Ãå±±½ûµØ

UNAT held that the appeal was not based on any of the required grounds. UNAT held that UNRWA DT properly discharged its duty to examine whether the procedure laid down in the applicable Staff Regulations and Rules had been followed and whether the Appellant had been given fair and adequate consideration. UNAT held that UNRWA DT correctly placed upon the Appellant the onus of showing by clear and convincing evidence that he had been denied a fair chance of being promoted. UNAT agreed with UNRWA DT’s observation that it was not enough for the Appellant to merely allege favouritism and yet...

As a preliminary matter, UNAT dismissed the Appellant’s request for an oral hearing. On the merits, UNAT noted that he argued the same arguments that he put before UNRWA DT. UNAT found that UNRWA DT gave careful and fair consideration to the Appellant’s arguments and weighed them against the facts of the case. UNAT found no fault with UNRWA DT’s decision and held that the Appellant did not demonstrate that UNRWA DT erred in fact or law. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNRWA DT judgment.

UNAT preliminarily rejected the request for an oral hearing since the issue to be determined was clear from the papers filed in the appeal. UNAT held that, other than repeating his arguments before the UNRWA DT, the Appellant had not detailed the alleged instances which, according to him, resulted in a manifestly unreasonable decision. UNAT held that the claims of errors of fact on the part of UNRWA DT, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision, were unsustainable. UNAT held that UNRWA DT did not err when it found, from the contents of the 2 September 2009 communication to the Appellant...

UNAT held that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate any error of law or fact committed by UNRWA DT. UNAT held that the appeal was not based on any of the grounds set out in Article 2. 1 of the Special Agreement between the United Nations and UNRWA and that UNAT, therefore, had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNRWA DT judgment.

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...

UNAT held that it was satisfied that the rejection of the application as not receivable was correct on the basis that the Appellant did not seek decision review within the mandatory time period, which meant that UNRWA DT was precluded in law from considering the merits of his application. UNAT held that the Appellant did not identify how the UNRWA DT judgment was in any way defective or demonstrated that UNRWA DT erred in relation to its jurisdiction or committed an error of fact or law or procedure such as would warrant intervention by UNAT. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNRWA DT...

The Appellant appealed the UNRWA DT judgment failure to consider several points and to address compensation. UNAT held that the Appellant did not identify any of the requisite grounds in his appeal. UNAT held that it would not allow new claims to be raised on appeal when the circumstances giving rise to such claims were known to a party at the time and should have been presented to UNRWA DT. UNAT upheld the UNRWA DT’s decision not to award compensation on the basis that there was no evidence in support of the Appellant’s claim of psychological suffering. UNAT held that the Appellant’s case was...

UNAT held that the Appellant raised the same issues he raised before UNRWA DT and did not identify how the judgment was in any way defective. UNAT held that the Appellant did not identify any of the required grounds of appeal and failed to demonstrate that UNRWA DT committed any error of fact or law in arriving at its decision. UNAT held that the Appellant’s case was fully and fairly considered by UNRWA DT and found no error of law or fact in its decision. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNRWA DT judgment.

UNAT held that, in protesting against the non-inclusion of his Transitional Personal Allowance in his retirement benefit, the Appellant had failed to appreciate the distinction between an allowance and base salary. UNAT held that UNRWA DT correctly found that under the applicable Staff Rules, the Appellant’s retirement benefit did not include the Transitional Personal Allowance. UNAT found no error in the UNRWA DT’s finding that the Appellant had not submitted a timely request for decision review with respect to his allegation of impropriety of his transfer and that therefore that claim was...

UNAT dismissed the Appellant’s request for an oral hearing prior to consideration of the appeal. UNAT also rejected the Appellant's claim that UNRWA DT was biased in ordering that the five applications be consolidated into a single judgment. With respect to the appeal itself, UNAT held that the appeal of the decisions denying disability benefits and finding the non-payment of termination claim not receivable, had no legal basis. Regarding the Appellant’s challenge to the Commissioner-General’s decision to render the findings of the medical board moot and not to pay him a disability benefit...