2026-Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT-1649, Tjark Marten Egenhoff
The Appeals Tribunal considered that Mr. Egenhoff had failed to disclose his conflict of interest, he had failed to recuse himself from the procurement exercise, and he had repeatedly shared confidential information with AH. This conduct was intentional; it occurred over a prolonged period and was not in the interest of the United Nations. Moreover, Mr. Egenhoff was in a position of significant responsibility and as such, he was supposed to be a role model for the staff members he supervised. Considering other factors, Mr. Egenhoff had no prior disciplinary record, and there was no evidence of...
2026-Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT-1656, Moses Pasi
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT erred in finding that the referral to OIOS constituted a reviewable administrative decision.It found that, contrary to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT¡¯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...
2026-Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT-1663, Franco Iacovino
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT found that in the absence of an express mandate in the legal framework that a continuing appointment can be extended or a staff member be re-instated for the purpose of utilizing sick leave, Mr. Iacovino¡¯s entitlement to sick leave ceased on the date specified in his termination letter, 31 December 2023. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT recognized that pursuant to ST/AI/2005/3, staff on fixed-term appointments may be granted an extension to utilize an entitlement to sick leave, but there is no analogous rule applicable to staff serving on a continuing appointment, much less to staff whose appointments have...
2026-Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT-1682, Sizakele Myeni
L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT a relev¨¦ que la proc¨¦dure de r¨¦vision pr¨¦suppose l¡¯existence d¡¯un jugement ant¨¦rieur et ne r¨¦git que la r¨¦ouverture de ce
jugement en cas de d¨¦couverte de faits justifiant une r¨¦vision. Elle ne cr¨¦e pas de m¨¦canisme permettant de faire revivre un droit ¨¦chu de contester une d¨¦cision administrative. L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT n¡¯a pas commis d¡¯erreur en rejetant la demande de r¨¦vision du jugement comme irrecevable ratione materiae.
L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT a estim¨¦ que des circonstances exceptionnelles justifiant une d¨¦rogation aux d¨¦lais applicables n¡¯existent que lorsqu¡¯il existe une ? impossibilit¨¦ absolue ? d¡¯agir dans le...
2026-Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT-1682, Sizakele Myeni
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT noted that the revision procedure assumes the existence of a prior judgment and governs only the reopening of that judgment upon discovery of qualifying facts. It does not create a mechanism to revive an expired right to challenge an administrative decision. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT did not err in dismissing the application for revision of judgment as not receivable ratione materiae.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT held that exceptional circumstances for waiver of the applicable time limits exist only where there is an ¡°absolute impossibility¡± to act within the prescribed period, and such impossibility is not demonstrated...
2026-Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT-1647, BK
L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT a estim¨¦ que le recours form¨¦ par BK contre une ordonnance de gestion de l¡¯instance ne relevait pas de la cat¨¦gorie
restreinte de cas dans lesquels l¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT aurait manifestement outrepass¨¦ sa comp¨¦tence ou ses pouvoirs en statuant sur une
question interlocutoire. Ses demandes d¡¯anonymat dans ses deux affaires port¨¦es devant l¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT ont ¨¦t¨¦ accueillies, et rien
n¡¯indique que, malgr¨¦ cet anonymat, des ¨¦l¨¦ments permettant de l¡¯identifier auraient pu ¨ºtre divulgu¨¦s dans l¡¯un quelconque des
documents accessibles au public. La d¨¦cision de l¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT de rendre un jugement d¨¦finitif n¡¯a pas non plus...
2026-Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT-1647, BK
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT held that BK¡¯s appeal of a case management order does not fall in the narrow set of cases where the Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT manifestly exceeded its jurisdiction or powers in determining an interlocutory issue. His requests for anonymity in both of his Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT cases were granted, and there is no indication that despite anonymity, any identifying material could have been disclosed in any of the publicly available records. Nor did the Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT¡¯s decision to proceed to final judgment exceed its jurisdiction.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT¡¯s denial of BK¡¯s inadequately supported requests for a stay, and proceeding to...
2026-Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT-1658, Bao Jin
Le Tribunal d¡¯appel a rejet¨¦ l¡¯argument de M. Jin selon lequel le Tribunal administratif des Nations Unies (Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµTD) avait commis une erreur en concluant ¨¤ l¡¯absence de pr¨¦judice, dans la mesure o¨´, selon ses calculs, la d¨¦cision d¡¯attribuer la note maximale ¨¤ la
partie 2 de chaque candidat avait conduit ¨¤ un groupe de candidats admis ¨¤ l¡¯entretien plus large, ce qui lui avait port¨¦ pr¨¦judice. Le Tribunal d¡¯appel a estim¨¦ que cet argument relevait de la sp¨¦culation, qu¡¯il reposait sur un sc¨¦nario hypoth¨¦tique et qu¡¯il ne
r¨¦pondait pas ¨¤ la charge de la preuve incombant ¨¤ M. Jin, qui devait...
2026-Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT-1658, Bao Jin
The Appeals Tribunal dismissed Mr. Jin¡¯s claim that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT erred in finding no prejudice since, by his calculations, the decision to score Part 2 perfectly for each candidate resulted in a larger interview pool which was disadvantageous to him. The Appeals Tribunal found that this argument was speculative, predicated on one hypothetical counterfactual outcome, and failed to meet Mr. Jin¡¯s burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that he had been denied a fair chance of selection.
The Appeals Tribunal found that the circumstances in Mr. Jin¡¯s case were fundamentally and...
2026-Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT-1633, Marie Bourrel-McKinnon
L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT a estim¨¦ qu¡¯une partie l¨¦s¨¦e par le rejet d¡¯une mesure provisoire peut, et doit g¨¦n¨¦ralement, attendre que l¡¯affaire soit
d¨¦finitivement tranch¨¦e avant d¡¯interjeter appel.
L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT a jug¨¦ qu¡¯une d¨¦cision relative ¨¤ une mesure provisoire peut faire l¡¯objet d¡¯un r¨¦examen s¡¯il est d¨¦montr¨¦ que le tribunal de premi¨¨re instance, ¨¤ savoir le JAB, a outrepass¨¦ sa comp¨¦tence.
L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT a not¨¦ que le JAB est express¨¦ment habilit¨¦ par le r¨¨glement du personnel de l¡¯ISA ¨¤ d¨¦cider si la suspension d¡¯une mesure administrative est appropri¨¦e, ce qui rel¨¨ve de sa comp¨¦tence et de sa juridiction.
L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT a...
2026-Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT-1633, Marie Bourrel-McKinnon
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT held that a party aggrieved by denial of interim relief can and generally must wait until the matter is finally resolved before filing an appeal.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT found that a decision regarding interim relief may be reviewable if it can be shown that the first instance tribunal, the JAB, exceeded its jurisdiction or competence.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT noted that the JAB is specifically empowered by the ISA Staff Rules to decide whether suspension of an administrative action is appropriate, which is within its competence and jurisdiction.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT found that there was no basis for its intervention in the...