Ãå±±½ûµØ

UNAT held that the determination of the Director of the Ethics Office that no retaliation had occurred constituted an administrative decision that went directly to the merits of the case and could not be subject to an interlocutory appeal. UNAT held that the appeal against the UNRWA DT order for production of document was not receivable, because it was interrelated to the alleged lack of jurisdiction. Noting that the Appellant would not be able to raise his issues in an appeal against the final judgment, as he did not file an application to UNRWA DT and UNRWA DT had not issued a judgment, UNAT exceptionally allowed and received the Appellant’s appeal. However, on the merits, UNAT held that the Appellant failed to show that UNRWA DT committed legal, factual or other errors. With regard to the Appellant’s argument that he needed to be provided with certain documents and UNRWA DT’s finding that this could not be considered an exceptional circumstance, UNAT held that the Appellant provided no reasons why he did not file an application without those documents, nor was it clear why it would not have been possible for him to do so. UNAT held that it was clear from article 13(3) of the UNRWA DT Rules of Procedure that a staff member must first file an application, and only then can he or she request UNRWA DT to order the production of evidence in possession of the Commissioner-General. On the issue of the Appellant’s complaint that UNRWA DT only translated parts of his motion into English, UNAT held that UNRWA DT had no obligation to translate the full text or to invite the Appellant to provide an English translation. UNAT held that the Appellant did not respect the formal requirements for motions when he exceeded the maximum page limit. UNAT held that, having reviewed the motion, UNRWA DT had no reason to assume that the motion could contain exceptional circumstances other than the production of evidence in the possession of the Commissioner-General. UNAT held that the Appellant had not manifestly abused the appeals process. UNAT dismissed the appeal and the application to award costs.