51ÁÔÆæ

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 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 (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 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 an application for interpretation of judgment No. 2010-UNAT-026bis. UNAT held that the language of the judgment was clear in its meaning and required no interpretation. UNAT denied the application.

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 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.

UNAT noted that the Appellant was asked to present updated medical information to support her request for a review of her case and failed to do so. UNAT held that no prejudice existed against the Appellant, since she had an opportunity to present updated medical evidence within the scope of the review of her case. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Standing Committee decision.

UNAT affirmed the Commissioner-General¡¯s decision to terminate the staff member for misconduct. UNAT emphasized the fact that the staff member, as a guard, held a position of trust that he had failed to respect. UNAT held that where termination of service is connected to any type of investigation of a staff member¡¯s possible misconduct, it must be reviewed as a disciplinary measure. UNAT held that the imposed sanction of separation was not disproportionate to the offense. Related judgments: 2010-UNAT-018 (Mahdi)