2015-UNAT-579, Achkar
UNAT held that the Appellant failed to identify the grounds for his appeal and thus, the appeal was defective. UNAT inferred that the Appellant claimed UNRWA DT failed to exercise its jurisdiction. UNAT held that the legal conclusion of UNDT that the application before it was not receivable was unassailable. UNAT held that UNRWA DT did not err when it did not discuss whether the case was an exceptional case for extending, waiving, or suspending the deadline for the filing of the application. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNRWA DT judgment.
UNRWA DT judgment: The Applicant filed an application before UNRWA DT seeking monetary damages in the amount of USD 3 million for having been denied employment for the preceding ten years and for the alleged threats made against him when he travelled to and from Gaza in 2002. UNRWA DT summarily dismissed the application on the ground that it was not filed in a timely manner and therefore was not receivable.
An appellant has the burden of satisfying UNAT that the judgment being appealed is defective; he or she must identify the alleged defects in the judgment and state the grounds relied upon in asserting that the judgment is defective.