2025-UNAT-1526, BK
The UNAT noted that the impugned Orders denying the staff member’s requests for anonymity had been issued less than a month after the UNDT had granted his motion for anonymity in another case.
The UNAT found that the impugned Orders did not exist in isolation and the interaction of all these proceedings rendered the situation exceptional. The UNAT held that denying him anonymity for his two applications alone would defeat the purpose of anonymity and, in the unique circumstances of these proceedings, this inconsistency was prejudicial to the integrity of the internal justice system. The UNAT found that it would be manifestly unreasonable and effectively irremediable by final UNDT judgments for the two impugned Orders to remain in effect.
The UNAT concluded that the appeals regarding anonymity were receivable, and that the impugned Orders denying the motions for anonymity should be reversed in the respective parts.
The UNAT found that the UNDT’s ruling not to exclude the response to the staff member’s request for management evaluation from the case record, even if erroneous, would be fully remediable on appeal of a final judgment and the appeal of that ruling was therefore not reviewable at this stage of the proceedings.
The UNAT granted the appeal as to the issue of anonymity and dismissed it as to the issue of the exclusion of the response to the request for management evaluation, and modified the impugned Orders. The UNAT directed the UNDT to anonymize the staff member’s identity in the impugned Orders, any prior published orders in these cases, and in subsequent UNDT proceedings.
A staff member contested a decision not to select him for the post of Project Control Officer, P-3, in Geneva and a decision regarding the validity of his Periodic Medical Examination and medical clearance status.
In Order No. 35 (GVA/2024) on case management concerning the first contested decision, the UNDT rejected the staff member’s motion for anonymity and his motion to exclude the response to his request for management evaluation from the case record.
In Order No. 36 (GVA/2024) on case management concerning the second contested decision, the UNDT rejected his other motion for anonymity.
The staff member appealed.
Appeals challenging interlocutory orders are non-receivable. Instead, an appeal of an interlocutory order may, in the main, only be available as part of an appeal against a final judgment.
There are rare circumstances in which a purported error by the UNDT would be effectively irremediable by the time of a final judgment or appeal and it would be manifestly unreasonable for the UNDT’s order to remain in effect, in which case such interlocutory order may be reviewable.
Article 20(2) of the UNAT Rules of Procedure serves the important interests of transparency and accountability within the United Nations’ internal justice system.
The UNAT granted the appeal as to the issue of anonymity and dismissed it as to the issue of the exclusion of the response to the request for management evaluation, and modified the impugned Orders. The UNAT directed the UNDT to anonymize the staff member’s identity in the impugned Orders, any prior published orders in these cases, and in subsequent UNDT proceedings.