The United Nations Appeals Tribunal (UNAT) Oral Pronouncements - 2026 Summer session

Here today, who's in person before us, as well as those watching online to the appeal Tribunal's summer session for the year 2026.
This session is an important occasion not only for the judgments to be announced today, but it also marks the final session of judges Colgan, Sandhu, and Gao, whose appointments to the Appeals Tribunal end on the 30th of June 2026.
Behalf of myself as president and my fellow judges, I wish to express my deep gratitude to them for their service on the Appeals Tribunal and to the cause of justice for United Nations staff members.
We are thankful for their hard work, their contributions to the jurisprudence of this tribunal, and for their collegiality as fellow judges.
They will be deeply missed and we wish them well in their future endeavors.
Now the registrar will call the first case.
Thank you, Judge President Savage.
On behalf of the entire Registry, we also wish to publicly express our profound appreciation for Judges Colgan, Sandhu, and Gao.
It has been a privilege and a pleasure to support you during your tenure.
And the first case is case number 2025 2053, Tamer Shaq Sous versus the Commissioner General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine refugees in the Near East.
Judge Gao.
A staff member of the agency filed an appeal of the ADT judgment that dismissed the application challenging issues related to the reclassification of a post for which he was registered.
The issue on appeal is whether the ADT earned in finding that the application was not receivable rally me.
In our view, the RODT did not earn.
Mr.
Souls was not the incumbent of the post at the time of reclassification.
His membership in the roster did not create a right to be appointed to the post.
We agree with the ADT's finding that the reclassification decision did not produce direct legal consequences for him or adversely affect his terms of employment.
The appeal is dismissed and the ADT judgment is affirmed.
Case number 2020 5-2054, Costs Argo versus the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Judge Fobank.
Mr.
Gero, a former staff member of the United Nations peacekeeping force in Cyprus, filed an application for revision of a prior United United Nations Appeals Tribunal judgment that had dismissed his appeal.
He had challenged an implied administrative decision not to provide him with a copy of the notice of the results of the reclassification exercise of the post he encumbered, and the failure to advertise the vacancy of the reclassified position until after he separated from service.
The issue on appeal is whether the new facts asserted by Mr.
Gill would have been decisive in reaching the original unit judgment.
We find that the fact that the reclassified position was filled 13 months after Mr.
A Gil left the organization would not have materially impacted the outcome of the prior unit judgment.
The time limit for requesting management evaluation started to run on the date he was notified by the by email that his post had been reclassified or at the very latest on the date the initial job opening was advertised on Inspir, the application for revision is dismissed.
Case number 2020 5-2056, Anthony Moley versus the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Judge Gao.
Mr.
Maley, a staff member with the United Nations Organization Stabilization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, filed an interlocutory appeal against a UNDT order that rejected his motion seeking an extension of time to file an application challenging the administration's decision to deny his request to undergo robot assisted surgery in Switzerland.
The preliminary issue on appeal is whether Mr.
Moley's appeal is receivable.
Pursuant to Article 71C of the UN the ATs statute, an appeal shall be receivable if it is filed within 30 calendar days of the receipt of the interlocutory order.
In the present case, the impealed order was issued on July 31st, 2025.
However, Mr.
Morley only filed his appeal against the impealed order on September 5th, 2025, in the absent of any request to waive the applicable time limit.
The appeal is therefore dismissed as not receivable really temporary.
Case number 2020 5-2057 and Christian Rusdorf versus the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Judge Sandhu.
Miss Rashdor, a former staff member of the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq, applied for correction of Judgment number 2025 UNT 15 76, in which the Appeals Tribunal had dismissed her appeal.
She had challenged alleged decisions concerning the processing of her claim for compensation under Appendix D to the staff rules for injury attributable to the performance official duties on behalf of the United Nations.
Issue in this appeal is whether miss Rashdor's application meets the criteria established under Article 11 of the UNT statute for issuing a correction of the judgment.
We find that none of miss Rashdor's proposed changes to the prior UNT judgment point to any clerical or arithmetical mistake nor any errors arising from any accidental slip or omission on part of the Appeals Tribunal.
She is essentially attempting to relitigate her case contrary to the purpose of Article 11.
The application for correction is dismissed.
Case number 2025 2059, the Secretary-General of the United Nations versus Vasladin Samandorov, Judge ha.
Mr.
Saadarov, staff member of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, OHCHR, contested decisions related to his non appointment to a post and temporary appointment at the Regional Office for the Pacific in Fiji.
In particular, the applicant contended that the administration did not give him sufficient time to relocate from his duty station in Geneva to his new duty station in Fiji, in which case it was unlawful for the administration to withdraw his offer of appointment.
The UNDT granted the application, rescinded the contested decisions, and ordered in lieu compensation.
The Secretary-General appealed.
The Appeals Tribunal notes at the outset that having accepted the offer of employment unconditionally, Mr.
Samandrov was in a quasi contractual arrangement with the administration.
In such case, the administration had the duty to behave in keeping with the principle of good faith and to act fairly, justly, and transparently in its dealings with Mr.
Samandrov.
We turn now to the issues on appeal.
The first issue on appeal is whether the UNDT erred when it relied on Section 10.3 of the staff selection system that does not apply to temporary appointments.
This provision specifies that the release of a staff member selected for a job in another duty station shall be no later than two months after notification.
We find that the UNDT did not err when it relied on that provision.
Although the offer was for temporary appointment, the administration itself had deliberately relied on Section 10.3 as by way of analogy and the Secretary-General was estopped from adopting the opposite position before the UNDT The second issue on appeal is whether the UNDT erred when it found that the decision to withdraw the offer of employment was unlawful.
In this respect, we find that the UNDT erred when it held that the administration had to wait for Mr.
Samandrov's return from leave when considering the period for relocation.
The administration did not exercise its discretion improperly when it decided the date of reporting for duty.
Having failed to reach an agreement with him on the date, it was open for the administration to exercise its discretion and withdraw the offer made to Mr.
Sandrov before making an offer of appointment to the next candidate.
The UNDT erred when it held otherwise.
The appeal is granted and the UNDT judgment is reversed.
Case number 2020 5-2060, the Secretary-General of the United Nations versus Sanaa Kumara Samarasinha, Judge President Savage.
The Secretary-General has filed an appeal of a UNDT judgment which granted the application of Mr.
Sanaa Samarasina, a former staff member of UNDP, who challenged a decision to extend his placement on administrative leave without pay while he was being investigated for sexual harassment and abuse of authority.
The UNDT ordered that he was entitled to retroactive reinstatement to the status quo prior to August 2024.
On appeal, the Secretary-General argues that the UNDT applied the wrong legal standard in reviewing the administrative leave decision and further maintains that based on the facts before the Director in August 2024, Mr.
Samsina placement on leave without pay was lawful.
We agree with the Secretary-General.
Section 42 of the UNDP legal framework provides that administrative leave without pay may be contemplated in cases where on the basis of the information before the decision maker, there is a preponderance of evidence that the staff member engaged in the alleged misconduct, and if proven, the alleged misconduct is of such gravity that it would warrant separation or dismissal.
