Â鶹APP

UNAT held that the Appellant failed to identify the grounds for his appeal and thus, the appeal was defective. UNAT inferred that the Appellant claimed UNRWA DT failed to exercise its jurisdiction. UNAT held that the legal conclusion of UNDT that the application before it was not receivable was unassailable. UNAT held that UNRWA DT did not err when it did not discuss whether the case was an exceptional case for extending, waiving, or suspending the deadline for the filing of the application. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNRWA DT judgment.

UNAT considered the Appellant¡¯s appeals. UNAT did not find merit in the Appellant¡¯s claims that UNRWA DT erred on questions of law and procedure by finding that the security situation and safety of staff was considered by the Administration based on the Â鶹APP regulations concerning the safety of its staff members. UNAT held that the Appellants failed to demonstrate any errors in UNRWA DT¡¯s finding that the Administration¡¯s decision to assess and terminate their service resulted from a valid exercise of the discretionary power of the Administration and was not tainted by improper...

UNAT considered the Appellant¡¯s appeal of both UNRWA DT decisions. UNAT noted that UNRWA DT gave full consideration to the Appellant¡¯s claim that the transfer was a disguised disciplinary measure following allegations of her corporal punishment of students. UNAT noted that there was evidence that, prior to her transfer, the Chief, Field Education Programme had dismissed these allegations as unsubstantiated and it was not until almost two months after the transfer that the Jordan Field Office authorised an investigation. UNAT held that UNRWA DT therefore correctly concluded that the Appellant¡¯s...

UNAT held that, since the Appellant had not made an application to the UNRWA Internal Justice Committee on the issue of the recusal and conflict of interest, it would not permit the issue to be raised for the first time on appeal. UNAT held that the Appellant had failed to establish in his appeal that it was unreasonable for UNRWA DT to conclude that there was no evidence of bias in the decision to abolish his post. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNRWA DT judgment.

UNAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding no need for further clarification of the issues. UNAT held that the Appellant failed to identify the grounds for his appeal, considering it defective. UNAT agreed with UNRWA DT that the Appellant had not complied with Staff Rule 111.3, which prescribes that the staff member is required to appeal to the JAB within thirty days. UNAT held that UNRWA DT¡¯s conclusion that the application was not receivable did not present any errors of law or fact. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the

On the decision to postpone the separation on medical grounds, UNAT noted that a staff member had a right to be compensated for a service-incurred injury. UNAT found that UNRWA DT erred in law in determining the decision to postpone the Appellant¡¯s separation on medical grounds until the end of the disciplinary process was lawful. Noting that the Appellant did not provide any evidence in support of his claim of psychological suffering (or harm), UNAT did not award moral compensation. On the issue of the SLWOP, given the nature and seriousness of the allegations against the Appellant, UNRWA DT...

UNAT found no error in the UNRWA DT finding that the application was not receivable ratione temporis. UNAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s contention that UNRWA DT erred in that it examined the timeliness of his application sua sponte, without it having been raised by the Respondent, holding that the competence of UNRWA DT to review the observance of the statutory deadlines for filing an application can be exercised even if the parties or the administrative authorities do not raise the issue because it constitutes a matter of law and the UNRWA DT Statute prevents UNRWA DT from receiving a case which...

UNAT considered the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing and claims for moral damages and reinstatement. UNAT held that the factual and legal issues arising from the appeal have already been clearly defined by the parties and did not find that an oral hearing would ¡°assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. ¡± To that end, UNAT denied the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing. UNAT found no fault with UNRWA DT¡¯s conclusion that it was highly probable that the Appellant had a leadership role in the armed clashes of 18 June 2015. UNAT held that there was no evidence to suggest...

UNAT considered whether UNRWA DT erred in finding that the Agency correctly decided not to transfer the Appellant to the post in question. UNAT held that the issue of whether the Agency has an obligation to contact all staff members who made a transfer request is not receivable because it was not raised before UNRWA DT. UNAT held that the Appellant¡¯s complaint required factual findings in order to ascertain whether the claim was meritorious, and UNRWA DT did not make such findings. UNAT upheld the appeal, vacated UNRWA/DT/2018/026, and remanded the issue of whether the Administration fulfilled...

UNAT considered the Appellant¡¯s appeal, requesting that the UNRWA DT judgment be vacated. UNAT agreed with UNRWA DT and upheld its findings that the Agency was entitled, under the provisions of paragraph 2 of FTI 01/2016, to fill the concerned post by means of a lateral transfer of current staff members. UNAT also agreed with, and upheld, the ruling that it was not within the remit of UNRWA DT to pronounce on the exercise of the Agency¡¯s discretion in deciding on the lateral transfers unless there is evidence that the discretion was exercised arbitrarily or unlawfully. UNAT found that there...