51ÁÔÆæ

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.

The UNAT held that the UNDT did not err in law in its interpretation of Staff Rule 10.1(b) and properly held that ¡°financial loss¡± requires a demonstrable and quantifiable monetary detriment to the Organization, directly caused by the staff member¡¯s wilful, reckless, or grossly negligent misconduct, and not offset by equivalent or greater value received.

The UNAT rejected the Secretary-General¡¯s argument that any unauthorized use of funds constitutes ¡°financial loss¡±, holding that this conflates misconduct with loss.Accordingly, it held that the failure to follow procurement procedures...

The Appeals Tribunal considered that Mr. Egenhoff had failed to disclose his conflict of interest, he had failed to recuse himself from the procurement exercise, and he had repeatedly shared confidential information with AH. This conduct was intentional; it occurred over a prolonged period and was not in the interest of the United Nations. Moreover, Mr. Egenhoff was in a position of significant responsibility and as such, he was supposed to be a role model for the staff members he supervised. Considering other factors, Mr. Egenhoff had no prior disciplinary record, and there was no evidence of...

The UNAT held that BK¡¯s appeal of a case management order does not fall in the narrow set of cases where the UNDT manifestly exceeded its jurisdiction or powers in determining an interlocutory issue. His requests for anonymity in both of his UNDT cases were granted, and there is no indication that despite anonymity, any identifying material could have been disclosed in any of the publicly available records. Nor did the UNDT¡¯s decision to proceed to final judgment exceed its jurisdiction.

The UNAT held that the UNDT¡¯s denial of BK¡¯s inadequately supported requests for a stay, and proceeding to...

The UNAT held that the former staff member filed his appeal within the statutory deadline. It noted that since he filed his application before the UNDT in French, the 60-day time limit for filing his appeal ran from the date of receipt of the UNDT Judgment in that same language. As he received the UNDT Judgment in French on 11 July 2025 and filed his appeal on 13 August 2025, the UNAT held that it was filed in a timely manner.

Nevertheless, the UNAT found that the former staff member¡¯s application before the UNDT was not receivable. In this regard, the UNAT first rejected his contention...

The UNAT held that the staff member¡¯s challenge to Staff Rule 3.3(b) ¨Cspecifically, the distinction drawn between internal and external candidates with respect to step determination ¨C in force at the time of his selection and whose reestablishment was ordered by the General Assembly, could not be subject to judicial review, as it would be tantamount to testing the substantive content of a resolution against higher normative values, a question that fell outside the remit of the UNAT or the UNDT.

The UNAT further found that, since the staff member was selected for the position on 17 May 2024, af...

The UNAT found that the UNDT did not err in its framing of the scope of Mr. Kebede¡¯s application, and that his claim of systemic retaliation was not properly before the UNDT. Mr. Kebede only contested the non-selection decision both in his request for management evaluation and application to the UNDT.

The UNDT agreed with the Secretary-General that there was no evidence of material falsehood or misrepresentation by the Administration to the UNDT relating to Mr. Kebede¡¯s rating during the interview for the post. The UNAT noted that the ¡°Partially Satisfactory¡± rating was an assessment of how Mr...

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...

The UNAT noted that the decision to place Mr. Flekal on an OTI process is only an intermediate step in the performance management process and has had no direct impact or adverse consequence on his terms of appointment or the contract of employment and therefore is not an administrative decision subject to judicial review.

The UNAT found that Mr. Flekal was separated for medical reasons, declared incapacitated and awarded a disability pension. He was not separated from the Agency due to non-renewal of his fixed-term appointment. Therefore, Mr. Flekal¡¯s challenge of the 29 August 2023 decision...

The UNAT found that Mr. Flekal, by consenting to the referral of the harassment claim on 3 March 2024, for managerial action, had essentially waived the right to pursue a remedy before the Tribunals for the lack of an investigation into his complaints of harassment, including bullying. The UNAT noted that under the relevant technical instruction of the Department of Internal Oversight Services, bullying is not a separate category of misconduct, it is considered a kind of harassment.

The UNAT noted that Mr. Flekal had also waived his ¡°abuse of power¡± claim because it was not pled in his...