This requires the UNDT to have regard to the material before the director when the decision was taken.
The UNDT erred in approaching the matter as if it was engaged in a review of a disciplinary measure with a clear and convincing evidence standard of proof.
The UNDT failed to assess whether the decision to place Mr.
Samarasina on administrative leave without pay was legal, rational, procedurally correct, and proportionate, and whether the director properly exercised his discretion in relation to whether exceptional circumstances existed to justify the leave without pay.
The UNDT further erred in admitting after the fact independent forensic reports and the final investigation report and its annexes, when none of this material was before the director when the contested decision was taken and was therefore not relevant to the UNDT's review.
By examining the administrative decision as if it was disciplinary in nature, the UNDT prejudged the case prior to the conclusion of the disciplinary process.
Regard to the evidence set out in the draft investigation report which was before the director, it is apparent that it has not been shown that it has been shown that Mr.
Samara has more likely than not, engaged in serious misconduct that was grave enough to warrant dismissal.
This justified the extension of his administrative leave without pay pending the finalization of the investigation in finding differently the UNDT owed.
For these reasons, the Secretary-General appeal is granted and the judgment and orders of the UNDT are reversed.
Case number 2020 5-2061, Amal Hamoud versus the Commissioner General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine refugees in the Near East, Judge Sha.
The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine refugees in the Near East imposed on the appellant the disciplinary measures of one, written censor, two fine equivalent to two months of her salary, and three, deferment for one year of eligibility for promotion.
These disciplinary measures were imposed for established negligence, failure to report and attempts to cover up an incident of corporal punishment.
Unsatisfied with that decision, the appellant filed an application with the Onoa Dispute Tribunal who issued a judgment dismissing her application.
The appellant thus filed the present appeal to reverse the impued judgment.
At the outset, we note that the appellant's sole challenge on appeal is whether the Iwa Disputes Tribunal erred in law it failed to consider her contention that the sanction she incurred of a fine equivalent to two months of her salary was unlawful.
This is because such sanction is contrary to the contemporary principles set by the International Labor Organization prohibiting slavery and forced labor.
We find that although the Onwa Disputes Tribunal did not expressly address her argument, such argument was unfounded.
The sanction of a fine is listed not only under the practice directions of the agency, but also under the staff rules, which cannot be subject to judicial review to examine its consistency with the higher norms before the Una Disputes Tribunal or the UN Appeals Tribunal.
For these reasons, the Appeals Tribunal decides to dismiss the appeal and to affirm the impugnment judgment.
Case number 2020 5-2062, the Secretary-General of the International Civil Aviation Organization versus Katalin Gyorgi Radu, Judge Sandhu.
Mr.
Radu, a former D one staff member with the International Civil Aviation Organization, was separated from service with immediate effect for misconduct on grounds of sexual harassment of female staff members.
Following a first Appeals Board decision, an appeal and a remand from the Appeals Tribunal for rehearing, a differently constituted Appeals Board found that the Secretary-General had failed to establish misconduct on the part of Mr.
Radu.
The Appeals Board rescinded the decision and set in lieu compensation at 298 days of net base salary plus entitlement plus an award pertaining to Mr.
Radu's pension funds entitlements.
The Secretary-General appealed the Appeals Board decision on the merits and in relation to the amount of in lieu compensation.
Regarding the merits, we note that the Appeals Board heard Viva voce evidence from the central witnesses and undertook a detailed examination of the evidentiary record.
Appeals Board found that the record was marked by inconsistencies, limited corroboration and contradictions in the accounts of the principal witnesses.
It also considered the broader context in which the allegations arose.
We find that these conclusions disclose a reasoned and coherent assessment of the evidence and fall within the Appeals board's discretion as a first instance trier of fact.
As to the award of in lieu compensation, however, we find that the Appeals Board award compensation in lieu extends to a period during which Mr.
Radu was gainfully employed with the government of Kazakhstan and therefore compensates him.
The appeal is granted in part with regard to the amount of in lieu compensation for this time period only, since we do not have relevant information on Mr.
Radu's salary from before April 2022 to September 2022.
The question of compensation in view for this time period is remanded to the Appeals Board for additional fact finding and recalculation.
The remainder of the appeal is dismissed.
Case number 2020 5-2063, Haidar Daniel Majuok versus the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Judge Gao.
Mr.
Maduk, a former staff member of the United Nations Mission in South Sudan, filed an appeal of the UNDT order that dismissed his application.
He had challenged before the UNDT the decision of the United Nations Joint staff Pension Fund not to pay him pension benefits.
The issue on appeal is whether the UNDT earned in law in finding the application not receivable.
In our view, the UNDT did not earn.
The UNDT correctly found that it did not have subject matter jurisdiction over applications seeking to contest determinations of the pension fund.
We note that Mr.
Mak did not request a review by the pension committee or file an appeal to the standing committee, but rather filed a request for management evaluation and then appealed to the UNDT.
As such, he did not follow the proper procedure.
The appeal is dismissed and the UNDT order is affirmed.
Case number 2020 5-2064 Dices Maldixis versus the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Judge Sandhu.
The appellant, a former staff member of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, filed an appeal against the UNDT judgment that dismissed his application challenging the Inspector General's Office's decision to decline to open investigations into three misconduct reports filed by him.
The issue on appeal is whether the dispute tribunal erred in determining that the Secretary-General acted within his scope of discretion in declining to open investigations into the appellant's reports of alleged misconduct.
We accept that there was a lack of adequate reasons for declining to open investigations into these allegations, and this constituted an error and irregularity in procedure.
However, we find that the appellant's misconduct reports concerned ordinary administrative matters and were of themselves likely not misconduct and certainly not serious misconduct.
We further find that the UNDT correctly concluded that the appellant did not provide evidence demonstrating ill motivation on part of the alleged perpetrators.
Therefore conclude that the UNDT correctly applied the no difference principle under which a deficiency in due process does not invalidate an otherwise fair and reasonable decision or adversely affect the outcome.
Finally, we reject the appellant's argument that the UNDT did not resolve his objection to the UNHCR legal representation of the IGO.
Every party, including the administration has the right to counsel.
In any event, this alleged error did not affect the outcome of the case.
The appeal is dismissed and the UNDT judgment is affirmed.
Case number 2020 5-2065, Rvathi Janakiram versus the United Nations Joint Staff Pension Board, Judge Vobang.
Miss Janakiram filed an appeal of the decision of the standing committee of the United Nations Joint Staff Pension Board regarding the firm's decision, finding that she was not eligible to receive a surviving spouse benefit because she had not been legally married to the late participant, Mr.
Janakiram.
The standing committee found that her request for review of the fund's decision was not receivable.
The issue on appall one, whether the standing committee erred in finding that miss Janna iram's request for review was time barred, and two, whether even if her request for review had been receivable, the fund would have still would still have been unable to grant her surviving spouse benefit.
Regarding the first issue, we find that only the seven October 2024 decision rejecting miss Janna Keram's claim constituted a reviewable decision because it applied to her individually and directly affected her rights as a beneficiary.
