Â鶹APP

UNAT considered the appeal. UNAT noted that UNRWA¡¯s disciplinary system provides that the Commissioner-General may only impose such disciplinary measures on current staff members. UNAT accordingly found that UNRWA DT erred in finding that the Commissioner-General was entitled to impose the disciplinary measure of a fine after the Appellant¡¯s employment ended and held that the disciplinary measure had to be rescinded. With respect to the Appellant¡¯s request for compensation, UNAT noted that it may only award compensation for harm in cases where the individual presented evidence, other than...

UNAT considered the appeal of the consolidated applications. With respect to the first issue, UNAT found no error in UNRWA DT¡¯s conclusion that the Appellant had failed to establish that the decision not to confirm his appointment as TDSE Advisor and to transfer him to his previous post was unlawful. UNAT noted that there was no merit in the Appellant¡¯s contention that UNRWA DT failed to examine the relevant facts and to apply legal and regulatory provisions to his performance evaluations during his probationary period. UNDT also noted that the review of the Appellant¡¯s performance assessments...

UNAT held that UNRWA DT did not err in law or fact in dismissing the application. UNAT held that the evidence had shown that the Appellant did not meet all the requirements for the post to which he had applied, as set out in the vacancy announcement, and that he was rightly placed by UNRWA in tranche 2 list. UNAT held that UNRWA DT had rightly concluded that, since the Appellant was unsuitable for the post, the failure of the Administration to consider his application in priority as an internal candidate had not vitiated the outcome of the selection process. UNAT held that the Appellant had...

UNAT held that the issues relating to the conduct of the first test were of no relevance to the appeal and had no legal consequence because the first test and the proposed selection exercise had been cancelled. UNAT agreed with UNRWA DT that a selection process may only be challenged in the context of an appeal against the outcome of that process. UNAT found that UNRWA DT did not err in dismissing the first three grounds of the application. With respect to the second test, UNAT agreed with the finding of UNRWA DT that the Appellant was unable to contest the Agency¡¯s decision to conduct a...

The UNRWA Commissioner-General appealed. UNAT held that the decisions not to grant Mr Abu Lehia sick leave for the specific time periods (28 March to 3 April 2016, 4 April to 17 May 2016, and 18 May 2016 to 7 June 2016) were not reasonable, given the specific factual circumstances of the case at hand and that these decisions were not a valid exercise of the Agency¡¯s discretion. UNAT affirmed UNRWA DT¡¯s findings and conclusions about illegality. UNAT held that the Commissioner-General failed to demonstrate any error in the UNRWA DT¡¯s finding that the Agency¡¯s decision not to grant Mr Abu Lehia...

UNAT held that the UNRWA DT¡¯s finding that, while ASC No. A/04/2010 did not provide a right to Mr Abusondous to receive an AAA, he did have an expectation that the Agency would ¡°properly exercise its discretion to grant an AAA and [would] be fair in its dealings with him¡±, was correct. UNAT found no fault with the reasoning that the Agency¡¯s justification of the decision not to appoint Mr Abusondous as Officer-in-Charge and not to grant him an AAA, namely that the Agency would not have been able to meet the 120-day maximum period to fill the vacancy, was not a reasonable ground for the denial...

UNAT held that the Appellant failed to identify grounds for his appeal. UNAT held that the Appellant¡¯s case was fully and fairly considered. UNAT held that UNRWA DT correctly based its conclusion about the legality of the termination decision on the medical assessment by the medical board and without medical findings of its own. UNAT held that the decision to terminate the Appellant¡¯s appointment on medical grounds was a reasonable and valid exercise of UNRWA¡¯s discretion. UNAT held that the Appellant did not meet the burden of proof of demonstrating an error in the impugned judgment such as...

UNAT held that UNRWA DT committed errors of law and fact resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. UNAT held that UNRWA DT erred in its assessment of the alleged victim¡¯s credibility. UNAT held that, contrary to UNRWA DT¡¯s understanding, there was no record that the alleged victim had stated that she had been sexually attacked by the Appellant on previous occasions. UNAT held that UNRWA DT erred in drawing a negative inference about the credibility of the alleged victim from her delayed reporting. UNAT held that UNRWA erred in its assessment of the Appellant¡¯s credibility, in particular...

UNAT held that the appeal was defective for failure to identify errors made by UNRWA DT. However, noting that the Appellant was self-represented, UNAT considered whether UNRWA DT erred in finding that UNRWA had properly exercised its discretion in transferring the Appellant. UNAT held that UNRWA DT did not err in jurisdiction, procedure, law, or in fact in dismissing the Appellant¡¯s application. UNAT upheld UNRWA DT¡¯s finding that the Appellant did not meet the burden of proving that the decision to transfer him to another post after the abolition of his post was exercised arbitrarily or...

UNAT held that the Appellant simply put forward several general complaints related to the alleged merits of her case but did not argue that the judgment was defective or that UNRWA DT committed an error in deciding that her application was not receivable. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNRWA DT judgment.