UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements
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 would have reached a different conclusion. In this regard, the UNAT observed that the former staff member had himself disclosed information relating to his marital status and sexual orientation in various contexts, including in a video available on social media, which made it unlikely that the investigators would be able to identify an act of misconduct.
Finally, the UNAT held that the UNDT did not err in refusing to refer the Secretary-General’s counsel for accountability, given that counsel’s mistake before the UNDT did not constitute an egregious error or serious flaw of a nature to affect the integrity of the judicial process or the ultimate outcome of the case, and that the counsel had acknowledged his mistake and apologized in writing for his conduct.
The UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed Judgment No. UNDT/2025/062.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
A former UNICEF staff member contested the Administration’s decision not to investigate his complaint of prohibited conduct.In that complaint, the former staff member alleged the improper disclosure of personal information regarding his marital status and sexual orientation by UNICEF personnel.
In its Judgment No. UNDT/2025/062, the UNDT dismissed the former staff member’s application.
Former staff member appealed.
Legal Principle(s)
The UNDT has a broad discretion in case management issues. It may issue any order or give any direction which appears to a judge to be appropriate for the fair and expeditious disposal of the case and to do justice to the parties. This includes ordering an oral hearing, the production of any evidence, calling a person to testify and determining the admissibility of any evidence.
The UNAT will only interfere with the exercise of the UNDT’s broad case management discretion in clear cases where the UNDT has erred in a manner which has resulted in a denial of due process such as to materially affect the outcome of a case.
The task of the UNDT is not to undertake the investigative process afresh but to review the contested decision taken by the Administration.
The exercise by the UNDT of the power of referral for accountability must be exercised sparingly and only where the breach or conduct in question exhibits serious flaws, in circumstances in which it holds a discretionary power to make such referrals for accountability where egregious errors or serious conduct flaws have been committed.