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

Welcome here today, who is 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 Kolgen, Sandhu, and Gao, whose appointments to the Appeals Tribunal end on 30 June 2026. On 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. And 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 Shafiq 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 Under DT judgment that dismissed the application challenging issues related to the reclassification of a post for which he was a roster. The issue on appeal is whether the Under DT earned in finding that the application was not receivable, reasonably, materially. In our view, the ARRDT did not err. Mr. Soose 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 ARRDT'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 IRADT judgment is affirmed.

Case number 2025-2054, Costas Argyrou versus the Secretary General of the United Nations. Judge Forbeng.

Mr. Agiru, a former staff member of the United Nations peacekeeping force in Cyprus, filed an application for revision of a prior 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. Aguirre would have been decisive in reaching the original UNAT judgment. We find that the fact that the reclassified position was filed 13 months after Mr. Aguirre left the organization would not have materially impacted the outcome of the prior UNAT judgment. The time limit for requesting management evaluation started to run on the date he was notified by the email— by email that his post had been reclassified, or at the very latest, on the date The initial job opening was advertised on Inspira. The application for revision is dismissed.

Case number 2025-2056, Anthony Moley versus the Secretary-General of the United Nations. Judge Gao.

Mr. Moley, 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. Morley's appeal is receivable. Pursuant to Article 7 of the UNAT 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 impugned order was issued on July 31st, 2025. However, Mr. Morley only filed his appeal against the impugned order on September 5th, 2025, in the absence of any request to waive the applicable time limit. The appeal is therefore dismissed as not receivable, originally temporary.

Case number 2025-2057, Ann-Christine Raschdorf versus the Secretary General of the United Nations. Judge Sandhu.

Ms. Raschdorf, a former staff member of the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq, applied for correction of judgment number 2025-UNAT- 1576, 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 of official duties on behalf of the United Nations. The issue in this appeal is whether Ms. Rashdoor's application meets the criteria established under Article 11 of the UNAT statute for issuing a correction of the judgment. We find that none of Ms. Rashdoor's proposed changes to the prior UNAT 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 Fazluddin Samandaroff. Judge Scheeha.

Mr. Samandaroff, 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 in 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. Samandarov 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. Samandrouv. 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 2 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 stopped 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. Samandrov 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 2025-2060, the Secretary-General of the United Nations versus Sanaka Kumara Samarasinha. Judge President Savage.

The Secretary-General has filed an appeal of a UNDT judgment which granted the application of Mr. Sanaka Samaraseena, 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 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. Samarasinghe's 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. Samarasinha 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 urged, 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. Having regard to the evidence set in the— set out in the drafted investigation report which was before the Director, it is apparent that it is not being been shown that Mr. Simara 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 erred. For these reasons, the Secretary-General's appeal is granted and the judgment and orders of the UNDT are reversed.

Case number 2025-2061, Amal Hammoud versus the Commissioner General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East. Judge Shiha.

The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East imposed on the appellant the disciplinary measures of: 1, written censure; 2, fine equivalent to 2 months of her salary; and 3, deferment for 1 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 Honourable Dispute Tribunal, who issued a judgment dismissing her application. The appellant thus filed the present appeal to reverse the impugned judgment. At the outset, we note that the appellant's sole challenge on appeal is whether the Honourable Dispute Tribunal erred in law when it failed to consider her contention that the sanction she incurred of a fine equivalent to 2 months of her salary was unlawful.

This is because such sanction is contrary to the contemporary principles set by the International Labour Organization prohibiting slavery and forced labour.

We find that although the Onerwa 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 UNRWA Disputes Tribunal or the UN Appeals Tribunal. For these reasons, the appeals tribunal decides to dismiss the appeal and to affirm the impugned judgment.

Case number 2025-2062, the Secretary-General of the International Civil Aviation Organization versus Catalin Georgi Radu. Judge Sandu.

