�山����

UNAT considered the appeal of the consolidated applications. With respect to the first issue, UNAT found no error in UNRWA DT’s conclusion that the Appellant had failed to establish that the decision not to confirm his appointment as TDSE Advisor and to transfer him to his previous post was unlawful. UNAT noted that there was no merit in the Appellant’s contention that UNRWA DT failed to examine the relevant facts and to apply legal and regulatory provisions to his performance evaluations during his probationary period. UNDT also noted that the review of the Appellant’s performance assessments revealed that his probationary service was not satisfactory, and that past professional experience is not relevant to the requirement of satisfactory performance during the probationary period. With respect to the second issue, UNAT found that UNRWA DT was also correct in deciding that the Appellant failed to establish that the decision to close his complaint of prohibited conduct was unlawful. UNAT agreed with UNRWA DT’s holding that the decision to close the Appellant’s complaint by a managerial intervention was effective and not manifestly unreasonable. UNAT also noted that the Appellant claimed that there were some other issues UNRWA DT failed to address, but that it was not necessary to address each and every claim, especially when it has no merit. UNAT held that UNRWA DT considered all evidence relevant to the issues before it and that the judgment was thorough, well-reasoned, and fair. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed UNRWA DT’s judgment.