51ÁÔÆæ

UNAT considered the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing and claims for moral damages and reinstatement. UNAT held that the factual and legal issues arising from the appeal have already been clearly defined by the parties and did not find that an oral hearing would ¡°assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. ¡± To that end, UNAT denied the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing. UNAT found no fault with UNRWA DT¡¯s conclusion that it was highly probable that the Appellant had a leadership role in the armed clashes of 18 June 2015. UNAT held that there was no evidence to suggest...

UNAT considered the Appellant¡¯s Motion for Leave to Submit Additional Evidence, his appeal, and the Commissioner-General's cross-appeal. UNAT found that the Applicant did not demonstrate any exceptional circumstances that would justify the filing of any additional documentary evidence and denied his motion. UNAT held that the claim in Appellant¡¯s Appeal was not initially brought before UNRWA DT and could not be introduced for the first time before UNAT. UNAT held that the Commissioner-General's cross-appeal was entirely without merit and that UNRWA DT was correct to find that the irregularity...

UNAT considered the content of the Appellant¡¯s appeal, the UNRWA DT judgment, and the Appellant¡¯s request for compensation for material and moral damages and costs. UNAT found that the Appellant¡¯s appeal was defective in that it failed to identify any of the five grounds of appeal set out in Article 2(1) of the Statute as forming the legal basis of his appeal. UNAT also held that there was no error in the UNRWA DT¡¯s findings that the Administration¡¯s decision not to confirm the Appellant¡¯s appointment was solely based on his performance and that his allegations of harassment and discrimination...

UNAT considered the appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal was in direct conflict with his submissions to UNDT. While the Secretary-General acknowledged procedural irregularities by the Hiring Manager to UNDT, in his appeal he argued that no irregularities happened in removing the Applicant¡¯s name from the list and that the Hiring Manager was entitled to exercise her discretion and correct her mistakes after further assessing the candidate¡¯s qualifications. UNAT held that no evidence was presented to UNDT of a second assessment by the Hiring Manager or...

UNAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing. UNAT held that UNRWA DT did not commit an error of procedure such as to affect the decision of the case by failing to order the Agency to allow the participation of the Appellant representative in the oral hearing or by failing to accommodate the latter¡¯s employment situation. UNAT held that UNRWA DT did not err on a question of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision when it determined that the Head of Education Department (H/ED) had not received the Appellant¡¯s request for SLWOP and, consequently, that there had not...

UNAT considered the Appellant¡¯s motion for leave to file additional pleadings and the appeal. UNAT noted that neither the UNAT Statute nor the UNAT RoP provide for an appellant to file an additional pleading after the respondent has filed an answer. UNAT also noted that Article 31(1) of the RoP and Section II. A. 3 of Practice Direction No. 1 of the Appeals Tribunal allow the Appeals Tribunal to grant a party¡¯s motion to file additional pleadings only if there are exceptional circumstances justifying the motion. UNAT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate any exceptional circumstances...

UNAT considered the Appellant¡¯s appeal. UNAT considered the criteria set out in Article 2 of the UNAT Statute to determine whether any alleged errors of law and fact resulted in a manifestly unreasonable decision. UNAT found that there was no evidence that the decision to abolish the post encumbered by the Appellant was unlawful. UNAT also found that UNRWA DT¡¯s decision was correctly based on the applicable law and available evidence. To that end, UNAT held that the Appellant failed to establish that the UNRWA DT committed any error, whether of law, fact, or procedure. UNAT further noted that...

UNAT considered the Appellant¡¯s appeal. As a preliminary matter, UNAT refused the Appellant¡¯s Motion for Leave to File Additional Pleadings. UNAT referred to Article 3(1) of the RoP and Section II. A. 3 of Practice Decision No. 1 of the Appeals Tribunal, which provides that it may grant such a motion only if there are exceptional circumstances. UNAT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate any exceptional circumstances in the present case. UNAT also referred to the transitional measures provided by General Assembly Resolution 63/253 and Article 2(7) of the UNDT Statute, which notes that...

The only issue in contention in this appeal is whether the UNDT erred on a question of law or fact when it found that the harm to the Appellant was sufficiently evidenced to justify an award of compensation for moral damages. UNAT found that UNDT based the award of compensation for harm both on the evidence produced by the individual and what it described as ¡°pre-existing distress that the individual was already suffering from¡± which ¡°was exacerbated by the unlawful decision to refuse his request¡± to investigate the allegations of discrimination. UNDT was to determine whether Mr. Kebede...

UNAT held that the Appellant did not present sufficient evidence to support his claim and demonstrate any incapacity during the relevant time frame. UNAT was satisfied that the AJAB had considered all relevant evidence to the issues. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the ICAO Secretary-General.