UNAT considered two applications, one for correction and one for revision, relating to judgment No. 2013-UNAT-363. UNAT held that Mr Chaaban failed to show any clerical or arithmetical mistake to justify the correction of the judgment. UNAT held that Mr Chaaban failed to identify any decisive fact unknown at the time of the judgment to warrant its revision. UNAT dismissed both applications.
UNAT held that the Appellant did not indicate any errors on the part of UNRWA DT that would require a reversal of its judgment. UNAT held that there was no error in UNRWA DT’s finding. UNAT held that the Appellant did not comply with the filing deadlines. UNAT held that UNRWA DT did not commit any error when it determined that the application before it was not receivable as it was time-barred. UNAT dismissed the appeal.
UNAT held that both the ASC and APD bestow discretion on the Agency to pay an AAA. UNAT held that the two instruments, the ASC and the APD, were easily reconcilable. UNAT held that the ASC deals with the specific situation where an Area staff member acts in an International professional post, while the ADP deals with all other cases of acting appointments. UNAT held that there was no manifest intention or inevitable construction that the Agency intended to abrogate the specific policy in the ASC. UNAT held that UNRWA DT was correct in its finding that the ASC had not been implicitly abrogated...
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 considered whether the Appellant filed his appeal within the applicable time limit. UNAT noted that the 60-day time limit to file an appeal expired on 11 April 2016 and the Appellant filed his appeal on 12 April 2016. UNAT held that the appeal was time-barred and that the Appellant did not request a waiver or extension of the deadline from UNAT. UNAT accordingly did not need to address the Appellant’s motion to submit additional evidence. Moreover, UNAT did not find any fault with UNRWA DT’s holding, as it was clear that the Appellant did not meet the criteria for selection, and it was...
UNAT considered the Appellant’s appeals. UNAT did not find merit in the Appellant’s claims that UNRWA DT erred on questions of law and procedure by finding that the security situation and safety of staff was considered by the Administration based on the United Nations regulations concerning the safety of its staff members. UNAT held that the Appellants failed to demonstrate any errors in UNRWA DT’s finding that the Administration’s decision to assess and terminate their service resulted from a valid exercise of the discretionary power of the Administration and was not tainted by improper...
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 considered the Appellant’s appeal of both UNRWA DT decisions. UNAT noted that UNRWA DT gave full consideration to the Appellant’s claim that the transfer was a disguised disciplinary measure following allegations of her corporal punishment of students. UNAT noted that there was evidence that, prior to her transfer, the Chief, Field Education Programme had dismissed these allegations as unsubstantiated and it was not until almost two months after the transfer that the Jordan Field Office authorised an investigation. UNAT held that UNRWA DT therefore correctly concluded that the Appellant’s...
UNAT considered both of the Appellant’s cases in their judgment. UNAT held that it was not persuaded that UNRWA DT erred in deciding that the decision to close the cases arising from the Appellant’s complaints was lawful. UNAT noted that UNRWA DT’s decision was justified based on careful consideration of the Appellant’s arguments and evidence gathered during the investigation. However, UNAT held that the characterization of the decision to terminate the Appellant’s fixed-term appointment as a disciplinary measure tainted the process to such a significant degree that it rendered the decision...
UNAT considered whether UNRWA DT erred on a question of law and fact and whether its decision to dismiss the Appellant’s application was flawed by procedural irregularities. UNAT held that the Appellant failed to identify the apparent error of fact in the judgment and the basis for contending that an error was made, merely repeating arguments that did not succeed before UNRWA DT. The Appellant’s decision to sign the contract was binding on him as there was no evidence of duress. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed UNRWA DT’s judgment.
