Confidentiality

The UNAT noted that ABD’s appeal was filed within 60 days of the Order’s issuance, but more than 30 days after that event. Given that under Article 7(1)(c) of the UNAT Statute, a party has 30 days to appeal an order, ABD was out of time to appeal against the impugned UNDT Order.

The UNAT dismissed the appeal as not receivable.

The UNAT held that the UNRWA DT did not err in finding that there was clear and convincing evidence to support that the applicant had engaged in abuse of authority by intimidating a staff member to file a false complaint of sexual harassment against another staff member. The UNRWA DT weighed the conflicting testimonies and assessed the credibility of the witnesses and found that she had a motive to solicit the false complaint.

The UNAT held that the UNRWA DT did not err in declining to review the other misconduct allegations against her, given that the abuse of authority allegation was the...

The UNAT noted that the impugned Orders denying the staff member’s requests for anonymity had been issued less than a month after the UNDT had granted his motion for anonymity in another case.

The UNAT found that the impugned Orders did not exist in isolation and the interaction of all these proceedings rendered the situation exceptional. The UNAT held that denying him anonymity for his two applications alone would defeat the purpose of anonymity and, in the unique circumstances of these proceedings, this inconsistency was prejudicial to the integrity of the internal justice system. The UNAT...

The Appeals Tribunal concluded that the UNDT did not err in finding that the Administration had established that AAR had unlawfully disclosed confidential information and had unlawfully failed to disclose a conflict of interest and recuse himself.

The Appeals Tribunal was also satisfied that the administrative measure imposed on AAR was proportionate to his misconduct, and that the UNDT did not commit any error in awarding moral damages for the harm AAR incurred due to the undue delay in completing the disciplinary process.

The Appeals Tribunal therefore dismissed the appeals.

At the outset, the Appeals Tribunal noted that Ms. Monasebian had provided little or no reason in support of her request for the anonymization of the Judgment other than a general statement that the information in her case was sensitive. The Appeals Tribunal took the view that anonymization was not warranted in this case and dismissed her request.

The Appeals Tribunal was satisfied that the UNDT did not err in finding that there was a preponderance of the evidence that Ms. Monasebian had engaged in a pattern of conduct through which she created an intimidating, hostile and/or offensive work...

As a preliminary matter, the Appeals Tribunal found that Mr. Radu had failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances to support his request for anonymity and accordingly dismissed his request.

The Appeals Board dismissed Mr. Radu’s appeal in relation to Appeals Board Decision No. 1. The Appeals Tribunal found that even if the Staff Rule was to be interpreted as to require consultation with the Medical Clinic at that time, the Organization’s failure to abide by the Staff Rule would not render the decision void ab initio.

Turning to the appeal against Appeals Board Decision No. 2 to...

The UNAT noted that the staff member had telecommuted from his home country for the entire academic year. The UNAT found that payment of the educational grant required the physical presence of the staff member at their official duty station, with such payment to be suspended or adjusted for the period that they were telecommuting from outside the official duty station.

The UNAT held that it was not open to the staff member to rely on a defence that the Administration be estopped from relying on the applicable provisions in its interpretation of the circumstances under which the education...

The UNAT held that the facts upon which the staff member relied in his application for revision all post-dated the UNAT Judgment and therefore could not serve as a basis for revising or reconsidering the UNAT’s prior conclusions. In particular, the UNAT found that the staff member’s medical record, indicating a change in his condition after the issuance of the UNAT Judgment, did not constitute grounds for revising it.

However, the UNAT granted the staff member’s request for anonymity for the present Judgment only, given the limited scope of the issues raised and the specific facts...

The UNAT considered an appeal by the staff member.

The UNAT found that because of a combination of the staff member’s failure to recall the events in question and of the UNDT’s decision (concurred in by the parties) not to hold an in-person hearing, the UNDT had appropriately referred to the investigation report.

The UNAT was of the view that the UNDT had correctly determined the staff member’s acts were sexual in nature. The staff member had, without invitation, encouragement or consent, embraced two different women in a sexual manner at a party at a staff retreat. The UNAT held that the...

UNAT agreed with UNDT and its conclusion that the application was not receivable ratione materiae. UNAT noted that a request for management evaluation must be submitted prior to bringing an application before UNDT. UNAT further noted that, even if the Management Evaluation Unit (MEU) had failed to resolve the Appellant’s complaints about the contested decision, she still had the opportunity to file a timely application with UNDT for judicial review after she receive the response from the MEU but had chosen not to do so. UNAT held that UNDT exceeded its competence and jurisdiction in addressing...