2014-UNAT-434

2014-UNAT-434, Beqai

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

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, that the Appellant was aware that any extension of his fixed-term appointment as a dental surgeon was contingent upon the post of another doctor being extended. UNAT held that UNRWA DT did not err when it rejected the Appellant’s contention that he was unaware that the half post he held was the post of another. UNAT held that UNRWA DT had correctly found no basis for the Appellant’s allegation that he had been asked to pay a bribe. UNAT held that the Appellant failed to substantiate his claim of unlawful termination of a fixed-term appointment on the ground of improper motive or conduct. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNRWA DT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

UNRWA DT Judgment: The Applicant contested the decision to separate him from service as a consequence of the suspension of the Mobile Dental Unit project, for Beirut and the North, which resulted in the return of those regular staff who were assigned to the project effective 1 June 2010. UNRWA DT issued Judgment No. UNRWA/DT/2013/012, finding the case receivable, and holding that the Applicant had not provided a shred of evidence to support this very serious allegation and recalling that the making of a bold assertion and/or allegation unsupported by any direct or even circumstantial evidence is unacceptable. UNRWA DT dismissed the application.

Legal Principle(s)

A party appealing a Judgment of UNDT is unlikely to succeed in having the Judgment reversed, modified or the case remanded to UNDT unless the appeal challenges the impugned Judgment on one or more of the grounds referred to in Article 2.1 (a) to (e), of the UNAT Statute.

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.

Full Judgment

Applicants/ Appellants

Beqai

Entity

UNRWA

Case Number(s)

2013-496

Tribunal

UNAT

Registry Location :

New York