51ÁÔÆæ

The staff member submits that the ¡°decisive fact¡± which was unknown to him and to the Appeals Tribunal was the erroneous interpretation and application from case to case of Article 10(5) of the UNRWA DT Statute, Regulation 11.3 of the UNRWA International Staff Regulations and Article 9(1)(a) of the UNAT Statute. UNAT disagreed that a variance in the interpretation or application of the law from case to case constitute a ¡°decisive fact¡± that would warrant revision. The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that it did not meet the statutory requirements and that it was in fact a disguised...

UNAT held that UNRWA DT erred in law or in failing to take into account in that calculation the probable length of Mr Dabbour¡¯s tenure in that role which was known to have been of a fixed duration of three years. UNAT held that, although the UNRWA DT in Mr Dabbour¡¯s case had recorded its conclusions on some of these considerations, it did not do so at all in respect of others making it difficult, if not impossible, to ascertain objectively how it reached the apparently modest figure of compensation in lieu of recission of USD 1,000. UNAT held that there was nothing to indicate why UNRWA DT did...

UNAT disagreed with UNRWA DT and found the supervisor¡¯s request to the Agency to grant the staff member a special allowance also constituted an implicit request from the staff member himself. UNAT reasoned that not only did the supervisor act upon the express request of the staff member when he sent the recommendation to the Agency, but it was also apparent and self-understood that both the staff member and the supervisor were a party to the process. Additionally, in this particular case, it is the staff member who followed up with the Agency regarding the status of the supervisor¡¯s request...

UNAT agreed with UNRWA DT that the Agency is estopped from revisiting the determination of whether the injury was service-related, given that the Agency had made several representations to the staff member over a period of time, and which the staff member had relied upon. However, UNAT disagreed that granting reimbursement for medical expenses in Syria would automatically mean that the Agency would also pay for such expenses in Germany. Pursuant to Area Staff Rule 106.4(3), the staff member needed prior authorization before he could be reimbursed for the costs of medical treatment in hospitals...

UNAT held that the staff member¡¯s appeal was defective because she did not specify which errors were committed by UNRWA DT in arriving at its Judgment. However, given that the staff member was not legally represented, UNAT went on to review the merits of the appeal. UNAT held that UNRWA DT did not err when it held that the staff member did not have any right to be appointed and that the recommendation from the HR Head did not mature into an enforceable right. Second, UNAT held that there was no entitlement to receive overtime pay since overtime must be authorized in advance and duly recorded...

From the pleadings of the Applicant, it is clear that at the time of the contested decision he was a staff member of UNRWA. This entity does not fall under the jurisdiction of the UNDT. At the time the cause of action arose, the Applicant would probably have been entitled to pursue any claim he might have had against UNRWA before the former UN Administrative Tribunal. Since the cause of action arose in UNRWA, the element of ratione materiae of the UNDT is not satisfied because the Applicant should have filed his application against the Commissioner General as the Chief Executive Officer of...

Receivability - At the time of the contested decision, the Applicant was a staff member of UNRWA. This entity does not fall under the jurisdiction of the UNDT nor does the Applicant fulfil the requirements of arts. 2.1(a) and 3 of the Statute of the UNDT. He therefore has no locus standi to challenge a decision of the Respondent before this Tribunal..

The Tribunal dismissed the application as not receivable. The Tribunal found that the Applicant was a staff member of UNRWA and contested a decision that was taken by that agency. UNRWA did not fall under the jurisdiction of the UNDT nor did the Applicant fulfil the requirements of arts. 2.1(a) and 3 of the Statute of the UNDT. He therefore had no locus standi to challenge a decision of UNRWA before the Tribunal.