UNDT/2024/073

UNDT/2024/073, Castelli

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

Regarding the first contested decision, the Tribunal held that the right to know the contents of the report, although summarised, is implicit in the right of a staff member to complain against third persons (right already acknowledged in Belkhabbaz, UNDT/2021/047 at para. 21) because this right includes the right to know the reasons for which the Administration did not punish the accused person.

The Tribunal, therefore, concluded that the Applicant had a right to receive the report in full, with reasonable redactions, from the Administration. Therefore, the claim in question was granted.

In relation to the second contested decision, the Tribunal indicated that an examination of the facts showed that relevant facts, in the instant case, were not adequately considered. Accordingly, the contested decision to close the investigation was rescinded for being unlawful.

In view of the foregoing, the application was granted and the challenged decisions were rescinded.

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

The Applicant contested two decisions:

a. The decision to not disclose to him the investigation report of the fact-finding panel convened to assess his complaint against the Principal Coordinator Officer (“PCO”), UNIFIL (“first contested decision”); and

b. The decision to close his complaint against the PCO, UNIFIL, based on the findings of the Panel’s investigation report (“second contested decision”).

Legal Principle(s)

Pursuant to the settled jurisprudence of the Tribunal, a decision requiring the Organization to inform the aggrieved individual of the final action taken on a complaint should seek to strike a balance between the right of an aggrieved individual, the right to privacy of the alleged offender and the need for sensitivity and confidentiality of the process.

Outcome

Judgment entered for Applicant in full or in part

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 UNDT Statute and Article 11(3) of the UNAT 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.

Full Judgment

Applicants/ Appellants

Castelli

Entity

UNIFIL

Case Number(s)

UNDT/NBI/2024/035

Tribunal

UNDT

Registry Location :

Nairobi