UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements
The UNAT held that the UNRWA DT did not err in finding that the former staff member’s application was not receivable ratione materiae.The UNAT found that DIOS had no decision-making authority in addressing the substance of his complaint of retaliation and that it undertook its investigation merely as a step in the investigative process that did not amount to a reviewable administrative decision.
Similarly, the UNAT found that the Ethics Office’s determination that it had not been established that retaliation had occurred, and its subsequent closure of the file without further investigation, likewise did not constitute a reviewable administrative decision.In this regard, the UNAT recalled that, pursuant to well-established jurisprudence and General Staff Circular No. 03/2022, recommendations of the Ethics Office, including a decision to close a file, do not constitute administrative decisions and are not subject to challenge.
The UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed Judgment No. UNRWA/DT/2025/029, with Judge Colgan dissenting.
Accountability Referral: The UNAT found that the Chief of the Ethics Office had failed to report the closure of the file to the Commissioner-General.It emphasized that the effect of such a report to the Commissioner-General was that any administrative action taken subsequently by the Commissioner-General in response to a recommendation, where it had direct legal consequences affecting the terms and conditions of appointment of a complainant who is a staff member, would constitute an administrative decision subject to judicial review.Therefore, the UNAT referred the matter to the Commissioner-General of UNRWA for possible action to enforce accountability.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
A former staff member of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) contested the decision of the Department of Internal Oversight Services (DIOS) concluding that there was insufficient evidence to establish that retaliation against him had occurred.
In its Judgment No. UNRWA/DT/2025/029, the UNRWA DT dismissed the former staff member’s application as not receivable.
Former staff member appealed.
Legal Principle(s)
Ethics Office recommendations, including those to close a file without further investigation, do not constitute administrative decisions. Only the subsequent action – or non-action – of the Administration on the Ethics Office’s recommendation will constitute a contestable administrative decision if it has direct legal consequences affecting a staff member’s terms or conditions of appointment.
The process of management evaluation is aimed at affording the Administration the opportunity to correct an erroneous or flawed administrative decision so as to avoid unnecessary judicial review, and also perhaps to persuade a staff member to reconsider the merits of an impugned decision before taking it on review. It provides an opportunity for both parties to reconsider the merits of the decision before engaging the more formal dispute resolution mechanisms. To ensure that the parties are properly availed of that opportunity, Article 8(1)(c) of the UNDT Statute compels a referral to management evaluation as a jurisdictional condition precedent to the UNDT assuming jurisdiction in an application.
The response, or failure to respond, to a request for management evaluation, or a request for decision review in the UNRWA context, has expressly been found to lack finality and consequence and therefore not to constitute an administrative decision alleged to be in non-compliance with a staff member’s terms of appointment or contract of employment.