UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements
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 personal nature and placed her case within the limited category where anonymization was justified. Without a determination of the veracity of her account, the UNAT found that the UNDT erred in refusing her Motion for anonymity and, by so doing, failed to ensure that her personal data was appropriately protected.
The UNAT granted the appeal, reversed Order No. 143 (GVA/2025) and substituted it with an order directing that the former staff member’s identity before the UNDT be anonymized. The UNAT also anonymized her identity in the present appeal.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
UNDT Order: A former UNICEF staff member contested the decision of the Office of Internal Audit and Investigations (OIAI) not to refer her complaint of possible misconduct against the UNICEF Deputy Executive Director, Management (DED-M) to the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) for an initial assessment/investigation.
By Order No. 143 (GVA/2025), the UNDT rejected the former staff member’s Motion for anonymity.
Former staff member filed an interlocutory appeal, limited to the UNDT’s refusal to grant anonymity.
Legal Principle(s)
Transparency and accountability are important to the functioning of the internal justice system. Where the anonymization of a party is sought, a sufficient basis must be advanced to justify a departure from the ordinary rule favouring such transparency. This entails balancing competing factors, including the nature of the misconduct alleged; the position and employment record of the staff member concerned; the impact of the decision on the staff member; the impact of such decision on the complainant; the impact of the decision on considerations of transparency, general deterrence, the past and future conduct of the staff member and others; and other such factors.
While personal embarrassment and discomfort are in themselves not usually sufficient grounds for redaction or anonymity, the system of internal justice must be open and accessible to complainants in a manner that does not result in unwarranted intrusion on a person’s dignity and privacy.This is because the interests of transparency cannot justify making publicly available potentially intensely personal and traumatic facts and experiences attributable to a particular complainant.
The UNDT has broad discretion to determine case management issues and, as a general rule, only appeals against final judgments of the UNDT are receivable by the UNAT. An exception arises where the UNDT has clearly exceeded its authority and jurisdiction in making the order, or where the order brings practical finality and is dispositive of an issue in dispute and it is in the interests of justice to determine an appeal. Allowing appeals in these circumstances requires the application of a stringent test, and such appeals will be allowed only in rare and exceptional circumstances.