51ÁÔÆæ

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...

At the outset, the UNAT noted that the staff member¡¯s sole challenge on appeal concerned the lawfulness of the sanction imposed on her, which merely repeated contentions she had already raised before the UNRWA DT. For example, she argued that the imposition of fines was inconsistent with human rights and ILO directives on receiving pay for work delivered. The UNAT held that, although the UNRWA DT did not expressly address this argument, it had no chance of success, as the applicable legal framework explicitly lists fines as one of the possible sanctions that may be imposed on UNRWA staff...

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 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...

The UNAT held that any dissatisfaction with the meaning of a judgment should be raised in an appeal of the substantive judgment. Mr. Odat did not appeal the underlying judgment, Judgment No. UNRWA/DT/2025/001.

The UNAT found that the UNRWA DT¡¯s subsequent judgment on his application for interpretation was not a fresh judgment within the scope of Article 2 of the Appeals Tribunal Statute, and thus Mr. Odat¡¯s appeal was not receivable.

The UNAT found the UNRWA DT erred in law and in fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision, when it failed to properly consider Section 66 of UNRWA Area Personnel Directive No. PD/A/4/Part II/Rev. 7/Section I, which is geared toward ensuring gender balance, and when it took the irrelevant consideration of the recommendation of the third candidate into account, leading it to erroneously set Ms. Al Dawoud¡¯s chances for selection at 50 per cent instead of 100 per cent. The UNAT held that Section 66 expresses a preference for selection of candidates who are in the under-represented...

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 UNAT held that a party aggrieved by denial of interim relief can and generally must wait until the matter is finally resolved before filing an appeal.

The UNAT found that a decision regarding interim relief may be reviewable if it can be shown that the first instance tribunal, the JAB, exceeded its jurisdiction or competence.

The UNAT noted that the JAB is specifically empowered by the ISA Staff Rules to decide whether suspension of an administrative action is appropriate, which is within its competence and jurisdiction.

The UNAT found that there was no basis for its intervention in the...

The UNAT held that the issues on appeal were whether the UNDT erred in finding that the staff member received full and fair consideration for the Temporary Job Opening, whether it erred in concluding that the non?selection decision was untainted by bias, discrimination, or other extraneous considerations, and whether it erred in declaring certain claims not receivable for failure to request management evaluation. It recalled that its role on appeal is not to conduct a de novo review, but to determine whether the UNDT committed an error of law, fact, or procedure resulting in an unreasonable...

The UNAT held that the UNRWA DT did not err in finding that the former staff member¡¯s application was not receivable ratione materiae.The UNAT found that DIOS had no decision-making authority in addressing the substance of his complaint of retaliation and that it undertook its investigation merely as a step in the investigative process that did not amount to a reviewable administrative decision.

Similarly, the UNAT found that the Ethics Office¡¯s determination that it had not been established that retaliation had occurred, and its subsequent closure of the file without further investigation...

The UNAT first held that the contested decision of 17 April 2011 did not constitute an appealable administrative decision and was not receivable ratione materiae, insofar as it merely advised the former staff member to go to the nearest UNHCR office and seek asylum or resettlement as a refugee.

Subsidiarily, even assuming that the e-mail of 17 April 2011 could have constituted a valid appealable administrative decision, the UNAT found that the former staff member¡¯s application would nonetheless remain not receivable on two grounds. First, he did not request management evaluation of the...

The UNAT held that the issues on appeal were whether the UNDT erred in finding that the Secretary-General lawfully exercised his discretion in cancelling the Recruit from Roster Job Opening, whether the decision was supported by a rational and reasonable basis, and whether the UNDT erred in rejecting the staff member¡¯s allegations of discrimination, improper motive, or procedural irregularity.

The UNAT found that the UNDT correctly applied established jurisprudence on staff selection, including the principle that the Administration is not obliged to complete a recruitment exercise once...

The UNAT found that Ms. George submitted her request to revert to the US dollar track system on 4 August 2015 and the Administration rejected it on 10 November 2015.Despite that clear communication, the former staff member continued to exchange correspondence with the Administration seeking reconsideration of the decision for almost nine years.She waited until 9 April 2024 before submitting her request for review to the Standing Committee.As it was filed beyond the statutory time limit of ninety days of receipt of notification of the contested decision, the UNAT held that her request was...

As to the appeal of Order No. 46 (GVA/2025) dismissing Mr. Turcanu¡¯s motion seeking the suspension of the contested decision pending judicial review of his substantive application, the Appeals Tribunal recalled that pursuant to Article 10(2) of the UNDT Statute and Article 14 of the UNDT Rules, the UNDT may not suspend the implementation of a contested decision in cases of appointment, promotion or termination. It also recalled that a decision not to renew an appointment was a matter concerned with the ¡°appointment¡± of a staff member. The Appeals Tribunal concluded that under the terms of...