51ÁÔÆæ

UNAT considered the appeal, specifically whether UNRWA DT erred by dismissing the staff members¡¯ motions to adduce supplemental evidence on the grounds of receivability, and whether UNRWA DT erred by finding that the final contested decision was taken on 3 August 2014. UNAT found that Abu Malluh et al. acted with due diligence in the proceedings before UNRWA DT and further demonstrated that the supplemental evidence they sought to have admitted would have led to different findings of fact and changed the outcome of the case. UNAT noted that while UNRWA DT has broad discretion to determine the...

UNAT dismissed the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing prior to consideration of the appeal. UNAT also rejected the Appellant's claim that UNRWA DT was biased in ordering that the five applications be consolidated into a single judgment. With respect to the appeal itself, UNAT held that the appeal of the decisions denying disability benefits and finding the non-payment of termination claim not receivable, had no legal basis. Regarding the Appellant¡¯s challenge to the Commissioner-General¡¯s decision to render the findings of the medical board moot and not to pay him a disability benefit...

UNAT preliminarily denied the request for an oral argument and then considered the merits of the appeal. UNAT found that the requirements of Article 2(1) of the UNAT Statute were not fulfilled in the Appellant¡¯s case as UNDT did not commit an error of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. UNAT noted that the evidence showed that the Administration was involved in a process of revision of activities in Iraq, rationalizing of staff, realignment of functions, and reduction of budget. These administrative activities led to the redeployment of the post encumbered by the Appellant...

UNAT preliminary denied the Appellant¡¯s motions for leave to respond to the answer to the appeal and his request for production of documents and evidence, on grounds that there were no exceptional circumstances. UNAT then considered the merits of the appeal. UNAT affirmed UNDT¡¯s decision that the investigation was not ultra vires. Whilst the Special Representative of the Secretary-General did not initiate the investigation, the nature of Chief Conduct and Discipline Team duties gave him authority to refer the matter to SIU for investigation. Even if the initiation of the investigation gave...

UNAT denied the Appellant¡¯s motion for additional pleadings because he did not demonstrate the existence of exceptional circumstances. UNAT also found no fault with UNDT¡¯s holding that the decision to relocate the Appellant was lawful. UNAT noted that an accepted method for determining whether the reassignment of a staff member to another position was proper is to assess whether the new post was at the staff member¡¯s grade; whether the responsibilities involved corresponded to his or her level; whether the functions to be performed were commensurate with the staff member¡¯s competence and...

UNAT held that the motion did not fulfil the requirements of Article 11 of the UNAT Statute, which provides that a revision must be based on the discovery of a decisive fact which was, at the time the judgment was rendered, unknown to UNAT and to the party applying for revision, always provided that such ignorance was not due to negligence. The Applicants were relying on Article 31. 1 of the RoP and not on Article 11 of the UNAT Statute. UNAT held that a rule could not supplant a statutory provision such as Article 11 and that Article 31. 1 only applied where there is no other expressly...

UNAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing and production of documents, to substantiate his claims of bias and discrimination against him, finding that a complaint of bias and discrimination was not receivable as it consisted of a series of past issues in respect of which he should have sought redress at the appropriate time. UNAT stressed that it was not the task of the JAB or UNAT to conduct a fresh investigation. UNAT rejected the motion for submission of additional documentation, finding no need for further evidence pursuant to Article 10. 1 of the UNAT RoP and no...

UNAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding that the factual and legal issues arising from the appeal had already been clearly defined by the parties and there was no need for further clarification. UNAT rejected the motion to file additional pleadings and evidence since the Appellant had failed to demonstrate the existence of any exceptional circumstances that justified the need to file additional pleadings or to submit additional evidence. UNAT held that the motion only presented factual and legal contentions that reiterated arguments made in the appeal brief. UNAT further held...

UNAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding that the appeal had been clearly defined and that there was no need for further clarification. UNAT rejected the motion to file additional pleadings and additional evidence since the Appellant had failed to demonstrate any existence of exceptional circumstances that justified the need to file additional pleadings or to submit additional evidence. UNAT held that the motion only presented factual and legal contentions that reiterated arguments made in the appeal brief. UNAT further held that the Appellant had failed in his grounds of appeal...

UNAT rejected the request for an oral hearing, finding that it was not necessary or would assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. With regards to the motion to extend the Appellant¡¯s rights as a staff member, UNAT held that there were no exceptional circumstances that would warrant the granting of the motion and the motion was essentially an attempt to supplement arguments already made in the appeal submissions. With regards to the motion to have UNAT remove immunity from certain staff members should her appeal fail, UNAT held that the motion was entirely misconceived, as such...