51ÁÔÆæ

UNAT held that UNRWA DT correctly found that the application was not receivable to the extent that it contested decisions taken. UNAT upheld the UNRWA DT¡¯s findings that the provisions in the GMIP were mandatory for the UNRWA, that the GMIP does not include a provision with respect to retroactivity, and that UNRWA has no discretionary authority to enrol former staff members if this is not allowed in the contract. UNAT held that the GMIP could not apply outside of its scope of application. UNAT held that there was no evidence that UNRWA DT erred on the law or the facts, and that the Appellant¡¯s...

Having decided that an oral hearing would not ¡°assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case,¡± as required by Article 18(1) of the RoP, UNAT denied the Applicants¡¯ request for one. UNAT also decided that the Appellants could not introduce additional evidence since that evidence had not been presented before UNRWA DT and no application had been made to UNAT to be allowed to submit that evidence on appeal. UNAT noted that an appeal is not receivable where an Applicant bypassed the jurisdiction of the first instance Judge, by directly lodging an appeal with the Appeals Tribunal against...

UNAT held that UNDT erred by excluding periods of temporary service from the calculation of consecutive service, as required by Staff Rule 3. 13(a)(iii). UNAT upheld the appeal, vacated and modified the UNDT judgment by rescinding the contested decision, and directed the Secretary-General to make a decision in accordance with former Staff Rule 3. 13(b) in relation to the Appellant¡¯s application for mobility allowance.

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that there was no sufficient evidence before UNDT to justify its findings of ¡°moral injury¡±. UNAT held that UNDT erred when it awarded compensation on a claim of ¡°moral injury¡± without the support of evidence, apart from the testimony of the Appellant. UNAT upheld the appeal and vacated the UNDT judgment regarding the award of compensation for moral harm.

UNAT considered the Secretary-General's appeal, specifically as to whether UNRWA DT¡¯s decision to award special allowances for extra duties performed and compensation for moral damages was an error in law or fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. With respect to the allowance for extra duties, UNAT noted that it is settled in its jurisprudence that the Agency has discretionary powers to pay the special allowances, which must be exercised reasonably in accordance with their substantive legal requirements. UNAT held that there was no room for UNRWA DT to substitute its decision...

UNAT considered the appeal and held that UNRWA DT¡¯s judgment was correct. UNAT found that UNRWA DT did not err in holding that the Agency¡¯s decision to deny the Appellant a fifth year of SLWOP was both lawful and reasonable. Further, UNAT held that the Appellant did not establish any grounds of appeal in this regard. UNAT also reiterated that the Appellant did not have an unconditional right to EVR and that the Agency had duly considered his request in accordance with the UNRWA Area Staff Rules and other relevant administrative issuances. UNAT also held that UNRWA DT rightly rejected the...

UNAT found that the appeal raised significant questions of law about the power of the Organisation to unilaterally alter or reduce the compensation of staff members of the Organisation. For that reason, the President of UNAT in terms of Article 10(2) of the UNAT Statute elected to refer the appeal for consideration by the full bench of UNAT. UNAT recalled that an administrative decision is a unilateral decision of an administrative nature taken by the administration involving the exercise of a power or the performance of a function in terms of a statutory instrument, which adversely affects...

UNAT held that the Appellant had failed to make a request for correction of her current contract. UNAT held that it could not step outside its statutory remit and examine the merits of the Appellant¡¯s claim for payments under her current contract when she had made no request for a review regarding it. UNAT held that JAB did not err in finding the Appellant¡¯s claims of 30 December 2015 for revision of her step level under the previous contract as not receivable since the Appellant submitted her request more than a year from the date on which she received her first salary or ¡°initial payment¡±...

The UNRWA Commissioner-General appealed. UNAT held that the decisions not to grant Mr Abu Lehia sick leave for the specific time periods (28 March to 3 April 2016, 4 April to 17 May 2016, and 18 May 2016 to 7 June 2016) were not reasonable, given the specific factual circumstances of the case at hand and that these decisions were not a valid exercise of the Agency¡¯s discretion. UNAT affirmed UNRWA DT¡¯s findings and conclusions about illegality. UNAT held that the Commissioner-General failed to demonstrate any error in the UNRWA DT¡¯s finding that the Agency¡¯s decision not to grant Mr Abu Lehia...

UNAT held that the UNRWA DT¡¯s finding that, while ASC No. A/04/2010 did not provide a right to Mr Abusondous to receive an AAA, he did have an expectation that the Agency would ¡°properly exercise its discretion to grant an AAA and [would] be fair in its dealings with him¡±, was correct. UNAT found no fault with the reasoning that the Agency¡¯s justification of the decision not to appoint Mr Abusondous as Officer-in-Charge and not to grant him an AAA, namely that the Agency would not have been able to meet the 120-day maximum period to fill the vacancy, was not a reasonable ground for the denial...