Mr. Radu, a former D1 staff member with the International Civil 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. The 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 which— during which Mr. Radu was gainfully employed with the government of Kazakhstan, and therefore overcompensates him. The appeal is granted in part with regard to the amount of in lieu compensation for this time period, period only, since we do not have relevant information on Mr. Radu's salary from April 4th, 2022 to September 2022. The question of compensation in lieu 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 2025-2063, Haidar Daniel Majouk versus the Secretary-General of the United Nations. Judge Gao.

Mr. Majouk, 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 erred in law in finding the application not receivable. In our view, the UNDT did not err. 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. Malouk 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 20— 25-2064, Didzis Melbixis 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 3 misconduct reports filed by him. The issue in 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, an 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. We 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 2025-2065, Revathi Janakiram versus the United Nations Joint Staff Pension Board, Judge Forbhang.

Ms. Janakira filed an appeal of the decision of the Standing Committee of the United Nations Joint Staff Pension Board regarding the Fund'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 a review of the fund's decision was not receivable. The issues on appeal are: 1. Whether the Standing Committee erred in finding that Ms. Janakiram's request for review was time-barred; and 2. Whether, even if her request for review had been receivable, the fund would have would still have been unable to grant her a surviving spouse benefit. Regarding the first issue, we find that only the 7 October 2024 decision rejecting Ms. Janakiram's claim constituted a reviewable decision because it applied to her individually and directly affected her rights as as a beneficiary. It follows that the time limit for filing a request for review started running from 7 October 2024, and accordingly, Ms. Jana Kiram'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 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. Janakiriam had a prior undissolved marriage to Ms. Emdy, 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 Ms. Janakiram was not legally valid. Therefore, even if Ms. Janakiram'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 2025-2066, 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: 1, her failure to receive permission from the Secretary General to change her status from a G-4 visa holder to a permanent resident of the United States; 2, her failure to informed the administration that she became a U.S. permanent resident. And 3, her applying for and receiving home leave and education grant allowances when she was not eligible for those benefits as a U.S. permanent resident. The UNDT uphold the administration's decision, finding that there was clear and convincing evidence to support that Ms. 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 Ms. Johnson-Simmons' claim for reimbursement for U.S. income tax from the date of her change of status. On appeal, we affirm that Ms. Johnson-Simmons is not entitled to tax reimbursement because there is no evidence that she paid any U.S. 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 Ms. Johnson-Siemens' 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 Ms. 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 Ms. 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 Ms. Johnson-Simmons' argument that she should not have been separated from service because she had entered into a recovery agreement to repay the amount she received from home leave and education benefit. Ms. Johnson-Siemens' obligation to repay this amount, which she received unlawfully, does not cure her misconduct. For all of these reasons, Ms. Johnson-Siemens' appeal is dismissed and the unity judgment is affirmed.

Case number 2025-2067, Christophe Lalonde versus the Secretary-General of the United Nations. Judge Colgan.

Christophe Lalonde, 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. Lalonde'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. Lalonde. No one else gave evidence in person to the Dispute Tribunal The tribunal. There was no opportunity for the complainants to be questioned by either Mr Lalonde'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. Lalonde. 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 2025-2069, 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. Aisufi's reinstatement with no loss of benefits and entitlements. In lieu of those remedies, the UNDT made an unexplained award of 6 months' net base salary and interest thereon. Mr. Esufi 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 6 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, non-renewal, he might reasonably have expected to have enjoyed another 1-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 1 year's base remuneration to account for such contingencies must be made. Mr. Isufi'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. Esufi's appeal is granted in part and the UNDT judgment is hereby modified by substituting an award of in lieu compensation equivalent to 9 months base remuneration plus interest. His appeal is otherwise dismissed.

Case number 2025-12. 2017-1, Jane Kimani Nduta v. the Secretary-General of the United Nations. Judge Colgan.

