UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements
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 questions” and to determine “false memories” or who has “intentionally lied”, improperly delegated its core judicial function of assessing the credibility of witnesses, which was a failure to exercise jurisdiction vested in it as contemplated by Article 2(b) of the UNDT Statute. The UNAT rescinded that part of UNDT Order No. 053.
The UNAT held that the Dispute Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction in UNDT Order No. 031 in seeking to conduct a de novo investigation into the 2007 incident at a U.S. university involving the Complainant, by seeking information from the FBI and the U.S. university.The UNAT ordered the UNDT to rescind any actions taken in furtherance of investigating the 2007 incident on its own volition and to refrain from considering any evidence or information it may have received as a result of the unlawful UNDT investigation.
The UNAT held that it was manifestly unreasonable and in excess of its jurisdiction, for the UNDT to direct the Secretary-General to compel the Complainant, who is not a party to the proceedings before the UNDT or a staff member of the Organization, and who is not under the Administration or the UNDT’s authority, to release her personal records from a university she once attended. The UNAT rescinded that part of Order No. 071.
The UNAT granted the appeals and modified the impugned Orders.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
A former staff member of the Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees challenged the determination by the High Commissioner that he had sexually assaulted another former staff member of UNHCR and that his name would be entered into the United Nations ClearCheck database.
The Secretary-General filed interlocutory appeals of UNDT Order No. 031 (2026) in which the UNDT indicated that it would seek information from a U.S. university and the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) about an incident involving the Complainant; UNDT Order No. 053 (2026) in which the UNDT stated its intent to hire a forensic psychiatry or psychology expert to assist in the assessment of the case; and UNDT Order No. 071 (2026) in which the UNDT instructed the Secretary-General to obtain the Complainant’s consent to release certain university records
Legal Principle(s)
Appeals against most interlocutory decisions will not be receivable, for instance, decisions on matters of evidence, procedure, and trial conduct. An interlocutory appeal is only receivable in cases where the UNDT has clearly exceeded its jurisdiction or competence.
If an error by the UNDT is effectively irremediable by final UNDT judgment (or on appeal therefrom) and it would be manifestly unreasonable for the UNDT’s order or other decision to remain in effect, such a decision will be appealable.
The UNDT may admit and hear evidence presented by the parties but cannot conduct its own investigation of the facts on which the disciplinary sanction has been based.
There is no authority given to the UNDT in its Statute or its Rules to retain its own expert for the purpose of asking questions on its behalf or making determinations on the credibility of witnesses before it.