Â鶹APP

UNAT had before it an appeal against both Order No. 63 (GVA/2014) and Summary judgment No. UNDT/2014/061. On the Appellant¡¯s additional filings and motions to submit additional pleadings, UNAT held that there were no exceptional circumstances that warranted the inclusion of any of the additional material in the appeal and denied the motions. On the Appellant¡¯s motion requesting UNAT to intervene in matters which fell outside the scope of the appeal, UNAT denied the motion. On the Appellant¡¯s appeal of Order No. 63 (GVA/2014), UNAT rejected the appeal on the basis that her appeal grounds did...

UNAT held that the Appellant raised the same issues he raised before UNRWA DT and did not identify how the judgment was in any way defective. UNAT held that the Appellant did not identify any of the required grounds of appeal and failed to demonstrate that UNRWA DT committed any error of fact or law in arriving at its decision. UNAT held that the Appellant¡¯s case was fully and fairly considered by UNRWA DT and found no error of law or fact in its decision. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNRWA DT judgment.

UNAT held that, in protesting against the non-inclusion of his Transitional Personal Allowance in his retirement benefit, the Appellant had failed to appreciate the distinction between an allowance and base salary. UNAT held that UNRWA DT correctly found that under the applicable Staff Rules, the Appellant¡¯s retirement benefit did not include the Transitional Personal Allowance. UNAT found no error in the UNRWA DT¡¯s finding that the Appellant had not submitted a timely request for decision review with respect to his allegation of impropriety of his transfer and that therefore that claim was...

UNAT held that the Appellant did not indicate any errors on the part of UNRWA DT that would require a reversal of its judgment. UNAT held that there was no error in UNRWA DT¡¯s finding. UNAT held that the Appellant did not comply with the filing deadlines. UNAT held that UNRWA DT did not commit any error when it determined that the application before it was not receivable as it was time-barred. UNAT dismissed the appeal.

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 dismissed the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing prior to consideration of the appeal. UNAT also rejected the Appellant's claim that UNRWA DT was biased in ordering that the five applications be consolidated into a single judgment. With respect to the appeal itself, UNAT held that the appeal of the decisions denying disability benefits and finding the non-payment of termination claim not receivable, had no legal basis. Regarding the Appellant¡¯s challenge to the Commissioner-General¡¯s decision to render the findings of the medical board moot and not to pay him a disability benefit...

UNAT considered whether UNRWA DT erred on a question of law and fact and whether its decision to dismiss the Appellant¡¯s application was flawed by procedural irregularities. UNAT held that the Appellant failed to identify the apparent error of fact in the judgment and the basis for contending that an error was made, merely repeating arguments that did not succeed before UNRWA DT. The Appellant¡¯s decision to sign the contract was binding on him as there was no evidence of duress. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed UNRWA DT¡¯s judgment.

UNAT held that the Appellants had failed to present any evidence showing that they had suffered mental distress during the investigation, and such evidence was necessary for an award of moral damages. UNAT held that there was no merit in the Appellant¡¯s claim that UNRWA DT had erred in not awarding them compensation for the lengthy administrative delay during the investigation. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNRWA DT judgment.

UNAT rejected the request for an oral hearing and the production of documents since there was no need for further clarification. UNAT held that the Appellant¡¯s contentions regarding the application of the Palestinian Labour Law No. 7 (2000) and the UNRWA DT¡¯s error in calculating the time limits were misconceived. UNAT held that, regarding the procedure and timeline involved in challenging administrative decisions, former UNWRA Area Staff Rule 111. 3, which was in effect at the material time when the Appellant¡¯s contract as a teacher was terminated, was applicable. UNAT agreed with the...

UNAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding that there was no need for further clarification. UNAT held that the Appellant did not base his appeal on any grounds for appeal in accordance with those established in the UNAT Statute. UNAT agreed with the UNRWA DT¡¯s conclusions about the untimely submission for review of the purported administrative decision approving a new workflow, the non-receivability of the challenge against the directive to the staff of the Finance Department not to take instructions from the Appellant, as well as the intermediate nature of the decision to refer...