Â鶹APP

UNAT considered an appeal by the Appellant of judgment No. UNRWA/DT/2015/003. UNAT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate that UNRWA DT erred in any way when it dismissed her application finding it to be moot, an outcome which was a natural consequence of the administrative rescission of the impugned decision, circumstances that contemplated the staff member¡¯s claim and rights, solving the previous irregularity. UNAT noted that the Appellant¡¯s request to amend her application to seek compensation for material and moral damages was filed after she had received notification of the...

UNAT noted that, despite its Registry¡¯s request for the Appellant to file an appeal brief, the Appellant failed to do so. UNAT noted that the Appellant was given the opportunity to improve his performance through the further extension of his appointment for an additional six months, but his performance had still not improved. UNAT held that there was no error in the conclusion of UNRWA DT that both the initial decision to extend the Appellant¡¯s probationary period and the subsequent decision not to confirm his appointment were in compliance with his letter of appointment and UNRWA¡¯s regulatory...

UNAT considered appeals of both judgment Nos. UNRWA/DT/2014/026 (judgment on the merits) and UNRWA/DT/2014/051 (judgment on revision). UNAT held that the appeal against the judgment on the merits was filed out of time and was not receivable. UNAT held that the judgment on revision failed to identify a ground of appeal, expressed disagreement, and repeated arguments already considered and rejected by UNRWA DT. UNAT held that the appeal constituted an impermissible attempt to reargue the merits of the case. UNAT held that the fact upon which the Appellant had based his revision application did...

The Appellant did not raise any challenges as to the merits of the UNRWA DT judgment, but rather his appeal related to the procedure adopted by UNRWA DT in hearing his complaint. UNAT held that it was not persuaded that UNRWA DT erred in procedure or otherwise exceeded its jurisdiction in the exercise of its power, such as to warrant reversal of the judgment. Noting that two Orders clarified the aim of the hearing, UNAT held that there was no prejudice caused to the Appellant by the failure to provide him with a description of the relevance of the witnesses¡¯ testimony. UNAT held that UNRWA DT...

UNAT had before it an appeal of the Commissioner-General and a cross-appeal of Ms Salem. UNAT held that the procedural errors did not amount to an abuse of power. UNAT held that absent an abuse of power, the compensation for moral damages had to be vacated. UNAT granted the appeal, rejected the cross-appeal, and vacated the UNRWA DT judgment in its entirety.

UNAT had before it an appeal by the staff member limited to the award of compensation. UNAT noted that UNRWA DT set the compensation in lieu of reinstatement award by calculating the sum the Appellant would have received for the remainder of his two-year contract, less the amount he received as salaries from other employers during the same period. UNAT held that there was no error in this regard. UNAT held that it was satisfied that in its assessment of compensation in lieu of reinstatement, UNRWA DT was conscious of the Appellant¡¯s claims for loss of opportunity. UNAT held that, in view of...

UNAT considered an appeal against Order No. 057 (UNRWA/DT/2014) and judgment No. UNRWA/DT/2014/027. UNAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s request for confidentiality and for the redaction of his name from the UNRWA DT judgment and affirmed UNRWA DT¡¯s reasoning. UNAT denied the Appellant¡¯s request to submit new evidence to UNAT on the basis that the Appellant did not offer any explanation as to why he was precluded from filing them previously, exceptional circumstances did not exist, and its content would not have affected the decision of the case. UNAT held that it was for UNRWA DT to consider that it...

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 a request for revision of judgment No. 2014-UNAT-436 as well as a motion requesting that UNAT strike certain paragraphs from it. UNAT held that the request did not fulfil the statutory requirements and constituted, in fact, a disguised attempt to re-open the case. UNAT held that his application was not receivable. UNAT dismissed the application for revision.

UNAT held that, while it may be argued that the Appellant did not request her transfer to Amman, she consented to it, and the transfer was effected for her personal convenience. UNAT held that the text of UNRWA Area Staff Rule 107. 9 was clear and that UNRWA DT correctly concluded that she was not entitled to the payment which she sought. UNAT held that, contrary to the Appellant¡¯s submissions, UNRWA DT did not exclude her evidence. Recalling the broad discretion of UNRWA DT to ascertain the weight to attach to the evidence before it, UNAT noted that UNRWA found that the Appellant¡¯s evidence...