Â鶹´«Ã½

The UNAT considered an appeal by the staff member.

The UNAT held that the UNRWA DT’s reasoning for refusing an oral hearing because the staff member failed to establish that her appeal was receivable, was ex post facto and, thereby, erroneous.

The UNAT found that there was an error in the UNRWA DT’s calculation of compensation in lieu of rescission of the non-selection decision as there was no evidence to support the conclusion that the UNRWA would have found her unsuitable for the role at the end of the probationary period.

The UNAT was of the view that the UNRWA DT’s methodology of fixing...

The UNAT held that the absence of a case management discussion and an oral hearing before the UNDT was not a procedural error.

The UNAT found that the UNDT did not err in admitting and considering the memorandum of allegations of misconduct, as it was used by the Administration only to verify that circumstances warranting the placement of the Appellant on ALWP occurred. The UNAT also found that the OIOS Investigation Report did not refer to the communications between the Appellant and his counsel, nor to exchanges during a mediation process, but only considered the Appellant’s objective...

The UNAT found that the UNRWA DT did not err in its award of in-lieu compensation. It appropriately considered Mr. Fanous’ chance of selection for the post when it stated that it considered there was no guarantee of a future selection. The UNRWA DT applied a context-specific lump sum amount. It considered the likelihood of selection and Mr. Fanous’ salary at the time. It made a determination that was fair and just in the present case but also took a principled approach that considered all relevant considerations.

As to Mr. Fanous’ request for moral damages, with regard to the First and...

The UNAT considered an appeal by the staff member.

The UNAT found that the staff member did not cite any provision of Article 2(1) of the UNAT Statute and did not indicate whether any errors by the UNRWA DT in his case related to its jurisdiction, the procedure, a question of law or a question of fact. The UNAT held that the appeal was defective and consequently not receivable.

The UNAT, nevertheless, reiterated its jurisprudence on some of the issues raised, and agreed with the way the UNRWA DT had determined the amount of in-lieu compensation. The UNAT also agreed with the UNRWA DT’s...

Mr. Bwalya appealed.

The UNAT found that Mr. Bwalya had not demonstrated that the UNDT erred in finding that it had been established by clear and convincing evidence that he had committed misconduct by instructing a UNDP staff member to forge a backdated Memorandum of Understanding between the Ethiopian Ministry of Agriculture and the private firm Digata and to make a misrepresentation in a second document, intentionally acting to avoid or deviate from UNDP’s Financial Regulations, Rules and Procedures through the creation of these documents, and demonstrating favouritism in the award of a...

The Commissioner-General appealed.

The UNAT held that insofar as the Agency's decision of 25 April 2019 rejecting the request for an SPOA might not have been unequivocal, that decision was reiterated in the e-mail of 17 June 2019 leaving no doubt that the Agency had decided then to pay Ms. Abou Salah an SPOA of 15 per cent rather than 25 per cent, possibly in breach of her contract. The fact that other persons subsequently sought to intervene on her behalf did not change that.

The UNAT found that Ms. Abou Salah’s subsequent correspondence, as well as correspondence written on her behalf...

The UNAT considered an appeal by Mr. Dahoud.

The UNAT held that the UNRWA DT correctly found that the disability benefit paid to Mr. Dahoud in accordance with Area Staff Rule 109.7(1) was different from the termination indemnity paid to certain staff members in accordance with Area Staff Rule 109.9.

The UNAT found that despite the Medical Board's conclusion that he had an 8 per cent permanent impairment, this does not necessarily lead to a finding of permanent and total disability, as required by Area Staff Rule 109.7(7), so as to receive the supplemental benefit. Nor does this medical...

The UNAT considered an appeal by the staff member.

The UNAT found that, in his appeal, the staff member failed to state the grounds of appeal, identify the defects of the impugned judgment and demonstrate on which grounds it was erroneous.

The UNAT noted that, in reaching its conclusion, the UNRWA DT found that the staff member admittedly did not submit a request for decision review. The UNRWA DT did not err when it found that the staff member’s application was on that basis not receivable ratione materiae.

The UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed Judgment No. UNRWA/DT/2022/022.

The UNAT held that UNRWA DT exercised its discretion to proceed by summary judgment, without examining the merits of the case, lawfully and appropriately. It found that in this way, the UNRWA DT acted not only in accordance with the principles of judicial economy and efficiency, but also in the interest of expeditious disposal of the case.

The UNAT found that the Appellant received the contested administrative decision on 3 November 2009 and filed his application with the UNRWA DT on 12 August 2022. Therefore, it was obvious that he filed his application more than three years after his...

The UNAT held that in view of the case record, the contested administrative decision was the decision not to reclassify the staff member’s post, which was communicated to Appellant in a definitive and unambiguous response on 9 July 2019.

Subsequent letters to the Appellant were only reiterations of that decision. The UNRWA DT was correct to conclude that Appellant failed to submit a timely request for decision review as required prior to filing his application with the UNRWA DT, given that Mr. Abu Heija had not filed his request for decision review until more than a year after receiving the...