UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements
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 established legal framework.
The UNAT held that the staff member was entitled to anonymity before the UNDT and the UNAT. ABN did not raise a claim in his own name for adjudication by the UNDT. The orders made against him by the UNDT were of a serious nature and risked having a serious and deleterious impact on his career as a lawyer and as a staff member of the Administration. Considerations of open justice, transparency and accountability did not warrant publishing ABN’s name.
The UNAT found that there was no evidence before the UNDT to support a finding that ABN’s conduct showed either intentional deception or incredibly gross negligence. The UNDT exceeded its powers and arrived at an unreasonable conclusion when there was no evidence of an intention on the part of ABN, the
Secretary-General or relevant Human Resources personnel to deliberately conceal the identities of the panel members who conducted the Competency Based Interview (CBI) in the contested selection process, based on how the CBI report was redacted.
The UNAT held that there was no basis on which to justify the issue of the impugned Order. The UNDT erred in finding that by filing the redacted CBI report on behalf of the Secretary-General, ABN failed to meet the basic standards expected of him as a legal representative and committed an ethical violation and professional misconduct. In so finding, the UNAT held that the UNDT strayed into areas of discipline which are outside the UNDT’s area of jurisdiction and competence.
The UNAT concluded that there was no basis to justify the UNDT’s show cause direction, granted the Secretary-General’s appeal and ABN’s cross-appeal and set aside the impugned Order.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
ABN, a staff member of the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa (ECA), served as legal counsel for the Secretary-General in Case No. UNDT/NBI/2025/049 in which another staff member contested the decision not to select him for the Senior Property Control and Inventory Assistant position with ECA. In UNDT Judgment No. UNDT/2025/054, the UNDT ordered ABN to show cause why he should not be disbarred from future appearances before the UNDT.
In the impugned Order No.187 (NBI/2025), the UNDT decided that ABN should not be disbarred and could continue to appear as a legal representative of the Secretary-General before the UNDT.
The Secretary-General filed an appeal contending that the UNDT exceeded its authority in initiating the proceedings which led to the impugned Order. ABN filed a cross-appeal.
Legal Principle(s)
Only a party with a recognised or vested legal interest has the requisite legal standing to appeal to the UNAT or participate in appellate proceedings. A party will be considered to have such an interest in litigation where their legal rights, obligations or interests are directly affected by a decision; the decision interferes with their institutional powers or administrative authority; or the decision imposes legal consequences on them which must be implemented.
The UNDT has the authority to regulate its proceedings, protect its dignity, repute or authority and prevent interference in the administration of justice in a matter pending before it. The UNDT’s ability to promote and protect the court, and to regulate proceedings before it, is an inherent judicial power, essential to, inter alia, a tribunal’s case management and ability to conduct hearings.
Outcome
Outcome Extra Text
The UNDT was ordered to anonymize the Secretary-General's legal representative's name in the underlying UNDT case and orders.