51ÁÔÆæ

The UNAT held that entering the former staff member's name into the ClearCheck database was because of the Administration¡¯s final determination that he sexually abused and sexually harassed the Complainant, and as the entry precludes him from any future employment in the United Nations common system, it was effectively a disciplinary measure and should be reviewed as such.

The UNAT found that the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal regarding the engagement of a psychology expert in UNDT Order No. 053 was receivable. The UNAT found that the UNDT, by engaging an expert to ¡°analyze the facts¡± and ¡°ask...

The UNAT held that it did not have personal jurisdiction over Ms. Fogarty because she was a former staff member of the IMO and the decision that she challenged, the IMO¡¯s failure to investigate the Director of Administration, did not impact the terms of her former employment.The UNAT noted that it had already determined in Judgment No. 2026-UNAT-1620 that there was no negative consequence to Ms. Fogarty from the conduct that she complained of by the Director of Administration, with respect to Ms. Fogarty¡¯s claim to Appendix D benefits. Other than the Appendix D claim, which was adjudicated...

The UNAT noted that in his application, the staff member had clearly identified the contested decision as the Pension Fund¡¯s email which informed him that his pension benefits had already been paid and there were no further entitlements.

The UNAT noted that he had not requested a review of the decision or filed an appeal to the Standing Committee of the Pension Board but rather had filed a request for management evaluation and then appealed to the Dispute Tribunal. The UNAT held that, as such, he had not followed proper procedure under the rules of the Pension Fund.

The UNAT concluded that the...

The UNAT was satisfied that the UNDT had not erred in fact or in law in deciding that the staff member¡¯s conduct constituted serious misconduct.

The UNAT noted that the UNDT had considered the staff member¡¯s explanations for errors in submitting claims for the special education grant but had found against her based on its assessment of her lack of credibility. The UNAT found her speculation as to what evidence a potential witness may have established to be supposition. The UNAT stated that it had been right for the Administration not to pursue allegations that it considered could not be...

The UNAT noted that the staff member had requested management evaluation 64 days after he was informed of the contested decision.

The UNAT found no merit in the staff member¡¯s arguments that the delay in requesting management evaluation had been minimal or that his permanent incapacity constituted a force majeure which the UNDT was obliged to consider.

The UNAT found no error in the UNDT finding the application not receivable ratione materiae.

The UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT Judgment.

The UNAT noted that a part of the staff member¡¯s request for management evaluation appeared not to have been considered by the UNDT. The UNAT was of the view that the information in the MER standard form constituted a request for management evaluation of the contested decisions, including breach of an alleged promise to continue her employment by maintaining funding of her post for a particular period. The UNAT held that the staff member had raised sufficiently the issues of the lawfulness of the abolition of her post and the termination of her employment to have met the requirements of their...

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 found that the staff member failed to provide any grounds for his appeal as he did not address the findings of the Appeals Board regarding the non-receivability of his application before the Board, and thereby failed to meet the burden of making a case on appeal. No arguments were made that would have permitted the UNAT to review whether the Appeals Board decision was defective.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Appeals Board decision.

The UNAT held that the issues on appeal were whether it had jurisdiction to entertain appeals against interlocutory orders of the UNRWA Dispute Tribunal, whether the impugned orders fell within the narrow exceptional category of appealable interlocutory decisions, and whether the UNRWA Dispute Tribunal acted without jurisdiction or in excess of its powers in issuing the contested directions. The UNAT recalled that its role is not to intervene in case?management matters, but to determine whether an interlocutory order is exceptionally appealable because it is ultra vires, dispositive of an...

The Appeals Tribunal dismissed Mr. Jin¡¯s claim that the UNDT erred in finding no prejudice since, by his calculations, the decision to score Part 2 perfectly for each candidate resulted in a larger interview pool which was disadvantageous to him. The Appeals Tribunal found that this argument was speculative, predicated on one hypothetical counterfactual outcome, and failed to meet Mr. Jin¡¯s burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that he had been denied a fair chance of selection.

The Appeals Tribunal found that the circumstances in Mr. Jin¡¯s case were fundamentally and...