It follows that the time limit for filing a request for review started running from seven October 2024, and accordingly, miss Jana Keram's request for review to the standing committee filed on the 3rd of January 2025 was receivable as it was filed within 90 days time limit for receipt of the funds decision from the time limit from receipt of the funds decision.
Nonetheless, we find that it had been established by clear and convincing evidence that Mr.
Jana Kiram had a prior undisolved marriage to miss MD, which took place in the Netherlands.
Accordingly, absent evidence that Mr.
Janakiram's first marriage was ever dissolved, and since that marriage took place in a jurisdiction that does not permit polygamy, the subsequent marriage to miss Janakiram was not legally valid.
Therefore, even if miss Jana Kiram's request for review was receivable, We find that she is still not entitled to a surviving spouse benefit.
The appeal is accordingly granted in part, the decision of the standing committee reversed in part as well.
Case number 2020 5-2066, Cheryl Johnson Simmons versus the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Judge Gao.
Miss Johnson Simmons, a former staff member of the organization, contested the administration's decision to separate her from service because of one, He failure to receive permission from the Secretary-General to change her status from a G four visa holder to a permanent residence of the United States.
Two, her failure to inform the administration that she became a US permanent resident, and three, her applying for and receiving home leave and education grant allowances when she was not eligible for those benefit as a US permanent resident.
The UNDT uphold the administration's decision finding that there was clear and convincing evidence to support that miss Johnson Simmons failed to follow the proper procedure for changing her residency status and that she had provided false information to the organization when she applied for expatriate benefits.
The UNDT also rejected as not receivable miss Johnson Simmons' claim for reimbursement for US income tax from the date of her change of status.
On appeal, they affirm that miss Johnson Simmons is not entitled to tax reimbursement because there is no evidence that she paid any US income taxes from the period 2017 to 2021.
Moreover, there is no administrative decision denying reimbursement of income taxes.
We also agree with the UNDT's finding that there is nothing in the record to support miss Johnson Simmons' claim that the termination of her appointment was in retaliation for the prior cases that she brought against the administration.
We are not convinced that miss Johnson Simmons' failure to inform the Secretary-General of her application to be a permanent resident of the United States was a misstep.
Her claim that she thought her attorney would give this information to the administration is not supported in the record.
We agree with the UNDT that miss Johnson Simmons knowingly and intentionally concealed information about her permanent resident status.
And she provided false information when she applied for the home leave and education benefits to which she was not entitled.
Lastly, we reject miss Johnson Simmons' argument that she should not have been separate from service because she had entered into a recovery agreement to repay the amount she received from home leave and education benefit.
Miss Johnson Simmons' obligation to repay this amount which she received unlawfully does not cure her misconduct.
For all of these reasons, miss Johnson Simmons' appeal is dismissed and the DT judgment is affirmed.
Case number 2020 5-2067, Christopher Land versus the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Judge Cogan.
Christophe Lane, a former staff member of UN Habitat, has appealed the United Nations Dispute Tribunal judgment that dismissed his application.
That application challenged the administration's decision to impose on him the disciplinary measure of separation from service with compensation in lieu of notice, but without termination indemnity, and that was for harassment.
We find that the Dispute tribunal relied very significantly on its assessment of Mr.
Lan's credibility in giving his oral evidence before it.
Disbelieving him strongly and almost entirely.
However, this was not balanced against any comparable assessment of the complainants and other witnesses' credibility, particularly where their accounts of the facts conflicted with those of Mr.
Lane.
No one else gave evidence in person to the dispute tribunal.
There was no opportunity for the complainants to be questioned by either Mr.
Llan's counsel or the UNDT judge.
This is especially significant given that the findings of the OIOS investigation report on the seriousness of the alleged misconduct differed significantly from the administration's view of the misconduct.
In these circumstances, we consider that it was not open to the dispute tribunal to find that the administration had discharged its onus of proving clearly and convincingly allegations of serious misconduct against Mr.
Lalande.
This was an error of law significantly affecting the UNDT judgment.
The appeal is granted, the UNDT judgment is reversed and the case is remanded to the dispute tribunal for consideration by a different judge.
Case number 2020 5-2069, Bashkim Isufi versus the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Judge Colgan.
Bashkim Isufi, a former staff member of the United Nations Development Coordination Office in Kosovo, contested before the dispute tribunal, the administration's decision not to review his fixed term appointment for reasons of alleged unsatisfactory performance.
The UNDT granted his application and rescinded the non renewal decision.
The dispute tribunal directed Mr.
Asufi's reinstatement with no loss of benefits and entitlements.
In lieu of those remedies, the UNDT made an unexplained award of six months net base salary and interest thereon.
Mr.
Isoufi now appeals to the Appeals Tribunal against the remedies granted to him.
We conclude that the UNDT erred in law when it awarded compensation in lieu of rescission without providing reasons for settling on six months base remuneration.
We find that had his appointment not been unlawfully not renewed and all other considerations being equal, as a matter of probability in assessing remedies for wrongful non renewal and non renewal, he might reasonably have expected to have enjoyed another one year fixed term appointment.
Factoring in a variety of applicable contingencies, including his known history of consistent and less than satisfactory performance, together with other usual contingencies of possible early retirement, redundancy, and similar uncertainties, a downwards adjustment from one year's base remuneration to account for such contingencies must be made.
Mr.
Asofi's appeal against the UNDT's refusal to award him compensation for moral harms is unsuccessful.
The dispute tribunal was correct to conclude that there was no causative connection proven between the administration's wrongful decision and the ill health he suffered.
Mr.
Isufi's appeal is granted in part, and the UNDT judgment is hereby modified by substituting an award of in lieu compensation equivalent to nine months base remuneration plus interest.
His appeal is otherwise dismissed.
Case number 2020 5-2071, Jane Kimani Induta versus the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
Judge Colgan.
Jane Kimani, a former staff member of the United Nations Environment Program, has appealed the dispute tribunal's judgment that dismissed her application challenging a disciplinary decision.
The administration's sanction for serious misconduct was to separate her from service with compensation in lieu of notice, but without termination indemnity.
This was imposed on her for misconduct concerning her claim for special education grants.
The issues on appeal are two.
First, whether the UNDT erred in finding that miss Kerman had committed the alleged misconduct, and if so, second, whether the UNDT erred in respect of the proportionality of the disciplinary measure.
The dispute tribunal did not error in fact or in law in deciding that miss Kamani had committed the alleged misconduct.
The UNDT considered her explanations for errors in the claims, but found against her.
The UNDT was likewise entitled to draw a legitimate inference that her failure to call some witnesses cast an unfavorable light on her contentions.
It was open to the UNDT to conclude that during the periods when the school was closed for in person learning due to the COVID 19 pandemic, transport claims lodged by miss Kamani for that period could only in reality have been for a relative's caregiving of her child, which was not permitted under the special education grant.
On the second issue, we find that the administration and the UNDT both erred in their determinations of the proportionality of the sanction, albeit in different ways.
