Ãå±±½ûµØ

2014-UNAT-432

2014-UNAT-432, Azzouz

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

UNAT held that UNRWA DT had correctly determined that the application was not receivable. UNAT held that the Appellant had failed to establish that UNRWA DT had committed errors in law or fact in reaching its decision. UNAT held that the Appellant’s claim that he was denied legal representation was not made before UNRWA DT, although it was a circumstance that was known to the Appellant at that time. UNAT held that it would not permit the issue to be raised for the first time on appeal. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNRWA DT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

UNRWA DT Judgment: The Applicant contested the decision that denied transferring him to the then-vacant post of Clinic’s Clerk at the Medical Department in the Al Elins area in Damascus. UNRWA DT issued Judgment No. UNRWA/DT/2013/013 rejecting the application as not receivable ratione materiae on the ground that the Applicant had failed to request decision review pursuant to Area Staff Rule 111.2 (1)(A) and that UNRWA DT had no jurisdiction to waive this requirement. UNRWA DT found that, in any event, the application was rendered moot since the Applicant was separated in response to his request for early voluntary retirement which superseded the Commissioner-General’s decision to terminate his service.

Legal Principle(s)

The appeals procedure is of a corrective nature and is not an opportunity for a dissatisfied party to reargue his or her case. A party cannot merely repeat on appeal arguments that did not succeed in the lower court. Rather, he or she must demonstrate that the court below has committed an error of fact or law warranting intervention by UNAT.

Outcome
Appeal dismissed on merits

OAJ prepared this case law summary for informational purposes only. It is no official record and should not be relied upon as an authoritative interpretation of the Tribunals' rulings. For the authoritative texts, please refer to the judgment or order rendered by the respective Tribunal. The Tribunals are the only bodies competent to interpret their respective judgments, as provided under Article 12(3) of the UNDT Statute and Article 11(3) of the UNAT Statute. Any inaccuracies in the publication are the sole responsibility of OAJ, which should be contacted directly for any correction requests. To provide comments, don't hesitate to get in touch with OAJ at oaj@un.org.

The judgment summaries were generally prepared in English. They were translated into French and are being reviewed for accuracy of the translation.

Applicants/ Appellants
Azzouz
Entity
Case Number(s)
Tribunal
Registry Location :
Date of Judgment
Language of Judgment
Issuance Type