UNAT noted that the staff members had accepted the lump-sum calculated by the ICTY travel unit while reiterating their disagreement with the calculation. UNAT held that UNDT erred in finding that by accepting a lump-sum payment for home leave travel, the staff members forfeited any right to contest the calculation of the amount of the lump sum payment. UNAT remanded the case to UNDT for consideration on the merits.
UNAT preliminarily rejected the Appellant’s request for an oral hearing via teleconference, noting that his brief of appeal was sufficient and did not require further clarification. UNAT held that the Appellant’s contention that UNDT failed to consider his arguments regarding the former service on a “specialist” post was without merit, noting that this issue was considered by UNDT. UNAT noted that neither UNDT nor UNAT has the authority to amend any regulation or rule of the Organisation, so as to apply the “case by case” consideration to “specialist” staff members during promotion sessions to...
UNAT dismissed the appeal as time-barred.
In considering the appeal brought forth by the Appellant, UNAT preliminarily held that the UNRWA JAB erred in finding that the appeal was not receivable due to late filing; UNAT held that it was evident the JAB appeal was filed on time. With regard to the substance of the appeal, UNAT held that it was within UNRWA’s power and discretion to refuse the Appellant’s reinstatement since it had already filled his position. UNAT affirmed UNRWA’s position that there was no error in refusing the Appellant’s reinstatement and dismissed the appeal.
UNAT considered whether the Commissioner-General erred in adopting the JAB’s recommendation not to accept the Appellant’s withdrawal letter and whether the Appellant was entitled to compensation for moral and material damages. UNAT referred to Jordan Field Staff Circular No. J/17/97, which provides that withdrawal of resignations will normally not be accepted unless it is evident that such withdrawal is in the sole interest of the work. UNAT noted that the evidence on record revealed that the Appellant’s services were unsatisfactory. UNAT held that the Appellant provided no evidence of...
UNAT held that (1) the Commissioner-General has broad discretionary authority in disciplinary matters; (2) the facts on which the Appellant’s termination was based were established; (3) the established facts legally amounted to serious misconduct; and (4) there was no substantive or procedural irregularity. UNAT further held that the Appellant’s termination was legal and not disproportionate to the offenses. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNRWA decision.
UNAT held that the appeal was time-barred and, therefore, not receivable. However, UNAT noted that, even if the appeal was receivable, there did not appear to be valid grounds for contesting the decision to withdraw the offer of appointment or for requesting compensation for loss of earnings. UNAT also noted that the request for the removal of the defense brief from the file, as it contained information relating to the informal dispute resolution process, could have been taken into consideration since Article 15 of the UNAT RoP provides that such information shall remain confidential and never...
UNAT considered an application for “reconsideration” of Judgment No. 2010-UNAT-029bis. UNAT noted that its judgments are final and not subject to appeal except under Article 11 of its Statute, relating to the procedures for revision and correction of material errors and that no appeal against res judicata is admissible. UNAT held that the application was an appeal against res judicata and, as such, was inadmissible. Noting that Ms. El-Khatib’s appeal was dismissed as non-receivable and without merit, UNAT held that the application for “reconsideration” constituted an abuse of the appeals...
UNAT held that there were exceptional circumstances in this case that required a waiver of the time limit, with respect to A/RES/63/253. UNAT held that the JAB showed inconsistency in its treatment of the cases of Tabari and Shehadeh; both cases were decided on the same day by the same panel, but in Tabari’s case there was a split verdict with the majority view being that there was no administrative decision that Tabari could appeal. UNAT held that the Appellant successfully demonstrated the manner in which the anomaly had arisen and noted that the Internal Review Panel took no action to...
UNAT held that the Appellant filed her claim against the wrong entity (the Secretary-General) when her case was, in actual fact, against UNRWA. UNAT held that the claim was time-barred. UNAT held that the appeal to JAB was also out of time. UNAT dismissed the appeal.