The UNDT erred in its weighing of several mitigating factors.
However, to increase the termination entitlements payable to miss Kimani would defend the important principle that dishonesty in making financial claims justifies a serious sanction.
Furthermore, even had these errors of law not been committed, we're not persuaded that this would have warranted an amelioration of the disciplinary measure.
In these circumstances, we do not interfere with the UNDT's judgment.
The appeal is dismissed and the dispute tribunal judgment is affirmed.
Case number 2020 5-2073, Mohammed Mohib Halal versus the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Judge Sha.
Star Hill, staff member of the United Nations Support Office in Somalia, challenged before the dispute tribunal the decision to deny his request for resta recuperation, travel entitlement, and to convert the days taken as resta recuperation to annual leave.
The UNDT dismissed his application and Mr.
Hilal appeals.
The first issue on appeal is whether the UNDT erred in its interpretation and application of the administrative instruction on restart recaration regarding qualifying service.
In our view, the UNDT did not err when it affirmed the lawfulness of the contested decision.
The definition of presence at the DUO station relies on the staff members physical presence without any difference between working and non working days.
Qualifying service cannot be accrued during absence from the DT station, no matter how brief.
Saril had not completed the requisite 28 days of qualifying service when he deported the DUO station on 13 June 2024, nor when he attempted to commence his wrist operation on 23 June 2024.
The second issue is whether the UNDT exceeded its jurisdiction by inferring deliberate wrongdoing by Mr.
Hill.
In this respect, the Appeals Tribunal notes that it is imperative that the UNDT refrain from expressing unnecessary critical remarks about any of the parties to the dispute or other persons.
Mr.
Hil properly made his case and the UNDT had no valid reason to embark on an inquiry about his intentions and motivations.
Engaging in speculations on this point, the UNDT exceeded its competence.
The appeal is granted in court and the UNDT judgment is modified.
The UNDT is directed to redact parts of the Impion judgment, and the appeal is dismissed in all other respects.
Case number 2020 5-2074, Eduardo Alvir versus the Secretary-General of the International Civil Aviation Organization, Judge ha.
Or staff member of the International Civil Aviation Organization, ICAO, has filed an appeal of a decision of the ICo Appeals Board.
In that decision, the Appeals Board dismissed his application challenging a non selection decision on the grounds that it was not receivables.
The Appeals Tribunal notes that on appeal, Mr.
Alviar did not specifically address the findings of the Appeals Board regarding the non receivability of his application.
Among the many other contentions invoked in his appeal brief in respect of the merits of his case, Mr.
Alviar only points to the need for access to justice and a chance to be heard.
No arguments whatsoever were made to allow this tribunal to review his appeal.
The appeals process is of a corrective nature, and it is the burden of the dissatisfied party to demonstrate in what respect and for what reasons the Apun decision was defective.
Mr.
Alviar did not meet that burden here.
Therefore, Mr.
Alviar's appeal is dismissed and the ICAO Appeals Board's decision is affirmed.
Case number 2020 5-2076 AAM, formerly applicant versus the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Judge Sandhu.
AAM, a former staff member of the United Nations Joint Staff pension, contested before the UNDT the decision of the Advisory Board on compensation claims dated five February 2024 to deny his claim for benefits under Appendix D to the staff regulation and rules, which was originally taken on 30 December 2020 and reconfirmed following the medical board procedure.
By judgment number UNDT 2025 57, the UNDT dismissed AAM's application.
The UNDT held that the five February 2024 decision was a new administrative decision as it was the outcome of a new consideration, namely the conclusion of a new medical board.
However, the UNDT denied AAM's submission that the medical board procedure was seriously flawed so as to vitiate the Medical board's findings.
We note that subsequent to the issuance of the impugn judgment and the filing of the present appeal, the medical director convened a new medical board on 30 December 2025.
This development effectively accorded AAM the principal remedy sought in this appeal, namely the rescission of the administrative decision of five February 2024 and the establishment of a newly constituted medical board.
The administrative decision of five February 2024 has thus been overtaken by events.
Insofar as the appeal relates to the lawfulness of the administrative decision of five February 2024 and the remedies of rescission and remand, it no longer discloses a dispute capable of judicial resolution and is now moot.
As for AAM's request for moral damages, we find to the extent that AAM seeks compensation for periods already adjudicated, namely the delay in the processing of his Appendix D claim prior to December 2020, or the period 2020-2022, it is not open to litigation.
To the extent that moral damages could be claimed for the period 2022-2025, it is premature to consider any such claim at this stage.
Tribunals will retain jurisdiction over AAM's claim for moral damages insofar as it may relate to any alleged harm not already adjudicated and not precluded by prior final judgments.
That claim may, if necessary, be pursued following the issuance of the new administrative decision.
Finally, we find that AAM has not established a basis for referrals for accountability.
AAM's appeal is dismissed.
Case number 2020 5-2079, ABO, formerly applicant versus the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Judge President Savage.
ABO, a former UNICEF staff member, filed an appeal against the UNDT judgment that dismissed his application challenging the administration's decision not to investigate his complaint of prohibited conduct.
In that complaint, ABO alleged the improper disclosure of personal information regarding his marital status and sexual orientation by UNICEF personnel.
Issues on appeal are one, whether the UNDT erred in refusing ABO's request to direct the administration to call an expert to testify regarding the logs relating to his personal record, and two, whether the UNDT erred in denying ABO's request to refer the Secretary-General counsel for accountability for having responded to his closing submissions in direct contravention of a UNDT order.
As for the first issue, we find that the UNDT correctly held that the investigators conclusion that it was not possible to identify the staff member, if any, who had leaked ABOs personal information to a third party stood unrefuted.
It was also not known that had the investigators sought third party expert assistance, this would have resulted in a different conclusion.
This is all the more so given that ABO himself had disclosed information relating to his marital status and sexual orientation in various contexts, including through a video available on social media, rendering it unlikely that the investigators would be able to identify an act of misconduct.
Turning to the second issue, we find that the UNDT did not error in refusing to refer the Secretary-General counsel for accountability in circumstances in which the mistake made did not constitute an egregious error or serious flaw of a nature to affect the integrity of the judicial process or the ultimate outcome of the case and where the counsel acknowledged his mistake and apologized in writing for his conduct, the appeal and the UNDT judgment is affirmed.
Case number 2020 5-2082, Franco acovino versus the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Judge Ciadi.
Mr.
Franco acovino, a former staff member of the International Trade Center, filed an application with the United Nations Distute Tribunal UNDT contesting the decision not to extend his employment to cover his sick leave and instead to terminate his continuing appointment while he was on certified sick leave.
UNDT granted his application in part and rescinded the contested decision and set compensation in lieu of reinstatement at one month his full salary, including pension contributions.
Mr.
Acovino appealed the UNDT judgment on the grounds that the compensation award was inadequate.
The Secretary-General cross appealed on the basis that the UNDT contravened the express legal framework when it concluded that the organization violated the duty of care in terminating Mr.
Covino's continuing appointment while he was on sick leave and granting him compensation for sick leave for the one month following his termination.
