Ãå±±½ûµØ

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 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, 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 UNRWA DT had correctly determined that the Appellant had failed to comply with the time limits set forth in former Area Staff Rule 111.3, making his application not receivable as it pertained to his challenge to the decision denying eligibility for the post of Database Manager. UNAT held that the Appellant had never sought review of the decision to separate him from service, failing to comply with Article 8.1(c) of the UNRWA DT Statute, which requires that an applicant must submit the contested administrative decision for decision review first. UNAT affirmed UNRWA DT’s finding...

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

ArUNAT held that UNRWA DT’s decision not to hold an oral hearing was a shortcoming since the parties had not agreed to the case being decided on the papers and the facts needed to be established by witnesses and/or further documentary evidence. On the question of bias and its possible bearing on the outcome of the selection process, UNAT held that UNRWA DT should have engaged in a thorough examination of the facts, rather than drawing an inference. UNAT held that the inference drawn by UNRWA DT, that it was realistic to conclude that not all of the posts could be filled by suitable candidates...

UNAT found no error in the UNRWA DT finding that the application was not receivable ratione temporis. UNAT rejected the Appellant’s contention that UNRWA DT erred in that it examined the timeliness of his application sua sponte, without it having been raised by the Respondent, holding that the competence of UNRWA DT to review the observance of the statutory deadlines for filing an application can be exercised even if the parties or the administrative authorities do not raise the issue because it constitutes a matter of law and the UNRWA DT Statute prevents UNRWA DT from receiving a case which...

UNAT considered the Appellant’s Motion for Leave to Submit Additional Evidence, his appeal, and the Commissioner-General's cross-appeal. UNAT found that the Applicant did not demonstrate any exceptional circumstances that would justify the filing of any additional documentary evidence and denied his motion. UNAT held that the claim in Appellant’s Appeal was not initially brought before UNRWA DT and could not be introduced for the first time before UNAT. UNAT held that the Commissioner-General's cross-appeal was entirely without merit and that UNRWA DT was correct to find that the irregularity...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Commissioner-General. UNAT held that the Commissioner-General’s appeal was not time-barred and was, therefore, receivable. UNAT found that no request for compensation for loss of earnings (salary) had been made. Accordingly, UNAT held that UNRWA DT did not have jurisdiction to award compensation for loss of earnings. UNAT held that any financial loss appears to be generated as the main cause and directly by the Director of UNRWA Affairs, Lebanon’s (DUA/L) decision to cancel the secondment and that this decision was found to be lawful by the UNRWA DT and that...

UNAT considered the Secretary-General's appeal, specifically as to whether UNRWA DT’s decision to award special allowances for extra duties performed and compensation for moral damages was an error in law or fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. With respect to the allowance for extra duties, UNAT noted that it is settled in its jurisprudence that the Agency has discretionary powers to pay the special allowances, which must be exercised reasonably in accordance with their substantive legal requirements. UNAT held that there was no room for UNRWA DT to substitute its decision...