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...
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...
The Appeals Tribunal held that the UNDT correctly found that the decision to recover a portion of Mr. Kulga’s Home Leave lump sum was lawful.
As to the costs awarded against Mr. Kulga, the Appeals Tribunal found that the UNDT erred in finding Mr. Kulga’s application to be frivolous as it was not unreasonable for Mr. Kulga to consider that a further challenge to the UNDT could assist him, especially after his management evaluation challenge had been partially successful. In addition, the UNDT’s finding that Mr. Kulga repeatedly lied to the Administration over six months in seeking to obtain...
The UNAT held that the UNDT did not err in refusing to call an expert witness to demonstrate that the former staff member’s personal information had been improperly leaked by other UNICEF staff members with access to Vision, a system that stores UNICEF staff information.The UNAT found that the investigators’ conclusion that it was not possible to identify the staff member, if any, who had leaked the former staff member’s personal information to a third party stood unrefuted. It further found that it had not been shown that, had the investigators sought third-party expert assistance, they...
The UNAT held that the UNDT erred in finding that the referral to OIOS constituted a reviewable administrative decision.It found that, contrary to the UNDT’s finding, being subject to an investigation did not, in itself, transform the referral for investigation into an administrative decision, in the absence of additional legal consequences.It further concluded that, as the staff member’s request for parental leave was eventually granted, and he had not identified any harm resulting from the delay in granting it, the referral to OIOS did not have sufficient legal effect to constitute a...
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...
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 former staff member was placed on Administrative Leave Without Pay (ALWOP) pending the conclusion of an investigation into him for misconduct. At the time that the decision-maker considered extending the ALWOP period, only a Draft Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) Report was available.
The UNAT held that the UNDT erroneously and definitively substituted its own determination of the facts for that of the Administration. It erroneously admitted after-the-fact independent forensic reports as relevant to the reliability of the evidence cited by OIOS, when these reports were not...