The threshold issue in this appeal is the proper characterization of the contested decision.
The UNDT characterized the contested decision as the decision not to extend Mr.
Covino's employment to cover his sick leave and instead to terminate his appointment and separate him while on certified sick leave.
The Secretary-General contends this is erroneous.
We agree with the Secretary-General.
Acovino's appointment was terminated due to abortion of post.
This decision was upheld following management evriuation, but he did not appeal this decision to the NDT.
Accordingly, his appointment was properly terminated as of 31 December 2023.
The sick leave that medical services had approved to begin on January 2024 was after his appointment was already terminated.
In a second request for management evaluation, Mr.
Acovino challenged the decision not to extend his employment to cover certified sick leave.
Thus, the contested decision is the decision not to reinstate him for that limited purpose.
The question properly before us is therefore, whether the decision not to reinstate him for the purposes of using his certified sick leave was a violation of his rights under the applicable legal structure.
The UNDT found that it did relying on the organization's duty of care.
We observed that the administrative instruction on sick leave provides that staff on fixed term appointments may be granted an extension to utilize a sick leave entitlement, but there is no analogous rule for those on continuing appointments, much less for staff whose employment has already been terminated.
In the absence of an express mandate that the continuing appointment be extended or reinstated for the purpose of sick leave, we are constrained to hold that Mr.
Acovino's entitlement to sick leave ceased with the date step specified in his termination letter, namely 31 December 2023.
While we have indeed recognized the organization's duty of care, it cannot be stretched to apply to the administration of sick leave under the detailed regulatory system applicable to such benefits.
Because we find that Mr.
Acovino was not entitled to be reinstated or have his appointment extended for the purpose of using his sick leave, he was also not entitled to the award of compensation in lieu.
In sum, the Secretary-General cross appeal is granted.
Mr.
Acovino's appeal is dismissed, and judgment number entity 2025 64 is hereby reversed.
Case numbers 2020 5-2083, 2020 5-2085, 2020 5-2086, and 2020 5-2087, all titled Marie Burrell McKinnon versus the Secretary-General of the International Seabed Authority, Judge Colgan.
Marie Burrell McKinnon, the former Chief of Staff and head of Strategic Planning Unit at the D one level of the International Seabed Authority, has appealed four decisions of the ISA's Joint Appeals Board.
Those appeals relate to the new ISA Secretary-General temporary designation of two staff members as officers in charge for the Offices of Legal Affairs and Administrative Services, respectively.
Second, the alleged obstruction of a misconduct investigation into the same two staff members.
Third, the ISA Secretary-General decision to dismantle the JAB.
And fourth, the Secretary-General decision to deny miss Burrell McKinnon access to her emails, the Cloud, and her office following her separation from service.
The Joint Appeals Board dismissed all four appeals as not receivable.
Miss Burrell McKinnon filed separate appeals, which the Appeals Tribunal consolidated for judgment together.
There is a fundamental preliminary jurisdictional issue relating to the lawful constitution of the JAB panels that delivered decisions as a seven member full board that are the subject of these four appeals.
The Joint Appeals Board reasoned that its rules of procedure, which it adopted pursuant to its staff rules, allowed for the referral of a case to a seven member Joint Appeals Board.
We disagree.
There is a normative hierarchy that the United Nations Appeals Tribunal has long and again recently recognized.
In relation to the International Seabed authority itself, the UNAT in 2023 described the ISA's staff regulations and rules as its highest ranking instrument on staff relations.
In constituting appeal panels, the Joint Appeals Board had to comply with the ISA's staff regulations and rules.
It could not in law, create and rely on rules of procedure that conflict with the staff regulations and rules.
The former must yield to the latter.
It follows that the decisions that are now the subject of these appeals were all made unconstitutionally or in the purported exercise of a jurisdiction not possessed by the Joint Appeals Board and its chair who made the appointments to the panels, and those decisions were thereby made unlawfully.
Miss Burrel's appeals are granted in part, and the cases are remanded to lawfully constituted panels of the Joint Appeals Board.
Case numbers 2020 5-2084, 2020 6-2126 2020 6-2129, all titled Marie Burrell McKinnon versus the Secretary-General of the International Seabed Authority, Judge Vbang.
Miss Mary Burrell McKinnon, the former chief of staff and head of the strategic planning Unit at the day one level of the International Seabed Authority, filed three appeals before the ISA Joint Appeals Board challenging the decision to amend their next to administrative instruction of 2023 on staff selection system, the reclassification of her post, and the resulting termination of her appointment, and the alleged refusal by the administration to pay her entitlement arising from her separation from service.
The Joint Appeals Board sitting as a seven member panel dismissed all three appeals.
Miss Ber McKenn filed three separate appeals before the United Nations Appeals Tribunal, which have all been consolidated into this judgment.
As we have announced, In an earlier judgment concerning the same Marie Bar McKenna, we find that the Joint Appeals Board erred in convening a seven member panel to hear these appeals when only three member panel a three person panel are permitted under the ISA staff rules accordingly, the appeals are granted in part, and the cases are remanded for rehearing by a lawfully constituted Joint Appeals Board panel.
Case number 2020 5-2089, the Secretary-General of the United Nations versus Moses Passe.
Judge Sadi.
Mr.
Passey, a staff member of the United Nations Mission in South Sudan, challenged before the United Nations Dispute Tribunal, UNDT the administration's decision to refer his submissions relating to the establishment of dependency and possible parental leave to the Office of Internal Oversight Services or IOS.
The UDT found that Mr.
Passe's application was receivable and that the contested decision was unlawful, but it rejected his claim for damages.
The Secretary-General appealed the UDT judgment.
The issue on appeal was whether the entity erred in finding that Mr.
Vasy's application was receivable.
We find that the referral to OIOS did not constitute a reviewable administrative decision.
Subjecting a staff member to an investigation does not in itself transform the referral into an administrative decision.
Only where an investigation has additional legal consequences may it become reviewable.
Furthermore, as Mr.
Passy's request for parental leave was eventually granted and the NDT found that he had not identified any harm resulting from the delay in granting his parental leave, we find that the contested decision did not have a direct legal effect on him so as to become reviewable.
We therefore conclude that Mr.
Passy's application was not receivable Rationing material, and that the entity erred in concluding otherwise, as well as in reviewing the merits of Mr.
Passy's application.
The appeal is granted and the entity judgment is reversed.
Case number 2020 5-2091, Fasldn Samanarov versus the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Judge President Savage.
Mr.
Samanarov, a staff member of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, filed an appeal of the UNDT judgment that dismissed the application challenging the decision not to select him for a P four level post.
The issue on appeal is whether the UNDT erred in examining whether the procedure provided in the staff regulations and rules had been applied in a fair, transparent, non discriminatory manner and whether the staff member had been given fair and adequate consideration.
In our view, the UNDT did not err in finding that even if a procedural irregularity may have arisen in relation to the timing or quality of the record produced, Mr.
Sam Madov's non selection was an irrefutable foregone conclusion.
Clear evidence showed that he had not met all of the requirements for appointment to the post.
