The Appeals Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that it was evident from a perusal of the appeal brief that Mr. Hammad did not argue that the UNRWA DT committed any error of fact or law. He merely presented the same arguments that he had already made in his application for revision before the UNRWA DT and failed to demonstrate how the UNRWA DT erred.
The UNAT held that with no evidence of a manifest abuse of proceedings by the Commissioner-General before the UNRWA DT, nor any finding by the UNRWA DT of such an abuse of proceedings, the legal cost orders made by the Dispute Tribunal did not accord with the terms of Article 10 of the UNRWA DT Statute and were therefore unjustified and could not be sustained. Moreover, if the UNAT considered that the legal costs were awarded by the UNRWA DT under Article 10(5)(b) (which was not apparent from the Judgment), there existed no basis to justify such an order given the evidence before the Dispute...
The UNAT noted that the staff member had telecommuted from his home country for the entire academic year. The UNAT found that payment of the educational grant required the physical presence of the staff member at their official duty station, with such payment to be suspended or adjusted for the period that they were telecommuting from outside the official duty station.
The UNAT held that it was not open to the staff member to rely on a defence that the Administration be estopped from relying on the applicable provisions in its interpretation of the circumstances under which the education...
The UNAT dismissed the application for revision, finding that none of the alleged new facts were “new facts” for the purpose of Article 11(1) of the UNAT Statute. The alleged new facts either occurred after the issuance of the UNAT Judgment, were known to the Appeals Tribunal, or matters of law.
The UNAT granted the application for correction in part, to the extent that the UNAT agreed with Ms. Raschdorf's argument that an error arose in paragraph 44 of the UNAT Judgment where the UNAT wrongly referred to the Advisory Board on Compensation Claims instead of the Pension Fund.
Finally, the...
The UNAT held that the UNRWA DT correctly identified several procedural irregularities in the contested decision. Pursuant to paragraph 9 of the Department of Internal Oversight Services (DIOS) Technical Instruction 02/2016 on UNRWA’s Investigation Policy (DTI 02/2016), the investigation should have been authorized within 10 days of the Intake Committee’s report; yet here, the authorization to investigate took 11 months to be given. The UNAT found that this delay was so excessive that it would distress an average person.
Analyzing the evidence presented by the staff member regarding the...
The UNAT held that the staff member did not fulfil the requirements for revision of the prior UNAT Judgment. The UNAT found that no new fact was advanced by the staff member that had been unknown either to him or the UNAT at the time of the prior Judgment, nor one that would have been decisive in reaching the decision had it been known. The UNAT was of the view that his application for revision amounted to a restatement of the material already placed before the UNAT, which had been considered and rejected, and constituted an attempt to have the appeal, which had been disposed of, re-heard de...
The Appeals Tribunal dismissed the appeal. The Appeals Tribunal found that the UNDT correctly held that Mr. Qasem's application before the UNDT challenging the decision to place him on administrative leave with pay was filed untimely and was therefore not receivable ratione temporis. Furthermore, his application contesting the decision to conduct various investigations of him was not receivable ratione materiae in the absence of a request for decision review.
The UNAT held that the facts upon which the staff member relied in his application for revision all post-dated the UNAT Judgment and therefore could not serve as a basis for revising or reconsidering the UNAT’s prior conclusions. In particular, the UNAT found that the staff member’s medical record, indicating a change in his condition after the issuance of the UNAT Judgment, did not constitute grounds for revising it.
However, the UNAT granted the staff member’s request for anonymity for the present Judgment only, given the limited scope of the issues raised and the specific facts...
The UNAT held that the staff member’s attempts to reargue her case failed to identify any reviewable error in the UNDT Judgment, warranting alone dismissal of her appeal. In any event, regardless of the merits of her claim, the UNAT found that her application was time-barred under Article 8(4) of the UNDT Statute since she filed it 27 years after her receipt of the contested decision. Recalling that there is no authority given to either tribunal to extend time limits in these circumstances, the UNAT concluded that the UNDT was correct to conclude that her application was not receivable.
The...
The UNAT held that the staff member's application for revision failed to meet the statutory requirements outlined in Article 11(1) of the UNAT Statute. The UNAT concluded that the staff member's arguments essentially reiterated those he previously advanced before the UNAT and the UNDT. As a result, the UNAT held that his application for revision amounted to a request for the UNAT to reconsider his previous unsuccessful appeal. Moreover, the UNAT observed that the applicant's submissions contained a number of unfair and inappropriate accusations against persons who had dealt with his case, and...
