Ãå±±½ûµØ

UNAT held that the JAB did not err in limiting the scope of the Appellant’s application to the written reprimand, as the various other allegations raised were not the subject of a request for administrative review, and were therefore not receivable, and UNAT dismissed those grounds of appeal. UNAT held that the Appellant failed to establish any errors of fact that resulted in a manifestly unreasonable decision on the part of the JAB and dismissed that ground of appeal. UNAT held that the Appellant’s submission that the JAB may have been unduly influenced by the presence of the Registrar’s legal advisor on the panel had no merit and dismissed this ground of appeal. Noting that the Registrar had followed the JAB’s recommendation to inform the Chairmen of the two committees that the administrative decision pertaining to the reprimand had been erroneously copied to them and asking them to remove it from their official files, UNAT held that the circulation of the letter of reprimand did not warrant an award of damages. UNAT held that there was no error on questions of law and fact that resulted in a manifestly unreasonable decision. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the Registrar of ITLOS to accept the recommendation of the JAB.