The hiring manager assessed Mr.
Samandorov's skills and experience as per his personal profile on his job application.
Mr.
Samandorov had failed to establish the hiring manager had exceeded the scope of discretion when not shortlisting him.
His allegations of bias or improper motive were not substantiated.
The appeal is therefore dismissed and the UNDT judgment affirmed.
Case number 2020 5-2092, Imad Haanin versus the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Judge Fobang.
Mr.
Hasanin, a former staff member of the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, filed an appeal of the UND judgment that dismissed this application.
He had challenged the decision not to pay him a part of his claim for compensation for loss of personal effects attributable to service following the outbreak of war in Sudan and his eventual evacuation.
The first issue on appeal is whether the UNDT exceeded its jurisdiction or red in procedure such as to affect the decision of the case when it denied the parties motion to refer the case for mediation.
We find that it did not.
The U entity enjoys a wide margin of discretion in case management.
The second issue is whether the U entity erred on a question of law in finding that Mr.
Ssanin was seeking a derogation of the relevant administrative instruction.
In our view, the U entity did not error when it identified his argument as a challenge to the administrative instruction.
Nevertheless, we disagree with UNDT in its stance to decline to examine this alleged normative inconsistency.
On examination, we find no inconsistency in the relevant administrative instruction with staff Rule 6.5.
The third issue on appeal is whether the U entity failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it by not assessing each of Mr.
Azanin's claims for compensation.
We find no deficiency in the UNtity's analysis.
The U entity was correct in rejecting Mr.
Azin's claims.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed and the UNTity judgment is affirmed.
Case number 2020 5-2093, ABO, formerly applicant versus the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Judge President Savage.
ABO, a former UNICEF staff member, filed an appeal against the UNDT's judgment that dismissed his application challenging the administration's decision to impose on him the disciplinary measure of separation from service with compensation in lieu of notice and with termination indemnity for sexually harassing VO one.
Issues on appeal are whether the UNDT erred in one, its conduct of the hearing, two, refusing ABO's request to call AK to testify, three, refusing ABO's request to recall VO one for further cross examination, and four, finding that the contested decision was lawful.
We find that the UNDT committed no error in its conduct of the hearing.
UNicef Uganda was requested to provide a suitable venue from which the UNDT judge could conduct the hearing solely for connectivity reasons, and the Secretary-General counsel participated from the United Kingdom and was therefore not in proximity to the judge.
The fact that the judge did not keep her camera on at all times does not demonstrate that she was not appropriately engaged in the hearing.
Find that the decision not to hear AK's testimony did not amount to a denial of due process since the evidence was not of such a material nature as would have affected the outcome of the case when both VO one and ABO testified directly in relation to the allegations and AKA's report to the investigators had been considered vague.
As for the UNDT's refusal to recall VO one for further cross examination, this did not impact on the fairness of the process or the UNDT's assessment of VO one's credibility.
ABO failed to address the issue of VO one's report during his cross examination and was accordingly not entitled to recall the witness to cover terrain that he had omitted.
On the merits, we reject ABO's contention that the UNDT failed to assess the evidence of the witness properly or was biased against him.
On the contrary, we find that the UNDT carefully considered the credibility of both VO one and ABO.
The appeal is therefore dismissed and the UNTDT judgment is affirmed.
Case number 2020 5-2095, Bao Jin versus the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Judge di.
Mr.
Jin, a P four Chinese revisor within the Department for General Assembly and Conference Management, DGACM at the United Nations Office at Nairobi, had a challenge before the United Nations D Suit Tribunal, UNDT a selection exercise for three posts of Chinese revisor within DGACM in New York, following which he was rostered but not selected.
By judgment number UNDT 2025 70, the NDT dismissed his application.
Mr.
Jin filed an appeal.
The selection exercise comprised the written test consisting of two parts, followed by a competency based interview of those candidates who would pass the written test.
During the written test, several candidates encountered technical difficulties in accessing part two.
Following discussions involving the hiring manager, the executive office, and the Department of operational Support, it was agreed that all candidates would be awarded full marks for that part.
The interview panel interviewed seven candidates, including Mr.
In, and found that all seven candidates had met the selection criteria and placed them on the recommended list.
The hiring manager proposed the three candidates for selection.
Mr.
In was not among those candidates.
Mr.
Jin contends that the entity's legal conclusion that he had not suffered any prejudice since all the applicants had been treated as having the same score on part two, and he had received the highest score and advance to the interview ground was in error since by his calculations, the decision to score part two perfectly for each candidate resulted in a larger interview pool than what would have happened had part two been totally disregarded from any calculation.
This speculative argument, predicated on one hypothetical counterfactual outcome, fails to meet Mr.
Jin's burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that he was denied a fair chance of selection and is thus not the ground to overturn the entity's determination.
The appeal is dismissed and the impune judgment is affirmed.
Case number 2020 5-2096, Elizabeth Isbee Aparro versus the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Judge iha.
Miss Opero is a staff member of the Office of the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs.
She filed an appeal of the UNDT judgment that dismissed her application challenging the decision not to pay her a part of her claim for compensation for loss of personal effects attributable to service following the outbreak of the war in Sudan and evacuation.
The first issue on appeal is whether the UNDT exceeded its jurisdiction or urgent procedures such as to affect the decision of the case when it denied the parties' motion to refer the case for mediation.
We find that the UNDT did not err.
Misses Oo had every opportunity to seek mediation, but chose not to do.
She is therefore estopped from raising this point on appeal.
The second issue is whether the UNDT erred on a question of law in finding that misses Opero was challenging the relevant administrative instruction.
We find that the UNDT was correct when it identified misses Oo's argument as a challenge to the organization's policy.
However, the UNDT erred when it held that the tribunals have no inherent jurisdiction to incidentally examine the consistency of administrative instructions against the higher norms.
Nonetheless, this error of the UNDT was not fatal in the present case because on examination, we found that the relevant administrative instruction was not inconsistent with staff R 6.5 on the facts of this case.
The third issue on appeal is whether the UNDT failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it by not assessing individual claims for each item.
We find no merit in this argument since we find that the UNDT undertook a careful review of the claims board assessment.
The appeal is dismissed and the UNDT judgment is affirmed.
Case number 2020 5-2097, Martin Elisha Musambai versus the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Judge Siadi.
Mr.
Musambi, a former staff member of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Regional Office for Eastern Africa, had a challenge before the United Nations Dispute Tribunal, UNDT the non renewal of his fixed term appointment on grounds of lack of funding due to the expiry of grants.
The UNDT dismissed his application.
Mr.
Musambai filed an appeal.
We were not persuaded by Mr.
Musambi that the UNDT had overlooked material evidence, applied an incorrect legal standard, or reached conclusions that lacked in reasonableness.
The NDT reviewed the record which showed that Mr.
Musambai's appointment was funded from a grant that expired at the same time as his appointment.
It concluded that the administration's stated reason for the non renewal was supported by facts.
Furthermore, the NDT correctly held that once the administration substantiated the reason it gave for the exercise of its discretion, the burden shifted to Mr.