Jane Kimani, a former staff member of the United Nations Environment Programme, 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 Ms. Kemani 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 err in fact or in law in deciding that Ms. 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 unfavourable 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 Ms. Kamani for that period 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 Ms. Kemani would offend 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 2025-2073, Mohammed Mohib Hilal versus the Secretary-General of the United Nations. Judge Sheeha.

Mr. Hilal, Staff member of the United Nations Support Office in Somalia challenged before the Dispute Tribunal the decision to deny his request for rest and recuperation travel entitlement and to convert the days taken as rest and recuperation to annual leave. The UNDT dismissed his application and Mr. Hilal appeals. The first issue on appeal is whether the UNDT heard in its interpretation and application of the Administrative Instruction on Rest and Recuperation 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 duty station relies on the staff member's physical presence without any difference between working and non-working days. Qualifying service cannot be accrued during absence from the duty station, no matter how brief. Mr. Hilal had not completed the requisite 28 days of qualifying service when he departed the duty station on 13 June 2024, nor when he attempted to commence his rest and recuperation on 23 June 2024. The second issue is whether the UNDT exceeded its jurisdiction by inferring deliberate wrongdoing by Mr. Hilal. 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. Hilal properly made his case and the UNDT had no valid reason to embark on an inquiry about his intentions and motivations. By engaging in speculations on this point, the UNDT exceeded its competence. The appeal is granted in part and the UNDT judgment is modified. The UNDT is directed to redact parts of the impugned judgment and the appeal is dismissed on all other respects.

Thanks.

Case number 2025-2074, Eduardo Alvior versus the Secretary General of the International Civil Aviation Organization. Judge Schiha.

Mr. Alvior, staff member of the International Civil Aviation Organization, ICAO, has filed an appeal of a decision of the ICAO Appeals Board. The decision The Appeals Board dismissed his application challenging a non-selection decision on the grounds that it was non-receivable ratione temporis. 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 to 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 impugned 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 2025-2076, 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 5 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 2025-56, 2027, the UNDT dismissed AAM's application. The UNDT held that the February 5, 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 impugned 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 5 February 2022. 2024 and the establishment of a newly constituted Medical Board. The administrative decision of 5 February 2024 has thus been overtaken by events. Insofar as the appeal relates to the lawfulness of the administrative decision of 5 February 2024 and the remedies of rescission and remand, it no longer discloses a dispute incapable 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 between 2020 and 2022, it is not open to re-litigation. To the extent that moral damages could be claimed for the period between 2022 and 2025, it is premature to consider any such claim at this stage. The tribunals will retain jurisdiction over AAM's claim for moral damages insofar as it may relate to any alleged harm not already adjudicated and 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 2025-2079. 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 conduct— complaint of prohibited conduct. In that complaint, ABO alleged that improper disclosure of personal information regarding his marital status and sexual orientation by UNICEF personnel. The issues on appeal are: 1, 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 2, whether the UNDT the UNDT erred in denying ABO's request to refer the Secretary-General's 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 investigator's conclusion that it was not possible to identify the staff member, if any, who had leaked ABO's 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 err in refusing to refer the Secretary-General's 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 is dismissed and the UNDT judgment is affirmed.

Case number 2025-2082, Franco Iacovino versus the Secretary-General of the United Nations. Judge Seade.

Mr. Franco Iacovino, a former staff member of the International Trade Center, filed an application with the United Nations Dispute Tribunal 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. The UNDT granted his application in part, and rescinded the contested decision and set compensation in lieu of reinstatement at one month's full salary, including pension contributions. Mr. Iacovino appealed the NDT judgment on the grounds that the compensation award was inadequate. The Secretary-General cross-appealed on the basis that the NDT contravened the express legal framework when it concluded that the organization violated the duty of care in terminating Mr. Iacovino's continuing appointment while he was on sick leave and granting him compensation for sick leave for the 1 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. Iacovino'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. Mr. Iacovino's appointment was terminated due to abolition of post. This decision was upheld following management evaluation, but he did not appeal this decision to the UNDT. Accordingly, his appointment was properly terminated as of 31 December 2023. The sick leave that Medical Services had approved to begin on January 2nd, 2024, was after his appointment was already terminated. In a second request for management evaluation, Mr. Iacovino 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 observe that the Administrative Instruction on Sick Leave provides that staff on fixed-term appointment 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 a continuing appointment be extended or reinstated for the purpose of sick leave, we are constrained to hold that Mr. Iacovino's entitlement to sick leave ceased with the date 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. Iacovino 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's cross-appeal is granted. Mr. Iacovino's appeal is dismissed, and Judgment Number UNDT 2025/64 is hereby reversed.

