Â鶹APP

UNAT considered whether UNRWA DT made an error of fact, resulting in an unreasonable decision when it found that the Appellant submitted her request for decision review. UNAT found that the evidence showed that UNRWA DT did not make a factual error when it found that the request for decision review was made on 7 July 2014. UNAT noted that, as the request for decision review was submitted on 7 July 2014, the time for the Appellant to file an application for judicial review expired 120 days thereafter, on 4 November 2014. UNAT found that the Appellant¡¯s application for judicial review was not...

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 UNRWA DT judgment.

UNAT addressed all the appeals in a unique judgment. Regarding judgment No. UNDT/2015/100, UNAT held that UNDT had correctly found that a UNRWA staff member cannot bring an application against the UN Secretary-General challenging a decision by the Organisation denying him or her employment with the Organisation. UNAT held that UNDT had correctly concluded that the application was not receivable. Regarding Orders Nos. 319, 320, and 400, UNAT reiterated that UNAT is only under exceptional circumstances competent to judge appeals of interlocutory orders, namely when UNDT exceeded its jurisdiction...

UNAT held that the Appellant introduced new elements for consideration on appeal that were not put forward at the trial level (Annex 4 (Post Classification Questionnaire Form), and the contentions about alleged procedural irregularities preceding the non-upgrading of the Appellant¡¯s post). UNAT held that the documents and arguments put forward for the first time were inadmissible. UNAT also held that the Appellant had failed to persuade UNAT that the impugned decision contained any error of fact or law that could warrant its reversal. UNAT agreed with UNRWA DT¡¯s finding that the...

UNAT held that there was merit in the Appellant¡¯s argument that the issue to be decided was not whether he was entitled or not to the SOA, but the refusal of its retroactive payment at the correct rate from the date of the signature of his post description. UNAT held that UNRWA DT erred when it failed to consider that the Appellant was contesting a specific decision denying him a retrospective payment of the higher SOA. UNAT held that UNRWA DT erred in law in deciding that the Appellant had failed to identify an administrative decision capable of being brought within the scope of judicial...

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 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 held that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate evidence of exceptional circumstances to justify the need to submit new evidence or file additional pleadings and, therefore, dismissed the Appellant¡¯s motion. UNAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding that it would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. UNAT held that UNRWA DT was not required to set out its findings on every submission presented by the Appellant and the failure to do so did not amount to an error on the part of the UNRWA DT. UNAT upheld the order of UNRWA DT to rescind the contested...

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...