Musambai to demonstrate that the decision was unreasonable, unfair, procedurally irregular, or tainted by improper motive.
Turning to Mr.
Musambai's principal argument that other staff members allegedly continued receiving salaries, notwithstanding the expiry of grants, and that his duties were carried out after his separation.
We know that the entity examined this argument and concluded that Mr.
Musambai had failed to show that the administration's exercise of its discretion was unlawful.
The administration explained that Mr.
Musambai's functions were absorbed by staff members occupying higher level positions and that assigning those functions to Mr.
Musambai would have required competitive selection and corresponding remuneration.
Mr.
Musambai has not demonstrated that that this explanation lacked factual foundation or that the NNDT acted unreasonably in accepting it.
Finally, we are unpersuaded by Mr.
Musambai's assertion that the non renewal decision was influenced by a pending investigation into allegations of misconduct made against him.
The NNDT expressly considered his contentions and was entitled to conclude as it did that he had not established improper motive.
The appeal is dismissed and the impune judgment is affirmed.
Case number 2020 5-2098, Masud Tagavi versus the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Judge Fobang.
Mr.
Taga, a former staff member of the Office of the United Nations High Commission for Refugee filed an appeal of the UND judgment that dismissed the application challenging the decision not to open an investigation into the conduct of his former superior supervisor.
The issue on appeal is whether the UNDity erred when it determined that the application was not receivable.
In our view, the UNDity did not.
There is no authority to allow a staff member one or more extra days to submit a request for management evaluation due to official UN holidays occurring before the end of the time limit.
The degree of lateness has no relevance.
The reasons for a staff member's delay, no matter how compelling or reasonable, cannot be ground for the dispute tribunal or appeals tribunal to waive.
Extend or suspend the time limit for requesting management evaluation.
His appeal is dismissed and the UNDT judgment affirmed.
Case number 2020 5-2100 Siskelli Verona Mani versus the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Judge Ciadi.
Miss Zake Manni, a former staff member of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, UNHCR, has filed an appeal of a judgment of the United Nations Dispute Tribunal of UNDT in which the UNDT dismissed her application for revision of judgment as not receivable Russian materiality.
The UNDT dismissed her application because there was no underlying UNDT judgment to revise.
To the extent miss Mani's application could be construed as a challenge to a disciplinary measure imposed on her, the UNDT found her application was untimely.
The Appeals Tribunal concludes that the NDT did not err in dismissing miss Maeny's application for revision of judgment as not receivable ration material.
Article 121 of the NDT statute on revision of judgment necessarily presupposes the existence of a judgment capable of revision.
Revision is not an independent avenue through which an applicant may obtain judicial review of an administrative decision that was not previously adjudicated by the NDT.
It is undisputed that miss Maenni did not challenge the disciplinary measure before the NDT and no NDT judgment was rendered on this issue.
Accordingly, the revision for judgment was properly dismissed.
In so far as miss Maay's application is interpreted as a challenge to the disciplinary measure itself, we find no error in the UNDT declining to waive the applicable filing deadline.
Miss Maney filed the application more than 18 months after the statutory deadline.
None of the reasons advanced by miss Mahoney constitute exceptional circumstances so as to justify a waiver.
The Appeals Tribunal appreciates the personal and professional difficulties described by miss May, but waiver of the statutory deadline under Article 83 of the NDT statute requires more than hardship or inconvenience.
For this reason, miss Mane's appeal is dismissed and the NDT judgment is affirmed.
Case number 2020 5-2101 Gada Ahmed Dab versus the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Judge Colgan.
Gada Dab, a former staff member of the United Nations Population Fund, has appealed the dispute tribunal's judgment that dismissed her application challenging the decision to abolish her post and the consequential termination of her fixed term appointment.
The issue on appeal is whether the UNDT erred in finding her application not receivable.
Considering the documents miss Diab filed for seeking management evaluation, including the standard form and a memorandum of submissions supporting her management evaluation request, we conclude that the UNDT erred in fact and in law in rejecting her proceedings.
Sufficient reference to the contested decisions for management evaluation had been made to the administration.
Miss Dibe's complaints of unlawful abolition of her post and termination of her employment are receivable.
The appeal is granted, the UNDT judgment is reversed and the case is remanded to the dispute tribunal for consideration on the merits.
Case number 2020 5-2104 ABI versus the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Judge President Savage.
ABI, a former UNICEF staff member filed an interlocutory appeal challenging a UNDT order that denied her request for anonymity in proceedings contesting the decision of the Office of Internal Audit and Investigations, OIAI.
Not to refer her complaint of possible misconduct against the UNICEF Deputy Executive Director of Management to the Office of Internal Oversight Services for an internal assessment or investigation.
The issue on appeal is whether the UNDT erred in denying ABI's motion for anonymity.
We find that the UNDT committed an error of law by misapplying the jurisprudence on anonymization.
It did so by failing to consider the nature of the matter before it and its impact on ABI and by failing to distinguish between the different considerations applicable the anonymization of the identity of perpetrators as opposed to complainants, particularly where allegations of sexual misconduct are involved.
ABI's complaint of possible misconduct raises concerns regarding alleged prohibited conduct in the form of sensitive allegations of harassment, including sexual harassment.
Accordingly, her status as a complainant in matters concerning sensitive allegations placed her case within the limited category where anonymization is justified.
Without a determination of the veracity of ABI's account, we find that the UNDT erred in refusing her motion for anonymity and by so doing, did not ensure that her personal data was appropriately protected.
The appeal is therefore granted and the UNDT's order is reversed and substituted with an order directing that ABI's identity before the UNDT be anonymized.
ABI's identity before this tribunal in the present appeal is therefore also anonymized.
Case numbers 2020 6-2108 and 2020 6-2198, both titled Margaret Mary Fogerty versus the Secretary-General of the International Maritime Organization, Judge Sandhu.
Miss Fogerty, a former staff member of the International Maritime Organization or IMO, who separated for medical reasons in 2019, filed two appeals against the IMO for failing to convene a panel of the Staff Appeals Board or SAB to hear her appeals.
Miss Fogerty had filed a misconduct complaint against miss P for lack of disclosure of names of SAB members in connection with miss Fogerty's ABCC claim.
IMO declined to investigate the misconduct complaint.
Miss Fogerty sought review of this failure to investigate, but the administration declined to appoint a panel of the SAB.
Although there was no decision of the SAB, miss Fogerty filed an appeal with UNT that was registered as case number 202-62-0108.
Just prior to the summer session, miss Fogerty filed a second appeal against the administration for failing to reconsider convening a SAB panel.
This was registered as case number 202-62-1908.
The IMO filed a motion for judgment on receivability, arguing that these appeals were not receivable Ret personae and Rationet material.
We agree with the IMO.
Although Article 2 sub two of the Special Agreement between the United Nations and the IMO authorizes that an application can be filed with the UNT by any former staff member of the organization directly affected by the decision, they must demonstrate a direct effect on the terms and conditions of their employment.
Especially for someone like miss Fogerty, who separated from the IMO six years ago.