Case numbers 2025-2083, 2025-2085, 2025-2086, and 2025-2087, all titled Marie Burrell McKinnon v. 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 D1 level of the International Seabed Authority, has appealed 4 decisions of the ISA's Joint Appeals Board. Those appeals relate to the new ISA Secretary-General's 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's decision to dismantle the JAB, and fourth, the Secretary-General's decision to deny Ms. 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. Ms. Burrell-McKinnon filed separate appeals which the Appeals Tribunal consolidated for judgment together. There is a fundamental jurisdictional— preliminary jurisdictional issue relating to the lawful constitution of the JAB panels that delivered decisions as a 7-member full board that are the subject of these 4 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 7-member Joint Appeals Board. We disagree. There is a normative hierarchy that the United Nations Appeals Tribunal has long and again recently recognised. 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 made 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/or its Chair who made the appointments to the panels, and those decisions were thereby made unlawfully. Ms Burrell's appeals are granted in part and the cases are remanded to lawfully constituted panels of the Joint Appeals Board.

Case numbers 2025-2084, 2026-2084. -2126, 2026-2129, all titled Marie Burrell McKinnon versus the Secretary General of the International Seabed Authority. Judge Forbeng.

Ms. Marie Burrell McKinnon, the former Chief of Staff and head of the Strategic Planning Unit at the D1 level of the International Seabed Authority, filed 3 appeals before the ISA Joint Appeals Board challenging the decision to amend the Annex 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 7-member panel, dismissed all 3 appeals. Ms. Bura Makinnon filed 3 separate appeals before the United Nations Appeals Tribunal, which have all been consolidated into to this judgment. As we have announced in an earlier judgment concerning the same Marie Burel-McKinnon, we find that the Joint Appeals Board erred in convening a 7-member panel to hear these appeals when only 3-member panel— a 3-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 2025-2089, the Secretary-General of the United Nations versus Moses Pasi. Judge Seadi.

Mr. Pasi,, a staff member of the United Nations Mission in South Sudan, challenged before the United Nations Dispute Tribunal 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 . The UNDT found that Mr. Passy's application was received was receivable and that the contested decision was unlawful, but it rejected his claim for damages. The Secretary-General appealed the UNDT judgment. The issue on appeal was whether the UNDT erred in finding that Mr. Passi's application was receivable. We find that the referral to IOS 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. Pasi'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. Pasi's application was not receivable ratione materiae and that the UNDT erred in concluding otherwise, as well as in reviewing the merits of Mr. Pasi's application. The appeal is granted and the UNDT judgment is reversed.

Case number 2025-12. 2019-1, Fazladdin Samandarov v. the Secretary-General of the United Nations. Judge President Savage.

Mr. Samandarov, 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 P4-level post. The issue on appeal is whether the UNDT UNDT erred in examining whether the procedure provided in the staff regulations and rules had been applied in a fair, transparent and 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. Mr. Samandarov'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. Samandarov's skills and experience as per his personal profile on his job application. Mr. Samandarov had failed to establish the hiring manager had exceeded the scope of discretion when not shortlisting him. Him. His allegations of bias or improper motive were not substantiated. The appeal is therefore dismissed and the UNDT judgment affirmed.

Case number 2025-2092, Imad Hassanin versus the Secretary-General of the United Nations. Judge Forbeng.

