The Appeals Tribunal did not dilute the principle of publicity. It reaffirmed that transparency and accountability are central to the administration of justice. But it also held that anonymisation requires a balancing of competing factors, including the nature of the misconduct alleged, the impact of the decision on the staff member, the impact on complainants, and the impact on transparency and general deterrence.
The decisive point was the distinction between alleged perpetrators and complainants.
The UNAT accepted that personal embarrassment and discomfort are not sufficient grounds for redaction or anonymity. However, that principle had been applied in cases where an alleged perpetrator sought anonymisation. It could not simply be transposed to a complainant whose identity was linked to sensitive allegations of sexual misconduct and retaliation.
The UNDT therefore committed an error of law by failing to distinguish between the considerations applicable to perpetrators, as opposed to complainants.
In such cases, anonymity is not merely about reputational harm. It concerns personal data, dignity, and the risk that deeply personal and traumatic facts and experiences may be revealed in a manner that is unwarranted and inappropriate.
The broader lesson is important for international civil service law: a reprimand cannot always be forensically dissected from its underlying facts.
Transparency remains the ordinary rule. But under the general principles governing international administrative justice, that rule must be balanced against personal data and dignity.
Anonymity is not a safety net. In the most sensitive cases, it is the condition that makes judicial protection effective.
—
Bert Theeuwes is a Belgian lawyer and partner at Monard Law, where he heads the international civil service law practice. He is an expert with more than 25 years of experience advising international organizations worldwide on staff regulations, internal governance, employment-related disputes and best-practice compliance. His work focuses on helping international organizations align their internal rules with administrative-tribunal case law, modern HR standards and the practical realities of international public administration.
