UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements
The UNAT determined that it had been demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that the former staff member committed serious misconduct by: i) failing to return to the United Nations Federal Credit Union (UNFCU) funds of USD 587,428.65 that were erroneously credited to her account and to which she was not entitled; ii) failing to comply with a judgment issued by the High Court of Zambia (High Court Judgment), which ordered her to return the aforementioned funds to UNFCU; and iii) submitting false documentation and/or misrepresenting facts during the investigation conducted by the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS).
The UNAT held that the UNDT properly relied on the High Court Judgment and had valid grounds to conclude that the purported “Default Judgment” submitted by the former staff member had no legal validity or effect. The UNAT further observed that she was obligated to comply with this executable judicial decision. If she was dissatisfied with the High Court Judgment, she should have appealed it within the Zambian judicial system.
The UNAT held that the dispute between the former staff member and UNFCU was of a private nature, unrelated to her official duties, and that her privileges and immunities did not justify the non-performance of her private obligations. It also noted that her filing of a counterclaim before the High Court constituted clear evidence of her submission to the jurisdiction of that Court over her dispute with UNFCU.
Finally, the UNAT found that the former staff member’s due process rights were respected.
The UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed Judgment No. UNDT/2025/006.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
A former staff member of the United Nations Organization Stabilization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUSCO) contested the decision of the Administration to impose on her the disciplinary measure of separation from service, with compensation in lieu of notice and without termination indemnity, for serious misconduct.
In its Judgment No. UNDT/2025/006, the UNDT dismissed the former staff member’s application, finding that the contested decision was lawful.
Former staff member appealed.
Legal Principle(s)
The Organization’s internal justice system does not have jurisdiction over civil cases concerning the private or personal life of its staff members. It does not have a jurisdictional function over the Member States of the Organization, nor over their nationals. Both the UNDT and the UNAT are administrative and internal courts, designed to deal with administrative decisions concerning the Organization’s staff members and other cases within the narrow scope of competence accorded by Article 2(1) of their respective Statutes.
Staff members must comply with local laws and honour their private legal obligations, including, but not limited to, the obligation to honour orders of competent courts. Therefore, although a decision of a national court may be subject to criticism by both parties (and also by a third party), it must be obeyed if and to the extent that it is enforceable. Consequently, the parties should generally comply with an executable judicial decision; otherwise they would be taking justice into their own hands, which is not acceptable according to general principles based on the rule of law.
Privileges and immunities are granted in the interest of the Organization, not for the staff members’ personal benefit.
The appeals procedure is of a corrective nature and, thus, is not an opportunity for a dissatisfied party to reargue his or her case. A party cannot merely repeat on appeal arguments that did not succeed before the lower court.
An appellant has the burden of satisfying the UNAT that the judgment he or she seeks to challenge is defective.
It is not necessary for any court, whether a trial or appellate court, to address each and every claim made by a litigant, especially when a claim has no merit.