51ÁÔÆæ

UNAT considered the receivability of the appeal, whether there was a procedural irregularity, and whether the Appellant was entitled to moral damages. UNAT held that the appeal was receivable because it was filed in a timely fashion, according to Articles 7 and 29 of the RoP. UNAT held that UNDT erred in law in finding that the Administration failed to properly notify the Appellant of her non-selection because she knew about her non-selection early enough to timely challenge the decision. UNAT found that UNDT erred in law and exceeded its competence in awarding the Appellant compensation as...

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 the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing and claims for moral damages and reinstatement. UNAT held that the factual and legal issues arising from the appeal have already been clearly defined by the parties and did not find that an oral hearing would ¡°assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. ¡± To that end, UNAT denied the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing. UNAT found no fault with UNRWA DT¡¯s conclusion that it was highly probable that the Appellant had a leadership role in the armed clashes of 18 June 2015. UNAT held that there was no evidence to suggest...

UNAT considered the appeal of the Appellant and the cross-appeal of the Secretary-General. UNAT denied the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing, noting that it would not have added any further value or clarification of the factual and legal issues. UNAT held that the Secretary-General's cross-appeal was receivable, according to Article 9(4) of the RoP. UNAT held that the UNDT erred in holding that the disciplinary investigation was flawed by procedural irregularities. UNAT held that UNDT erred in finding that the disciplinary decision was unlawful and, accordingly, that there could neither...

UNAT considered an application for revision of judgment filed by Mr Mbaigolmem. UNAT held that Mr Mbaigolmem had to prove that he had discovered a decisive fact that was unknown to both him and UNAT at the time of judgment. UNAT held that Mr Mbaigolmem had failed to establish an unknown decisive fact that could warrant revision of the judgment. UNAT dismissed the application for revision of judgment.

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 the receivability of the issue of non-renewal and whether UNDT erred in rejecting the Appellant¡¯s claim that his candidacy for the relevant post had not been given full and fair consideration. UNAT referenced Staff Rule 11. 2(a), which provides that it is an established principle that a request for management evaluation is the first step in the appeal process of an administrative decision. UNAT further noted that UNDT has the inherent power to individualize and define the administrative decision challenged by a party and to identify the subject(s) of review. UNAT found no fault...

UNAT considered the Appellant¡¯s motion for leave to file additional pleadings and the appeal. UNAT noted that neither the UNAT Statute nor the UNAT RoP provide for an appellant to file an additional pleading after the respondent has filed an answer. UNAT also noted that Article 31(1) of the RoP and Section II. A. 3 of Practice Direction No. 1 of the Appeals Tribunal allow the Appeals Tribunal to grant a party¡¯s motion to file additional pleadings only if there are exceptional circumstances justifying the motion. UNAT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate any exceptional circumstances...

UNAT held that UNDT erred in finding the Hiring Manuals binding on the Administration, nonetheless, confirming that the Hiring Manager¡¯s reliance on the shortlist prepared by the CSS/OSU constituted a procedural irregularity in terms of Section 7. 4 of ST/AI/2010/3, which undisputedly enjoys binding legal authority. UNAT held that such irregularities only result in the rescission of a non-selection decision or of the decision not to shortlist a candidate in case the candidate had a significant chance, which could not be verified in this case, the same logic being applicable to compensation for...

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...