Ãå±±½ûµØ

UNAT noted there was a pattern of withholding annual performance reports and salary increments, and that those delays were coupled with the denial of a post for which the Appellant was short-listed but was not filled prior to the Appellant’s retirement. UNAT noted the Appellant was also denied his post, which was abolished due to restructuring. UNAT held that the Appellant was not treated conscientiously and fairly and deserved compensation. UNAT granted the appeal in part and ordered that the Appellant be paid three months’ net base salary as compensation.

UNAT held that UNRWA DT had correctly dismissed the application as not receivable for being time-barred. UNAT held that UNRWA DT had correctly found the application not receivable ratione materiae since the Appellant had not contested an administrative decision and had erroneously filed his appeal with the International Joint Appeals Board. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNRWA DT judgment.

UNAT held that UNRWA DT was correct in applying Former UNRWA Area Staff Rule 106. 1. 16 to calculate the interest applicable to the Appellant’s pay-out and that UNRWA DT had not erred in this regard. UNAT held that the contention that the Administrative Rules of the United Nations Joint Staff Pension Fund apply to the Appellant’s situation had no merit and had been raised for the first time on appeal. UNAT held that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate that UNRWA DT had erred in finding that the Appellant’s terms and conditions of employment are governed solely and exclusively by the Agency...

UNAT rejected the request for an oral hearing since there was no need for further clarification of the issues arising from the appeal. UNAT held that it had subject matter jurisdiction to hear the appeal and that the appeal was receivable. UNAT held that UNDT had correctly concluded that it had no subject matter jurisdiction to receive the application because the application was brought before the wrong tribunal and the application should have been brought before UNRWA DT. UNAT held that UNDT had correctly concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to receive the application because...

UNAT addressed the staff member’s appeal seeking reversal of the UNRWA DT judgment with compensation for the actual and moral damage, as well as the reinstatement of her appointment. UNAT rejected the request for an oral hearing since there was no need for further clarification of the issues arising from the appeal. UNAT held that the Appellant’s letter of appointment was clear and unambiguous that the appointment did not carry an expectation of renewal or conversion to any other type of appointment. UNAT held that UNRWA DT was correct in finding that the Agency’s extension of the Appellant’s...

UNAT rejected the Appellant’s request to have all appeal-related documents removed from her UNRWA official service file. UNAT held that UNRWA DT did not err in finding no irregularity in the decision-making process under judicial review and consequently dismissing the application. UNAT held that the Appellant had to persuade it that there were flaws in the contested administrative decision not to renew her fixed-term appointment, the proceedings that led to it, or in the UNRWA DT’s judgment, which would warrant vacating the judgment. UNAT held that the Appellant had not raised new arguments...

UNAT considered the Appellant’s appeal. UNAT noted that the established facts showed that the Appellant’s negligence as Head Storekeeper facilitated the misconduct of other staff members and his negligence was evidenced by the excess of merchandise in the storeroom under his control, and by his failure to keep an inventory of the items in his custody. UNAT held that the Appellant neither successfully rebutted these facts, nor demonstrated any flaws in the administrative and disciplinary procedures. UNAT held that the sanction of demotion was lawful. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the...

UNAT considered Mr Al Sayyed’s appeal and found that the decision to terminate his service, effective from close of business 15 December 2007, and as communicated to him on 30 November 2007, was superseded by the action he took on 4 December 2007, an action reinforced by him on 7 January 2008. Under these circumstances, UNAT held that UNRWA did not err in dismissing Mr Al Sayyed’s appeal against his termination on the basis that there was no termination decision capable of review. UNAT dismissed the appeal.

UNAT considered Mr El Khatib’s application for revision of judgment No. 2011-UNAT-142. UNAT held that Mr El Khatib did not identify any fact unknown at the time of the impugned judgment which could justify its review. UNAT held that what he actually sought was a discussion of the amount of compensation awarded to him, an option not granted by the Statute. UNAT held that the petition did not meet the statutory requirements. UNAT dismissed the application for revision.

UNAT considered Mr Maghari’s application for revision of judgment No. 2010-UNAT-039. UNAT held that the application was receivable ratione temporis. UNAT held that the grounds filed did not fall within Article 11(1) of the UNAT Statute and did not constitute a decisive fact which was, at the time the judgment was rendered, known to UNAT and to the party applying for revision. UNAT held that Mr Maghari merely disagreed with the UNAT decision and sought to reargue his appeal. UNAT dismissed the application for revision.