�山����

The UNAT held that there was a preponderance of evidence that the staff member was a passenger in a clearly-marked �山����vehicle in which acts of a sexual nature took place as it circulated in a heavily-trafficked area of the city. His conduct constituted an exceptional circumstance in terms of Section 11.4(b) of ST/AI/2017/1, especially considering the serious and grave nature of the conduct in which he was involved, captured on the video clip which was circulated widely, causing significant harm to the reputation and credibility of the Organization. His placement on ALWOP was a reasonable...

Mr. Mousa appealed. As regards Mr. Mousa’s request for an oral hearing, the UNAT held that he did not provide a compelling reason why an oral hearing should be granted in this appeal.  As the case deals with the issue of receivability ratione materiae, an oral hearing is not necessary and would not “assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case” within the meaning of Article 18(1) of the UNAT’s Rules of Procedure. The UNAT also found that Mr. Mousa’s appeal did not refer to any of the grounds of appeal mentioned in Article 2(1) of the UNAT Statute.  The only submission regarding the...

UNAT concurred with UNDT that the case was time-barred and not receivable. UNAT noted that, while the Appellant referred to an accident that prevented her from filing on time, she did not mention this to UNDT and raised it for the first time before UNAT. UNAT held that, while Article 2. 5 of the UNAT Statute allows it to admit further evidence in exceptional circumstances, it would not admit evidence that was known to the party and could have been presented to UNDT. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

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 considered the appeal, specifically whether UNRWA DT erred by dismissing the staff members’ motions to adduce supplemental evidence on the grounds of receivability, and whether UNRWA DT erred by finding that the final contested decision was taken on 3 August 2014. UNAT found that Abu Malluh et al. acted with due diligence in the proceedings before UNRWA DT and further demonstrated that the supplemental evidence they sought to have admitted would have led to different findings of fact and changed the outcome of the case. UNAT noted that while UNRWA DT has broad discretion to determine the...

UNAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding that the factual and legal issues arising from the appeal had already been clearly defined by the parties and there was no need for further clarification. UNAT rejected the motion to file additional pleadings and evidence since the Appellant had failed to demonstrate the existence of any exceptional circumstances that justified the need to file additional pleadings or to submit additional evidence. UNAT held that the motion only presented factual and legal contentions that reiterated arguments made in the appeal brief. UNAT further held...

UNAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding that the appeal had been clearly defined and that there was no need for further clarification. UNAT rejected the motion to file additional pleadings and additional evidence since the Appellant had failed to demonstrate any existence of exceptional circumstances that justified the need to file additional pleadings or to submit additional evidence. UNAT held that the motion only presented factual and legal contentions that reiterated arguments made in the appeal brief. UNAT further held that the Appellant had failed in his grounds of appeal...