Mr. Hassanin, a former staff member of the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, filed an appeal of the UNDT judgment that dismissed his 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 the UNDT exceeded its jurisdiction or erred 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 UNDT enjoys a wide margin of discretion in case management. The second issue is whether the UNDT erred on a question of law in finding that Mr. Hassanine was seeking a derogation of the relevant administrative instruction. In our view, the UNDT did not err when it identified his argument as a challenge to the administrative instruction. Nevertheless, we disagree with the 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 UNDT failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it by not assessing each of Mr. Zannin's claim— claims for compensation. We find no deficiency in the UNDT's analysis. The UNDT was correct in rejecting Mr. Hasanien's claims. The appeal is accordingly dismissed and the UNDT judgment is affirmed.

Case number 2025-2093, 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 VO1. The issues on appeal The UNDT erred in: 1, its conduct of the hearing; 2, refusing ABO's request to call AK to testify; 3, refusing ABO's request to recall VO1 for further cross-examination; and 4, finding that the contested decision was lawful. We find that the UNDT committed no error in its conduct of the hearing. UNICEF Uganda was required to requested to provide a suitable venue from which the UNDT judge could conduct the hearing solely for connectivity reasons, and the Secretary-General's 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. We find that the decision not to hear AK Aka'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 V01 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 V01 for further cross-examination, This did not impact on the fairness of the process or the UNDT's assessment of V01's credibility. ABO failed to address the issue of V01'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 V01 and ABO. The appeal is therefore dismissed and the UNDT judgment is affirmed.

Case number 2025-2095, Bao Jin versus the Secretary-General of the United Nations. Judge Seadi.

Mr. Jin, a P4 Chinese revisor within the Department for General Assembly and Conference Management at the United Nations Office at Nairobi, had challenged before the United Nations Dispute Tribunal a selection exercise for 3 posts of Chinese revisor within DGACM in New York, following which he was rostered but not selected. By Judgment No. UNDT 2025, 70, the NDT dismissed his application. Mr. Jin filed an appeal. The selection exercise comprised a 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 2. 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 7 candidates, including Mr. Jin, and found that all 7 candidates had met the selection criteria and placed them on the recommended list. The hiring manager proposed the 3 candidates for selection. Mr. Jin was not among those candidates. Mr. Jin contends that the NDT's legal conclusion that he had not suffered any prejudice since all the applicants had been treated as having the same score on Part 2 and he had received the highest score and advanced to the interview round was in error since, by his calculations, the decision to score Part 2 perfectly for each candidate resulted in a larger interview pool than what would have happened had Part 2 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 a ground to overturn the NDT's determination. The appeal is dismissed and the impugned judgment is affirmed.

Case No. 2025-20-1. 1996, Elizabeth Isabetty Apero versus the Secretary-General of the United Nations. Judge Shiha.

Ms. Apero 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 erred 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 the UNDT did not err. Mrs. Opeiro had every opportunity to seek mediation, but choose not to do. She is therefore stopped from raising this point on appeal. The second issue is whether the UNDT erred on a question of law in finding that Mrs. Opeiro was challenging the relevant administrative instruction. We find that the UNDT was correct when it identified Mrs. Opeiro'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 consistent with Staff Rule 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's dismissal dismissed and the UNDT judgment is affirmed.

Case number 2025-2097, Martin Elisha Musambai versus the Secretary-General of the United Nations. Judge Seadi.

Mr. Musambai, a former staff member of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Regional Office for Eastern Africa, had challenged before the United Nations Dispute Tribunal 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. Mousambai filed an appeal. We were not persuaded by Mr. Mousambai that the UNDT had overlooked material evidence, applied an incorrect legal standard, or reached conclusions that lacked reasonableness. The UNDT reviewed the record which showed that Mr. Musambayi'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 UNDT correctly held that, once the administration substantiated the reason it gave for the exercise of its discretion, the burden shifted to Mr. Musambayi to demonstrate that the decision was unreasonable, unfair, procedurally irregular, or tainted by improper motive. Turning to Mr. Mousambaye'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 note that the NDT examined this argument and concluded that Mr. Mousambaye 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 this explanation lacked factual foundation or that the UNDT acted unreasonably in accepting it. Finally, we are unpersuaded by Mr. Mousambaye's assertion that the non-renewal decision was influenced by a pending investigation into allegations of misconduct made against him. The UNDT 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 impugned judgment is affirmed.

