Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in law in its interpretation of Staff Rule 10.1(b) and properly held that ¡°financial loss¡± requires a demonstrable and quantifiable monetary detriment to the Organization, directly caused by the staff member¡¯s wilful, reckless, or grossly negligent misconduct, and not offset by equivalent or greater value received.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the Secretary-General¡¯s argument that any unauthorized use of funds constitutes ¡°financial loss¡±, holding that this conflates misconduct with loss.Accordingly, it held that the failure to follow procurement procedures...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding that the referral to OIOS constituted a reviewable administrative decision.It found that, contrary to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding, being subject to an investigation did not, in itself, transform the referral for investigation into an administrative decision, in the absence of additional legal consequences.It further concluded that, as the staff member¡¯s request for parental leave was eventually granted, and he had not identified any harm resulting from the delay in granting it, the referral to OIOS did not have sufficient legal effect to constitute a...

As to the appeal of Order No. 46 (GVA/2025) dismissing Mr. Turcanu¡¯s motion seeking the suspension of the contested decision pending judicial review of his substantive application, the Appeals Tribunal recalled that pursuant to Article 10(2) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute and Article 14 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Rules, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT may not suspend the implementation of a contested decision in cases of appointment, promotion or termination. It also recalled that a decision not to renew an appointment was a matter concerned with the ¡°appointment¡± of a staff member. The Appeals Tribunal concluded that under the terms of...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT committed an error of law by misapplying the jurisprudence on anonymization and, in particular, by failing to consider the nature of the matter before it and its impact on the former staff member, as well as by failing to distinguish between the different considerations applicable to the anonymization of the identity of perpetrators, as opposed to complainants or witnesses.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that the former staff member was a complainant in respect of alleged sexual misconduct and, accordingly, the allegations raised by her were of a uniquely sensitive and...

At the outset, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the staff member¡¯s sole challenge on appeal concerned the lawfulness of the sanction imposed on her, which merely repeated contentions she had already raised before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT. For example, she argued that the imposition of fines was inconsistent with human rights and ILO directives on receiving pay for work delivered. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, although the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not expressly address this argument, it had no chance of success, as the applicable legal framework explicitly lists fines as one of the possible sanctions that may be imposed on Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA staff...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Order was issued 31 July 2025, and that the staff member filed his interlocutory appeal on 5 September 2025, beyond the applicable time limit and without having sought a waiver or extension of that limit.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT accordingly held that the appeal was not receivableratione temporis and dismissed the appeal.

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 Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT 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...

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 Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT 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...

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 Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that it had rendered its prior Judgment in which it held that the staff member¡¯s application challenging alleged decisions and...

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 Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that by denying the staff member¡¯s request for referral to mediation the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had lawfully exercised its case management discretion and had not committed an error of procedure.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT 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...