2019-UNAT-905, Ghusoub
UNAT rejected the UNRWA Commissioner-General's submission that the appeal was defective because it failed to identify any of the grounds of appeal prescribed by Article 2(1) of the UNAT Statute. UNAT held that the Appellant’s ground of appeal was without merit. UNAT held that the Commissioner-General was obliged to calculate the Appellant’s retirement benefits in accordance with the new Staff Rule and did so correctly. UNAT held that UNRWA DT did not commit any error of fact and law in arriving at its decision. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNRWA DT judgment.
The Applicant contested the decision to calculate her retirement benefits according to the Occupational Health Salary Scale. UNRWA DT found that UNRWA correctly applied the rules applicable at the material time of her recruitment. UNRWA DT further held that it was not entitled to examine the UNRWA Commissioner-General’s authority in issuing Regulations and Rules and that the only way for an applicant to successfully challenge a UNRWA regulation or rule was to establish that the rule was in conflict with a higher principle established by the UN. UNRWA dismissed the application.
In the interests of justice, it is appropriate for UNAT to make allowances for the fact that a staff member is not legally represented in its assessment of whether he or she has properly identified any grounds of appeal.