2026-UNAT-1687, Fazliddin Samandarov
The staff member based in Geneva applied for the post in Suva, Fiji, and was offered the temporary appointment as a result. After many rounds of communications regarding the date of reporting for duty, the Administration informed him that his suggested date was not acceptable, and it was proceeding to contact the next candidate.
The UNAT noted that the offer of appointment had specified that it was “for an initial period effective as soon as possible to 31 December 2024”. The UNAT found that by unconditionally accepting the offer of appointment, the staff member was in a quasi-contractual...
2026-UNAT-1686, Sanaka Kumara Samarasinha
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...
2026-UNAT-1682, Sizakele Myeni
L’UNAT a relevé que la procédure de révision présuppose l’existence d’un jugement antérieur et ne régit que la réouverture de ce
jugement en cas de découverte de faits justifiant une révision. Elle ne crée pas de mécanisme permettant de faire revivre un droit échu de contester une décision administrative. L’UNDT n’a pas commis d’erreur en rejetant la demande de révision du jugement comme irrecevable ratione materiae.
L’UNAT a estimé que des circonstances exceptionnelles justifiant une dérogation aux délais applicables n’existent que lorsqu’il existe une « impossibilité absolue » d’agir dans le...
2026-UNAT-1684, Ann-Christin Raschdorf
The staff member submitted a claim for compensation for an injury attributable to the performance of official duties. The Advisory Board on Compensation Claims found her claim time-barred. She requested the Advisory Board to reconsider her claim and attached a new claim form, which stated a new date of the injury. She subsequently filed many claims and requests for reviews of alleged decisions and “non decisions” concerning the processing of her claim.
The UNAT noted that it had rendered its prior Judgment in which it held that the staff member’s application challenging alleged decisions and...
2026-UNAT-1685, Mohammed Moheeb Helal
On 19 May 2024, the staff member returned to his duty station from Rest and Recuperation (R&R). The period of qualifying service for the R&R entitlement was 28 days and he was eligible for another R&R from 16 June 2024. He left the duty station on 13 June 2024. He requested R&R for 23-27 June 2024.
The UNAT noted that the staff member had left the duty station with the expectation that the following days of 14-22 June 2024, which constituted a combination of non-working days, United Nations Official holidays, and annual leave, would not interrupt or suspend, but contribute to his qualifying...
2026-UNAT-1678, Imad Hassanein
The staff member, who was serving in Khartoum, was evacuated when civil war erupted in Sudan. He submitted a claim for compensation for loss of personal effects attributable to service.
The UNAT held that by denying the staff member’s request for referral to mediation the UNDT had lawfully exercised its case management discretion and had not committed an error of procedure.
The UNAT found that the UNDT had not erred when it identified the staff member’s argument as a challenge to the policy of the Organization but had erred when it held that it did not have jurisdiction to incidentally examine...
2026-UNAT-1675, Elizabeth Isabiti Opero
The staff member, who was serving in Khartoum, was evacuated when civil war erupted in Sudan. She submitted a claim for compensation for loss of personal effects attributable to service.
The UNAT held that the UNDT had not erred, such as to affect the decision of the case, when it rejected the parties’ joint motion to refer their case to mediation.
The UNAT found that the UNDT had not erred when it identified the staff member’s argument as a challenge to the policy of the Organization but had erred when it held that it did not have jurisdiction to incidentally examine the consistency of...
2026-UNAT-1677, Fazliddin Samandarov
The staff member, who served as an Associate Human Rights Officer at the P-2 level, applied for the Human Rights Officer post at the P-4 level. The hiring manager conducted a desk review of the job applications and, as a result, decided not to shortlist the staff member. Accordingly, his candidacy did not proceed in the selection process.
The UNAT noted that the UNDT had found it impossible to determine whether the document produced by the Secretary-General, reflecting the Administration’s assessment of the staff member’s skills, experience and suitability, constituted a “contemporaneous...
2026-UNAT-1673, Masoud Taghavi
L’UNAT a noté que le fonctionnaire avait demandé une évaluation par la direction 64 jours après avoir été informé de la décision contestée.
L’UNAT a jugé sans fondement les arguments du fonctionnaire selon lesquels le retard dans la demande d’évaluation par la direction avait été minime ou que son incapacité permanente constituait un cas de force majeure que l’UNDT était tenue de prendre en considération.
L’UNAT n’a constaté aucune erreur dans la décision de l’UNDT de déclarer la requête irrecevable ratione materiae.
L’UNAT a rejeté le pourvoi et a confirmé le jugement de l’UNDT.
2026-UNAT-1672, Costas Argyrou
The UNAT noted that in its prior Judgment the UNAT had found that the staff member knew or reasonably should have known of the contested decisions from the date he was notified by email of the reclassification of his post, or at the very latest on the date the initial job opening was advertised on Inspira.
The UNAT held that the alleged new fact that the vacancy for the post was filled 13 months after the staff member left the Organization would not have materially impacted the outcome of its prior Judgment. The UNAT accordingly found the application for revision not receivable ratione...