Case number 2025-2098, Masoud Taghavi versus the Secretary-General of the United Nations. Judge Forbeng.

Mr. Taghavi, a former staff member of the Office of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees, filed an appeal of the UN UNDT 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 UNDT erred when it determined that the application was not receivable. In our view, the UNDT did not err. 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 grounds 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 2025-2100, Sisikeli Verona Mayeni versus the Secretary-General of the United Nations. Judge Seadi.

Ms. Sisakele Mayeni, a former staff member of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees , has filed an appeal of a judgment of the United Nations Dispute Tribunal , in which the UNDT dismissed her application for revision of judgment as not receivable ratione materiae. The UNDT dismissed her application because there was no underlying UNDT judgment to revise. To the extent Ms. Mahieni'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 UNDT did not err in dismissing Ms. Mahieni's application for revision of judgment as not receivable ratione materiae. Article 12 of the UNDT 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 UNDT. It is undisputed that Ms. Mahaney did not challenge the disciplinary measure before the UNDT, and no UNDT judgment was rendered on this issue. Accordingly, the revision for judgment was properly dismissed. Insofar as Ms. Mayeni'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. Ms. Mayeni filed her application more than 18 months after the statutory deadline. None of the reasons advanced by Ms. Mayeni constitute exceptional circumstances so as to justify a waiver. The appeals tribunal appreciates the personal and professional difficulties described by Ms. Mahaney, but waiver of the statutory deadline under Article 8 of the NDT Statute requires more than hardship or inconvenience. For these reasons, Ms. Mahaney's appeal is dismissed and the NDT judgment is affirmed.

Case number 2025-2101, Gada Ahmed Diab Ghada Diab v. the Secretary-General of the United Nations. Judge Colgan.

Ghada Diab, 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 application not receivable. Considering the documents Ms 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. Ms Diab'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 2025-2104. 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 anonymisation. 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 to the anonymisation 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 anonymisation 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 ensure that her personal data was appropriately protected. The appeal is therefore granted and the UNDT's orders 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 2026-2108 and 2026-2198, both titled Margaret Mary Fogarty versus the Secretary General of the International Maritime Organization. Judge Sandhu.

Ms. Fogarty, 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. Ms. Forgaty had filed a misconduct complaint against Ms. P for lack of disclosure of names of SAB members in connection with Ms. Forgaty's ABCC claim. The IMO declined to investigate the misconduct complaint. Ms. Forgaty 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, Ms. Fogarty filed an appeal with UNAT that was registered as case number 2026-2108. Just prior to the summer session, Ms. Fogarty filed a second appeal against the administration for failing to reconsider convening a SAB panel. This was registered as Case Number 2026-2198. The IMO filed a motion for judgment on receivability, arguing that these appeals were not receivable ratione personae and ratione materiae. We agree with the IMO. Although Article 2 Sub 2 of the Special Agreement between the United Nations and the IMO authorizes that an application can be filed with the UNAT 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 Ms. Fogarty, who separated from the IMO 6 years ago. Ms. P's failure to disclose certain names was related to Ms. Fogarty's ABCC claim. However, the UNAT determined in Judgment No. 2026, UNAT 1620, 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 Ms. Fogarty was directly affected by whether the IMO initiated an investigation into Ms. P. As a result, we find that the Appeals Tribunal has no personal jurisdiction over Ms. Fogarty for the purposes of this appeal. We note, however, that we do not agree with the Secretary-General's 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 Ms. Fogarty to bear the costs of the proceedings for manifestly abusing the appeals process under Article 9 sub 2 of the statute. We find that this is an instance where an award of costs is appropriate. Ms. Fogarty has filed multiple appeals for the same issue and set of facts, resulting in multiple judgments by the UNAT and the SAB. It was particularly egregious for Ms. Fogarty to file her appeal in Case No. 2026-2198, which was identical to her appeal in Case No. 2026-2108, and though Ms. Forgaty had already received the UNAT's judgment, No. 2026-UNAT-1620. This is especially true when Ms. Forgaty is represented by counsel. Pursuant to the special agreement, the IMO pays the United Nations for each appeal appeal to the appeals tribunal. We find that Ms. Fogarty should bear the costs of her second appeal, case number 2026-2198. We therefore order that she pay $17,378 US dollars to the Secretary-General of the IMO within 60 days of the publication of this judgment. Ms. Fogarty's appeals are dismissed as not receivable and costs awarded against her.

