination that he sexually abused and sexually harassed the Complainant, and as the entry precludes him from any future employment in the United Nations common system, it was effectively a disciplinary measure and should be reviewed as such.

The UNAT found that the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal regarding the engagement of a psychology expert in UNDT Order No. 053 was receivable. The UNAT found that the UNDT, by engaging an expert to ¡°analyze the facts¡± and ¡°ask...

The UNAT noted that a part of the staff member¡¯s request for management evaluation appeared not to have been considered by the UNDT. The UNAT was of the view that the information in the MER standard form constituted a request for management evaluation of the contested decisions, including breach of an alleged promise to continue her employment by maintaining funding of her post for a particular period. The UNAT held that the staff member had raised sufficiently the issues of the lawfulness of the abolition of her post and the termination of her employment to have met the requirements of their...

L'UNAT a estim¨¦ que le fonctionnaire n'avait fourni aucun motif ¨¤ l'appui de son recours, dans la mesure o¨´ il n'avait pas r¨¦pondu aux conclusions de la Commission de recours concernant l'irrecevabilit¨¦ de sa demande devant celle-ci, et qu'il n'avait donc pas
satisfait ¨¤ l'obligation qui lui incombait de pr¨¦senter des arguments en faveur de son recours. Aucun argument n'a ¨¦t¨¦ avanc¨¦ qui
aurait permis ¨¤ l'UNAT d'examiner si la d¨¦cision de la Commission de recours ¨¦tait entach¨¦e d'un vice de forme.

Le Tribunal a rejet¨¦ le recours et a confirm¨¦ la d¨¦cision de la Commission de recours.

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 UNAT held that the issues on appeal were whether it had jurisdiction to entertain appeals against interlocutory orders of the UNRWA Dispute Tribunal, whether the impugned orders fell within the narrow exceptional category of appealable interlocutory decisions, and whether the UNRWA Dispute Tribunal acted without jurisdiction or in excess of its powers in issuing the contested directions. The UNAT recalled that its role is not to intervene in case?management matters, but to determine whether an interlocutory order is exceptionally appealable because it is ultra vires, dispositive of an...

L¡¯UNAT a estim¨¦ que le DT de l¡¯UNRWA n¡¯avait pas commis d¡¯erreur en concluant que la d¨¦cision de clore l¡¯enqu¨ºte sur la plainte d¨¦pos¨¦e par l¡¯ancienne employ¨¦e ¨¦tait l¨¦gale. Il a jug¨¦ que le r¨¦cit de l¡¯incident au cours duquel B se serait frott¨¦ contre elle
constituait un cas ambigu de harc¨¨lement sexuel, et qu¡¯il appartenait donc ¨¤ l¡¯enqu¨ºteur et ¨¤ la personne charg¨¦e de prendre la
d¨¦cision de conclure que les ¨¦l¨¦ments de l¡¯affaire n¡¯¨¦taient pas suffisamment solides pour engager des poursuites contre B. L¡¯UNAT a en outre estim¨¦ que les deux autres incidents invoqu¨¦s par l¡¯ancienne employ¨¦e ¨C...

L¡¯UNAT a tout d¡¯abord pr¨¦cis¨¦ que le recours ne visait pas la deuxi¨¨me sanction, l¡¯ancien fonctionnaire n¡¯ayant pas form¨¦ de recours contre celle-ci dans les d¨¦lais impartis, mais visait plut?t ¨¤ garantir l¡¯exactitude de son dossier personnel aupr¨¨s des Nations Unies. ? cet ¨¦gard, l¡¯UNAT a estim¨¦ que l¡¯Administration avait commis une erreur en s¡¯appuyant sur les conclusions disciplinaires
ant¨¦rieures et les premi¨¨res sanctions pour d¨¦terminer la deuxi¨¨me sanction. Elle a estim¨¦ que, lorsque l¡¯Administration a examin¨¦ et d¨¦cid¨¦ de la deuxi¨¨me sanction, elle avait connaissance, ou devait ¨ºtre...

The UNAT held that the UNRWA DT did not err in finding that the decision to close the investigation into the former staff member¡¯s complaint was lawful.It found that the account of the incident in which B allegedly rubbed against her presented an equivocal case of sexual harassment, and that it was therefore open to the investigator and to the decision-maker to conclude that the case was of insufficient strength to pursue against B.The UNAT further found that the two other incidents invoked by the former staff member ¨C B allegedly walking to her side in a corridor and offering her to drink...

The UNAT first clarified that the appeal was not directed against the second sanction, given the former staff member¡¯s failure to appeal that sanction in a timely manner, but rather concerned ensuring that his personal records with the United Nations were accurate.In this regard, the UNAT found that the Administration¡¯s reliance on the previous disciplinary findings and first sanctions in determining the second sanction was erroneous. It held that when the Administration considered and decided the second sanction, the former staff member¡¯s pending UNAT appeal regarding the first sanctions...