Ãå±±½ûµØ

UNAT held that the relevant Circular contained all the necessary components to give rise to legal consequences for the striking staff and that it had individual application. UNAT held that UNRWA DT committed no legal error when it decided that the relevant administrative decision for the purpose of former Area Staff Rule 111.3 was the decision communicated by way of the Circular and that UNRWA DT correctly determined the terminus a quo for the purpose of computing the time for requesting administrative review. UNAT upheld the UNRWA DT’s determination as to the limits of its jurisdiction. UNAT held that UNRWA DT correctly determined that the Appellant’s claims were not receivable. On the question of whether UNRWA DT erred procedurally when it permitted the Respondent to participate in the proceedings and to submit a late reply, UNAT held that, whether or not UNRWA DT erred procedurally, in the absence of an order to that effect, such error did not, of itself, vitiate the UNRWA DT’s decision that the applications were not receivable ratione temporis. UNAT held that the Appellants had failed to demonstrate how UNRWA DT’s consideration of their applications was prejudiced by reason of the Respondent’s participation in the proceedings UNAT found no merit in the ground of appeal that UNRWA DT erred in law when it restricted the observations to the Respondent’s reply to those Appellants who had requested leave to file such observations. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNRWA DT judgment.