2023-UNAT-1387

2023-UNAT-1387, Mazin Ismail Sadieh

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

The UNAT considered an appeal by the staff member.

The UNAT found that the staff member did not cite any provision of Article 2(1) of the UNAT Statute and did not indicate whether any errors by the UNRWA DT in his case related to its jurisdiction, the procedure, a question of law or a question of fact. The UNAT held that the appeal was defective and consequently not receivable.

The UNAT, nevertheless, reiterated its jurisprudence on some of the issues raised, and agreed with the way the UNRWA DT had determined the amount of in-lieu compensation. The UNAT also agreed with the UNRWA DT’s analysis that a claim for compensation for moral damage had to be supported by evidence establishing a causal link between the contested decision and the moral damage alleged. Given the UNRWA DT’s finding that the staff member’s medical report was silent regarding the cause of his medical condition and that there was only his own testimony on the cause of his moral damage, the UNAT further agreed with the UNRWA DT’s conclusion that the staff member had failed to discharge his burden of proof.

The UNAT dismissed the appeal.

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

A staff member contested the decision to cancel his invitation to an interview.

In Judgment No. UNRWA/DT/2022/042, the UNRWA DT rescinded the contested decision, ordered compensation in lieu of rescission in the amount of JOD 100, and declined to award compensation for moral damage. It found that as the Commissioner-General admitted the shortcomings in the recruitment process, it did not need to address the merits of the non-selection and held that the contested decision was not lawfully taken. The UNRWA DT considered the salary difference between the two posts and a high chance of selection.

Legal Principle(s)

The UNAT has the discretion to determine whether to hold an oral hearing or not with the aim to deal with the case efficiently and fairly.

An appeal brief must articulate the aspects in which the lower Tribunal acted in excess of its competence, failed to exercise its jurisdiction, or committed an error of fact or law or error in procedure.

Upon an order of rescission or specific performance, the UNRWA DT is obliged to set an amount as compensation in lieu of rescission which the Commissioner-General may elect to pay.

A claim for compensation for moral damage must be supported by evidence which must establish a causal link between the contested decision and the moral damage alleged. The onus to do so is on the claimant.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed on receivability

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.

Full Judgment

Applicants/ Appellants

Mazin Ismail Sadieh

Entity

UNRWA

Case Number(s)

2022-1745

Tribunal

UNAT

Registry Location :

New York