2025-UNAT-1583, Martin Akerman
The UNAT held that the UNDT did not err in concluding that the former staff member鈥檚 application was not receivable ratione materiae because he did not attempt to resolve the dispute through the office of the United Nations Funds and Programmes Ombudsman, as explicitly required by the Settlement Agreement to which he had expressly agreed. The UNAT found that the terms of the Settlement Agreement remained binding and enforceable on the parties, and that the UNDT committed no error in holding the parties to its terms.
The UNAT further found that the UNDT did not err in determining that the...