2022-UNAT-1286, Raed Mousa

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

Mr. Mousa appealed. As regards Mr. Mousa’s request for an oral hearing, the UNAT held that he did not provide a compelling reason why an oral hearing should be granted in this appeal.  As the case deals with the issue of receivability ratione materiae, an oral hearing is not necessary and would not “assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case” within the meaning of Article 18(1) of the UNAT’s Rules of Procedure. The UNAT also found that Mr. Mousa’s appeal did not refer to any of the grounds of appeal mentioned in Article 2(1) of the UNAT Statute.  The only submission regarding the relevant issue of receivability is his complaint that the UNRWA DT did not consider or rejected important evidence contained in certain annexes of his appeal. However, neither his submission nor the annexes of the appeal show any errors in the UNRWA DT’s Judgment.  In addition, the UNAT noted that the UNRWA DT had correctly found that pursuant to Area Staff Rule 111.2, a request for decision review against the contested decision must be submitted prior to filing an application to the Dispute Tribunal. On appeal, Mr. Mousa does not show that, contrary to the UNRWA DT’s findings, he fulfilled this requirement. The UNAT held that Mr. Mousa had not demonstrated exceptional circumstances warranting the admission of additional evidence on appeal nor had he sought leave to present such additional evidence as he was required to do in terms of Article 2(5) of the UNAT Statute.  The evidence is not admissible on appeal. The UNAT dismissed Mr. Mousa’s appeal and affirmed Judgment No. UNRWA/DT/2021/037.

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

Mr. Mousa challenged the Commissioner-General’s implied decision not to investigate his allegations of misconduct reported through the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS), as not receivable. By its Judgment UNRWA/DT/2021/037 of 19 August 2021, the UNRWA DT dismissed Mr. Mousa’s application.

Legal Principle(s)

The judges hearing a case may hold oral hearings on the written application of a party or on their own initiative if such hearings would assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. An application is only receivable when a staff member has previously submitted the impugned administrative decision for decision review.

Outcome
Appeal dismissed on merits

OAJ prepared this case law summary for informational purposes only. It is no official record and should not be relied upon as an authoritative interpretation of the Tribunals' rulings. For the authoritative texts, please refer to the judgment or order rendered by the respective Tribunal. The Tribunals are the only bodies competent to interpret their respective judgments, as provided under Article 12(3) of the UNDT Statute and Article 11(3) of the UNAT Statute. Any inaccuracies in the publication are the sole responsibility of OAJ, which should be contacted directly for any correction requests. To provide comments, don't hesitate to get in touch with OAJ at oaj@un.org.

The judgment summaries were generally prepared in English. They were translated into French and are being reviewed for accuracy of the translation.

Applicants/ Appellants
Raed Mousa
Entity
Case Number(s)
Tribunal
Registry Location :
Date of Judgment
Judge(s)
Language of Judgment
Issuance Type