�山����

UNAT considered the Appellant’s request for an oral hearing and claims for moral damages and reinstatement. UNAT held that the factual and legal issues arising from the appeal have already been clearly defined by the parties and did not find that an oral hearing would “assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. ” To that end, UNAT denied the Appellant’s request for an oral hearing. UNAT found no fault with UNRWA DT’s conclusion that it was highly probable that the Appellant had a leadership role in the armed clashes of 18 June 2015. UNAT held that there was no evidence to suggest...

UNAT considered the content of the Appellant’s appeal, the UNRWA DT judgment, and the Appellant’s request for compensation for material and moral damages and costs. UNAT found that the Appellant’s appeal was defective in that it failed to identify any of the five grounds of appeal set out in Article 2(1) of the Statute as forming the legal basis of his appeal. UNAT also held that there was no error in the UNRWA DT’s findings that the Administration’s decision not to confirm the Appellant’s appointment was solely based on his performance and that his allegations of harassment and discrimination...

UNAT rejected the Appellant’s request for an oral hearing. UNAT held that UNRWA DT did not commit an error of procedure such as to affect the decision of the case by failing to order the Agency to allow the participation of the Appellant representative in the oral hearing or by failing to accommodate the latter’s employment situation. UNAT held that UNRWA DT did not err on a question of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision when it determined that the Head of Education Department (H/ED) had not received the Appellant’s request for SLWOP and, consequently, that there had not...

UNAT considered the Appellant’s motion for leave to file additional pleadings and the appeal. UNAT noted that neither the UNAT Statute nor the UNAT RoP provide for an appellant to file an additional pleading after the respondent has filed an answer. UNAT also noted that Article 31(1) of the RoP and Section II. A. 3 of Practice Direction No. 1 of the Appeals Tribunal allow the Appeals Tribunal to grant a party’s motion to file additional pleadings only if there are exceptional circumstances justifying the motion. UNAT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate any exceptional circumstances...

UNAT considered the Appellant’s appeal. As a preliminary matter, UNAT refused the Appellant’s Motion for Leave to File Additional Pleadings. UNAT referred to Article 3(1) of the RoP and Section II. A. 3 of Practice Decision No. 1 of the Appeals Tribunal, which provides that it may grant such a motion only if there are exceptional circumstances. UNAT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate any exceptional circumstances in the present case. UNAT also referred to the transitional measures provided by General Assembly Resolution 63/253 and Article 2(7) of the UNDT Statute, which notes that...

UNAT rejected the request for an oral hearing. UNAT held, noting that the Appellant appeared to be restating the same claims she made before UNDT, that she did not identify any grounds for her appeal nor demonstrate that UNDT committed any error of fact or law in arriving at its decision. UNAT held that UNDT fully and fairly considered the case, without errors of law or fact. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that the allegation that UNDT usurped its discretion by failing to show due deference in substituting its own preference of sanction for that of the Secretary-General was overstated. UNAT held that UNDT had correctly balanced the competing considerations and concluded reasonably that the cumulative imposition of a written censure and the loss of two steps in grade were disproportionate to the misconduct. UNAT found that UNDT did not misdirect itself in accepting as mitigating factors the fact that Appellant had lost all his...

UNAT referred to Article 2(1) of the UNAT Statute and held that the Appellant did not show any errors in the UNRWA DT judgment and her claims on appeal could not succeed. UNAT further found no fault in UNRWA DT’s finding that there was no retaliation against the Appellant and that UNRWA DT did not err on a question of law or fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision, nor did it commit an error in procedure, such as to affect the decision of the case. UNAT noted that it was within the discretion of the Agency to close the case against the PMO and that the Agency has no authority to...

UNAT considered whether UNRWA DT correctly concluded that the application was non-receivable ratione materiae. UNAT found that the Appellant failed to reference the grounds of appeal he relied upon, pursuant to Article 2(1) of the UNAT Statute. UNAT held that, because the Appellant did not identify the defects or grounds that rendered the impugned decision erroneous, the appeal must fail for this reason alone. In considering the rest of the appeal, UNAT also found that the Appellant knew, or reasonably should have known, that his allowance request had been refused since 2009. Moreover, UNAT...

UNAT considered the appeal and held that UNRWA DT’s judgment was correct. UNAT found that UNRWA DT did not err in holding that the Agency’s decision to deny the Appellant a fifth year of SLWOP was both lawful and reasonable. Further, UNAT held that the Appellant did not establish any grounds of appeal in this regard. UNAT also reiterated that the Appellant did not have an unconditional right to EVR and that the Agency had duly considered his request in accordance with the UNRWA Area Staff Rules and other relevant administrative issuances. UNAT also held that UNRWA DT rightly rejected the...