Case numbers 2026-2050, 2026-2059, and 2026-2078, 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 ClearCheck database. In preparation for an oral hearing on the application, the UNDT issued 3 orders concerning Mr. Herrera's challenge to the credibility of the claimant. Specifically, he drew attention to a 2007 incident involving the complainant at a U.S. 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 claimant and Mr. Herrera was critical to its review of the case, the UNDT issued several orders concerning this hoax. In Order No. 31, the UNDT decided it would make a formal request for information from the U.S. University and the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation about this hoax. In Order No. 53, the UNDT announced it would engage an outside expert in 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 No. 71, the UNDT ordered the Secretary-General to obtain the complainant's written consent to the release of her records from the U.S. university. The Secretary-General appeals all three orders. We first find that the entry of Mr. Herrera's name into the ClearCheck database due to the determination that he committed sexual assault is effectively a disciplinary measure and must be reviewed under those standards. Article 9 sub 4 of the UNDT Statute provides that an application to appeal an administrative decision imposing a disciplinary measure disputing 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's appeals are received. The appeals are granted. Paragraph 28 of UNDT Order No. 53 related to the forensic expert is rescinded. Paragraphs 18 and 19 of UNDT Order No. 31 related to the requests for information to the U.S. University and FBI are rescinded. Paragraph 57 of UNDT Order No. 71 related to the proposed authorization from the complainant to release information from the U.S. 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 U.S. 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 2026-2162, Giovanni Arditu versus the Secretary General of the International Seabed Authority. Case number 2026-2163, Jonathan Hall versus the Secretary General of the International Seabed Authority, case number 2026-2164. Khalila Hakman versus the Secretary General of the International Seabed Authority, and case number 2026-2165, David Pastay versus the Secretary General of the International Seabed Authority. Judge Gao.

Mr. Adito, Mr. Ho, and Ms. Haakman and Mr. Pustai 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. The JAB, sitting as a full board, granted their appeals in part and awarded each of them compensation awards ranging from 2 to 3 months' salary. On appeal, Mr. Adito, Mr. Ho, Ms. Hackmann and Ms. Bustai raised many errors of law, fact, and procedure in their respective cases. One common error of procedure was that the JAB sat as a full board, or a chair and 6 members, pursuant to Rule 28 of the JAB's revised rules of procedure. Each appellant argued that this was contrary to ISA's staff rules 11, which states that decisions shall be decided by panels comprised of the chair and 2 members. The Secretary-General cross-appealed in each of these 4 cases on the grounds that the JAB had no authority under the ISA's staff rules to award compensation. As we have announced in the cases of Ms. Marielle Boro McNeil in this session, we agree that the JAB erred in convening 7-person panels to hear these appeals. When only 3-person panels are permitted under the ISA's staff rules. Accordingly, the appeals of Mr. Ardito, Mr. Ho, Ms. Hackmann, and Mr. Bustai are granted in part, and their 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 UNEP website in the coming weeks. And may I ask that everyone please rise.