Miss Pe's failure to disclose certain names was related to miss Fogerty's ABCC claim.
However, the UNT determined in judgment number 2026, UNT 16 20 in the spring session that this did not affect the impartial adjudication of her ABCC claim.
Accordingly, this issue is res judicata.
Other than this issue, it cannot be held that miss Fogerty was directly affected by whether the IMO initiated an investigation into miss Pea.
As a result, we find that the Appeals Tribunal has no personal jurisdiction over miss Fogerty for the purposes of this appeal.
We note, however, that we do not agree with the Secretary-General submission that it has no obligation to constitute a SAB panel if there is no reviewable administrative decision.
Whether there is a reviewable administrative decision or a jurisdictional issue is not for the administration to decide, but for the SAB.
The Secretary-General invites the Appeals Tribunal to consider ordering miss Fogerty to bear the costs of the proceedings for manifestly abusing the appeals process under Article 9 sub two of the statute.
We find that this is an instance where an award of costs is appropriate.
Miss Fogerty has filed multiple appeals for the same issue and set of facts resulting in multiple judgments by the UNT and the SAB.
It was particularly egregious for miss Fogerty to file her appeal in case number 202-62-1908, which was identical to her appeal in case number 202-62-0108, and though miss Fogerty had already received the UNTs judgment number 2026 UNT 16 20.
This is especially true when miss Fogerty is represented by counsel.
Pursuant to the special agreement, the IMO pays the United Nations for each appeal to the Appeals Tribunal.
We find that miss Fogerty should bear the costs of her second appeal, case number 202-62-1908.
We therefore order that she pay $17,378 to the Secretary-General of the IMO within 60 days of the publication of this judgment.
Miss Fogerty's appeals are dismissed as not receivable and costs awarded against her.
Case numbers 2020 6-2050, 2020 6-2059, and 2020 6-2078, all titled as the Secretary-General of the United Nations versus Julian Artemio Areza Herrera, Judge Sandhu.
Mr.
Herrera, former staff member of the Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees, UNHCR, filed an application with the United Nations Dispute Tribunal challenging the determination that he sexually assaulted the complainant in 2014 and that as a consequence, his name be entered into the Clear Check database.
In preparation for an oral hearing on the application, the UNDT issued three orders concerning Mr.
Herrera's challenge to the credibility of the complainant.
Specifically, he drew attention to a 2007 incident involving the complainant at a US university in which she was found to have falsely claimed that she was a victim of a hate crime.
Because the UNDT considered that the credibility of the complainant and Mr.
Herrera was critical to its review of the case, the UNDT issued several orders concerning this hoax.
In order number 31, the UNDT decided it would make a formal request for information from the US University and the US Federal Bureau of Investigation about this hoax.
In order number 53, the UNDT announced it would engage an outside expert forensic psychology to participate in the hearings, to submit questions, and to assist the UNDT in making an assessment as to whether the parties were lying about the sexual assault.
In order number 71, the UNDT ordered the Secretary-General to obtain the complainant's written consent to the release of her records from the US University.
Secretary-General appeals all three orders.
We first find that the entry of Mr.
Herrera's name into the Car Check database due to the determination that he committed sexual assault is effectively a disciplinary measure and must be reviewed under those standards.
Article 9S four, the UNDT statute provides that an application to appeal an administrative decision imposing a disciplinary measure, the dispute tribunal conducts a judicial review.
In doing so, the UNDT may admit other evidence to assess whether the facts have been established.
However, this does not mean that the UNDT may conduct its own unfettered investigation into the facts.
Thus, the UNDT acted in excess of its jurisdiction by making formal requests on its own of the FBI and the US University about the hate crime hoax.
There's no provision in the UNDT statute or rules authorizing the UNDT to obtain evidence on its own.
This is contrary to the judicial review function.
Moreover, there's public information about the hoax and the complainant can be cross examined on this.
There is no need for the UNDT to conduct a de novo investigation into this incident for the purpose of determining Mr.
Herrera's application.
Similarly, the UNDT acted beyond its jurisdiction in ordering the Secretary-General to provide the complainant's authorization to release information regarding the 2007 incident.
The complainant is a third party and is not under the authority of either the UNDT or the Secretary-General.
Lastly, the UNDT has no authority to retain its own expert to make credibility assessments of the witnesses before it.
This is an improper delegation of the dispute tribunal's judicial function of assessing credibility of witnesses.
Because in all three impugned orders, the UNDT acted in excess of its jurisdiction, we find that the Secretary-General appeals are receivable.
The appeals are granted.
Paragraph 28 of UNDT Order number 53 related to the forensic expert is rescinded.
Paragraphs 18 and 19 of UNDT Order number 31 related to the requests for information to the US University and FBI are rescinded.
Paragraph 57 of UNDT Order number 71 related to the proposed authorization from the complainant to release information from the US University is also rescinded.
The UNDT is further ordered to refrain from accepting or considering any evidence or information obtained on its own accord from the US University, the FBI, or the forensic psychology expert, and is ordered to rescind any actions it has taken in furtherance of the UNDT's independent investigation into the 2007 incident.
And the last cases for this summer session are case number 2020 6-2162, Giovanni Arditu versus the Secretary-General of the International Seabed Authority, case number 2020 6-2163, Jonathan Hall versus the Secretary-General of the International Seabed Authority, case number 2020 6-2164, Khalil Hackman versus the Secretary-General of the International Seabed Authority, and case number 2020 6-2165, David Pasti versus the Secretary-General of the International Seabed Authority, Judge Gao.
Mr.
Adito, Mr.
Hall, and miss Hackman, and Mr.
Puta have each filed appeals of the decisions issued by the Joint Appeals Board of the International Seabed Authority.
Before the JAB, each of them have contested the decision of the Secretary-General of ISA to withdraw their letters of appointment to various positions.
JAB, sitting as a full board, granted the appeals in part and awarded each of them compensation awards ranging 2-3 months salary.
On appeal, Mr.
Adito, Mr.
Hall, miss Hackman, and miss Bustai raised many errors of law, fact, and procedure in their respective cases.
One common error of procedure was that the JB sat as a full board or a chair and six members pursuant to Rules 28 of the JB's revised rules of procedure.
Each appellant argued that this was contrary to ISA staff rules 112 E one.
Which states that decisions shall be decided by panels comprised of the chair and two members.
The Secretary-General cross appealed in each of these four cases on the grounds that the JB had no authority under the ISA staff rules to award compensation.
As we have announced in the cases of miss Maro Borrow McNeil, In this session, we agree that the JAB earned income with 7% panels to hear these appeals when only 3% panels are permitted under the ISA's staff rules.
Accordingly, the appeals of Mr.
Ad, Mr.
Hall, miss Heckman, and Mr.
Bai are granted in part, and the cases are remanded for rehearing by lawfully constituted JAB panels.
And that concludes these oral pronouncements for the summer session.
Thank you, Judge President Savage and all judges of the Appeals Tribunal.
The judgments will be published on the UNT website in the coming weeks.
And may I ask that everyone please rise.