51�Թ�

UNAT agreed that the application was not receivable ratione materiae. The Tribunal explained that on 21 March 2019, it had become clear to the staff member that the Agency had not shortlisted her for these two posts. This information was confirmed on 21 March 2019 by HR to the staff member. The Tribunal also noted that there were nothing in the communications between the parties indicating that the matter would be reopened or reconsidered. Furthermore, the subsequent email from HR on 8 April 2019 detailing the reasons why she was not selected was not a new administrative decision but rather a...

UNAT noted that, although the appeal was technically inadequate because the Appellants had failed to specifically identify the errors allegedly committed by the UNRWA DT, it had previously recognised that if an appellant was not legally represented some latitude may be allowed in the interests of justice. Accordingly, UNAT held that it would review the merits of the appeal. UNAT held that the UNRWA DT erred on a question of fact that resulted in a manifestly unreasonable decision by failing to consider the full application and the question of when the Appellants received notification of the...

UNAT held that UNRWA DT erred in law by not taking account of evidence implying strongly that there had been an administrative decision by UNRWA not to pay allowances to those who claimed them as their entitlement, and therefore concluding wrongly that there was no evidence of an administrative decision affecting the Appellant’s rights. However, UNAT held that the UNRWA DT’s Judgment dismissing the Appellant’s claim had to be upheld on grounds of lateness of their request for management evaluation. UNAT dismissed the appeals and upheld the UNRWA DT Judgment.

UNAT held that the facts upon which UNRWA based its decision were established, in full respect of his due process rights. UNAT held that UNRWA DT did not err as there was clear and convincing evidence that the Appellant committed sexual exploitation and abuse against a beneficiary of UNRWA; neither did it err in concluding that the disciplinary sanction was proportionate and lawful. UNAT held that the Appellant, by having the complainant remove her pants and underwear and engaging in a such a sensitive and specific medical examination, which he did not have the required competencies and...

UNAT considered an appeal of the Judgment on the merits and a cross-appeal from the Commissioner-General on the receivability finding. UNAT held that the cross-appeal was receivable, however UNAT dismissed it in light of the Commissioner-General’s request that his cross-appeal not be examined should the appeal be dismissed and secondly, because UNAT did not detect any error in the UNRWA DT’s order which found that the application was receivable. On the merits of the appeal, UNAT held that Mr. AlMousa failed to establish any error in the UNRWA DT Judgment, although his appeal undoubtedly...

The impugned UNRWA DT Order clearly comes within its competence to issue appropriate case management orders. It did not exceed its competence or jurisdiction in issuing Order No. 123, and Mr. Zaqqout is not prevented from attacking the interlocutory order later if he appeals the final judgment of the UNRWA DT on the merits.

UNAT dismissed the application for revision, because Mr. Sirhan did not present any decisive fact which could lead to a revision of the UNAT Judgment.

The UNRWA DT did not err when it found that Mustafa et al. had been informed of the impugned decision to deny a request to set their grade level at Grade 14 on 19 March 2018. Neither did it err when it found that the applications were not receivable, because the requests for decision review were submitted after the deadline.

UNAT found that the UNRWA DT did not err in concluding that the Agency had failed to observe its own regulatory framework and failed to act lawfully, reasonably and fairly in exercising its discretion. The discretion of the Commissioner-General to reject a request for these benefits such as EVS is not unfettered.

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...