2026-罌厭弝ⅰAT-1670

罌厭弝ⅰAT Held or 罌厭弝ⅰDT Pronouncements

The 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that entering the former staff member's name into the ClearCheck database was because of the Administration＊s final determination that he sexually abused and sexually harassed the Complainant, and as the entry precludes him from any future employment in the United Nations common system, it was effectively a disciplinary measure and should be reviewed as such.

The 罌厭弝ⅰAT found that the Secretary-General＊s appeal regarding the engagement of a psychology expert in 罌厭弝ⅰDT Order No. 053 was receivable. The 罌厭弝ⅰAT found that the 罌厭弝ⅰDT, by engaging an expert to ※analyze the facts§ and ※ask questions§ and to determine ※false memories§ or who has ※intentionally lied§, improperly delegated its core judicial function of assessing the credibility of witnesses, which was a failure to exercise jurisdiction vested in it as contemplated by Article 2(b) of the 罌厭弝ⅰDT Statute. The 罌厭弝ⅰAT rescinded that part of 罌厭弝ⅰDT Order No. 053.

The 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the Dispute Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction in 罌厭弝ⅰDT Order No. 031 in seeking to conduct a de novo investigation into the 2007 incident at a U.S. university involving the Complainant, by seeking information from the FBI and the U.S. university.The 罌厭弝ⅰAT ordered the 罌厭弝ⅰDT to rescind any actions taken in furtherance of investigating the 2007 incident on its own volition and to refrain from considering any evidence or information it may have received as a result of the unlawful 罌厭弝ⅰDT investigation.

The 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that it was manifestly unreasonable and in excess of its jurisdiction, for the 罌厭弝ⅰDT to direct the Secretary-General to compel the Complainant, who is not a party to the proceedings before the 罌厭弝ⅰDT or a staff member of the Organization, and who is not under the Administration or the 罌厭弝ⅰDT＊s authority, to release her personal records from a university she once attended. The 罌厭弝ⅰAT rescinded that part of Order No. 071.

The 罌厭弝ⅰAT granted the appeals and modified the impugned Orders.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

A former staff member of the Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees challenged the determination by the High Commissioner that he had sexually assaulted another former staff member of 罌厭弝ⅰHCR and that his name would be entered into the United Nations ClearCheck database.

The Secretary-General filed interlocutory appeals of 罌厭弝ⅰDT Order No. 031 (2026) in which the 罌厭弝ⅰDT indicated that it would seek information from a U.S. university and the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) about an incident involving the Complainant; 罌厭弝ⅰDT Order No. 053 (2026) in which the 罌厭弝ⅰDT stated its intent to hire a forensic psychiatry or psychology expert to assist in the assessment of the case; and 罌厭弝ⅰDT Order No. 071 (2026) in which the 罌厭弝ⅰDT instructed the Secretary-General to obtain the Complainant＊s consent to release certain university records

Legal Principle(s)

Appeals against most interlocutory decisions will not be receivable, for instance, decisions on matters of evidence, procedure, and trial conduct. An interlocutory appeal is only receivable in cases where the 罌厭弝ⅰDT has clearly exceeded its jurisdiction or competence.

If an error by the 罌厭弝ⅰDT is effectively irremediable by final 罌厭弝ⅰDT judgment (or on appeal therefrom) and it would be manifestly unreasonable for the 罌厭弝ⅰDT＊s order or other decision to remain in effect, such a decision will be appealable.

The 罌厭弝ⅰDT may admit and hear evidence presented by the parties but cannot conduct its own investigation of the facts on which the disciplinary sanction has been based.

There is no authority given to the 罌厭弝ⅰDT in its Statute or its Rules to retain its own expert for the purpose of asking questions on its behalf or making determinations on the credibility of witnesses before it.

Outcome

Appeal granted

Outcome Extra Text

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

Julian Artemio Arreza Herrera

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry