51ÁÔÆæ

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 whether UNRWA DT erred in finding that the Agency correctly decided not to transfer the Appellant to the post in question. UNAT held that the issue of whether the Agency has an obligation to contact all staff members who made a transfer request is not receivable because it was not raised before UNRWA DT. UNAT held that the Appellant¡¯s complaint required factual findings in order to ascertain whether the claim was meritorious, and UNRWA DT did not make such findings. UNAT upheld the appeal, vacated UNRWA/DT/2018/026, and remanded the issue of whether the Administration fulfilled...

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 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 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 an appeal by the Commissioner-General. UNAT held that the Commissioner-General¡¯s appeal was not time-barred and was, therefore, receivable. UNAT found that no request for compensation for loss of earnings (salary) had been made. Accordingly, UNAT held that UNRWA DT did not have jurisdiction to award compensation for loss of earnings. UNAT held that any financial loss appears to be generated as the main cause and directly by the Director of UNRWA Affairs, Lebanon¡¯s (DUA/L) decision to cancel the secondment and that this decision was found to be lawful by the UNRWA DT and that...

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 referred to Article 2(1) of the UNAT Statute and held that the Appellant did not show any errors in the UNRWA DT judgment and her claims on appeal could not succeed. UNAT further found no fault in UNRWA DT¡¯s finding that there was no retaliation against the Appellant and that UNRWA DT did not err on a question of law or fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision, nor did it commit an error in procedure, such as to affect the decision of the case. UNAT noted that it was within the discretion of the Agency to close the case against the PMO and that the Agency has no authority to...

UNAT considered the Appellant¡¯s appeal, requesting that the UNRWA DT judgment be vacated. UNAT agreed with UNRWA DT and upheld its findings that the Agency was entitled, under the provisions of paragraph 2 of FTI 01/2016, to fill the concerned post by means of a lateral transfer of current staff members. UNAT also agreed with, and upheld, the ruling that it was not within the remit of UNRWA DT to pronounce on the exercise of the Agency¡¯s discretion in deciding on the lateral transfers unless there is evidence that the discretion was exercised arbitrarily or unlawfully. UNAT found that there...

UNAT considered the appeal. UNAT noted that the appeal was defective because the Appellant failed to identify any of the five grounds of appeal set out in Article 2.1 as forming the legal basis of his appeal. UNAT found that he had not complied with his statutory obligation as an appellant, in that nothing that he pleaded was capable of demonstrating that UNRWA DT committed an error of fact or law warranting intervention by UNAT. UNAT also found that the Appellant failed to demonstrate any error in UNRWA DT¡¯s finding and had not provided any evidence in support of his claims that the Agency¡¯s...