2026-罌厭弝ⅰAT-1641

罌厭弝ⅰAT Held or 罌厭弝ⅰDT Pronouncements

Although the Secretary-General was not a party to the impugned Order, the 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the Secretary-General had a direct and cognizable interest in an appeal which considers whether the 罌厭弝ⅰDT is entitled to determine whether his legal representative should be disbarred from appearing in future cases and unrelated cases before the 罌厭弝ⅰDT. If the 罌厭弝ⅰDT is empowered to order as much, it raises a significant risk of harm to the Secretary-General＊s authority to appoint staff members to perform legal functions, allocate its legal resources, and hold staff members accountable in accordance with the established legal framework.

The 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the staff member was entitled to anonymity before the 罌厭弝ⅰDT and the 罌厭弝ⅰAT. ABN did not raise a claim in his own name for adjudication by the 罌厭弝ⅰDT. The orders made against him by the 罌厭弝ⅰDT were of a serious nature and risked having a serious and deleterious impact on his career as a lawyer and as a staff member of the Administration. Considerations of open justice, transparency and accountability did not warrant publishing ABN＊s name.

The 罌厭弝ⅰAT found that there was no evidence before the 罌厭弝ⅰDT to support a finding that ABN＊s conduct showed either intentional deception or incredibly gross negligence. The 罌厭弝ⅰDT exceeded its powers and arrived at an unreasonable conclusion when there was no evidence of an intention on the part of ABN, the
Secretary-General or relevant Human Resources personnel to deliberately conceal the identities of the panel members who conducted the Competency Based Interview (CBI) in the contested selection process, based on how the CBI report was redacted.

The 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that there was no basis on which to justify the issue of the impugned Order. The 罌厭弝ⅰDT erred in finding that by filing the redacted CBI report on behalf of the Secretary-General, ABN failed to meet the basic standards expected of him as a legal representative and committed an ethical violation and professional misconduct. In so finding, the 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the 罌厭弝ⅰDT strayed into areas of discipline which are outside the 罌厭弝ⅰDT＊s area of jurisdiction and competence.

The 罌厭弝ⅰAT concluded that there was no basis to justify the 罌厭弝ⅰDT＊s show cause direction, granted the Secretary-General＊s appeal and ABN＊s cross-appeal and set aside the impugned Order.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

ABN, a staff member of the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa (ECA), served as legal counsel for the Secretary-General in Case No. 罌厭弝ⅰDT/NBI/2025/049 in which another staff member contested the decision not to select him for the Senior Property Control and Inventory Assistant position with ECA. In 罌厭弝ⅰDT Judgment No. 罌厭弝ⅰDT/2025/054, the 罌厭弝ⅰDT ordered ABN to show cause why he should not be disbarred from future appearances before the 罌厭弝ⅰDT.

In the impugned Order No.187 (NBI/2025), the 罌厭弝ⅰDT decided that ABN should not be disbarred and could continue to appear as a legal representative of the Secretary-General before the 罌厭弝ⅰDT.

The Secretary-General filed an appeal contending that the 罌厭弝ⅰDT exceeded its authority in initiating the proceedings which led to the impugned Order. ABN filed a cross-appeal.

Legal Principle(s)

Only a party with a recognised or vested legal interest has the requisite legal standing to appeal to the 罌厭弝ⅰAT or participate in appellate proceedings. A party will be considered to have such an interest in litigation where their legal rights, obligations or interests are directly affected by a decision; the decision interferes with their institutional powers or administrative authority; or the decision imposes legal consequences on them which must be implemented.

The 罌厭弝ⅰDT has the authority to regulate its proceedings, protect its dignity, repute or authority and prevent interference in the administration of justice in a matter pending before it. The 罌厭弝ⅰDT＊s ability to promote and protect the court, and to regulate proceedings before it, is an inherent judicial power, essential to, inter alia, a tribunal＊s case management and ability to conduct hearings.

Outcome

Appeal granted

Cross-appeal granted

Outcome Extra Text

The 罌厭弝ⅰDT was ordered to anonymize the Secretary-General's legal representative's name in the underlying 罌厭弝ⅰDT case and orders.

OAJ prepared this case law summary for informational purposes only. It is no official record and should not be relied upon as an authoritative interpretation of the Tribunals' rulings. For the authoritative texts, please refer to the judgment or order rendered by the respective Tribunal. The Tribunals are the only bodies competent to interpret their respective judgments, as provided under Article 12(3) of the 罌厭弝ⅰDT Statute and Article 11(3) of the 罌厭弝ⅰAT Statute. Any inaccuracies in the publication are the sole responsibility of OAJ, which should be contacted directly for any correction requests. To provide comments, don't hesitate to get in touch with OAJ at oaj@un.org.

The judgment summaries were generally prepared in English. They were translated into French and are being reviewed for accuracy of the translation.

Applicants/Appellants

ABN

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement