The UNAT held that any dissatisfaction with the meaning of a judgment should be raised in an appeal of the substantive judgment. Mr. Odat did not appeal the underlying judgment, Judgment No. UNRWA/DT/2025/001.
The UNAT found that the UNRWA DT’s subsequent judgment on his application for interpretation was not a fresh judgment within the scope of Article 2 of the Appeals Tribunal Statute, and thus Mr. Odat’s appeal was not receivable.
The UNAT held that the UNDT erred in finding that the established facts underlying the allegations did not amount to misconduct. It found that the former staff member's sustained participation in exchanges concerning the sharing of non-public information and his communications with M.R., an individual engaging publicly on matters pertaining to the Office of Investment Management (OIM), constituted unauthorized disclosure or, at minimum, participation in unauthorized sharing of non-public information.
The UNAT held that the UNDT erred in characterizing as too vague the allegation that the...
The UNAT held that the former staff member did not request an oral hearing during proceedings before the UNDT and thus cannot be allowed to do so on appeal. The UNDT as the trier of fact cannot be bypassed.
The UNAT found no error in the UNDT’s finding that the former staff member’s post-separation grievances were beyond its scope of adjudication and not receivable because there was no prior and timely request for management evaluation. The sanction for non-compliance with this mandatory internal procedure is the non-receivability of the application challenging the contested decision.
The...
The UNAT held that the issues on appeal were whether the UNDT had clearly exceeded its jurisdiction or competence in issuing the impugned interlocutory case?management orders, and whether any alleged procedural errors were effectively irremediable by a final judgment or manifestly unreasonable so as to justify interlocutory review. It recalled that appeals against interlocutory orders are receivable only in rare and exceptional circumstances, and that matters relating to evidence, procedure, and trial conduct fall within the UNDT’s broad case?management discretion.
The UNAT found that the UNDT...
The UNAT held that the issues on appeal were whether the UNDT erred in refusing to grant anonymity to the staff member in proceedings challenging a written reprimand, whether it misapplied the jurisprudence governing anonymization, and whether such an error justified interlocutory review. It recalled that interlocutory appeals are receivable only in rare and exceptional circumstances, including where an error is irremediable by a final judgment and it would be manifestly unreasonable for the impugned order to remain in effect.
The UNAT found that the UNDT committed an error of law by...
The UNAT held that the issues on appeal were whether the UNRWA Dispute Tribunal erred in finding that the facts of misconduct were established to the clear and convincing evidence standard, whether it erred in concluding that the conduct constituted serious misconduct, and whether it erred in affirming the proportionality of the disciplinary sanction of separation from service without termination indemnity. It recalled that its role is not to conduct a de novo review, but to determine whether the first?instance tribunal committed an error of law, fact, or procedure resulting in an unreasonable...
The UNAT held that the issues on appeal were whether the UNDT erred in finding the application not receivable for failure to request management evaluation within the mandatory 60?day time limit, whether it erred in identifying the date of notification of the contested administrative decision, and whether any findings on mootness or alleged due process violations affected the outcome. It recalled that its role on appeal is limited to determining whether the UNDT committed an error of law, fact, or procedure resulting in an unreasonable decision.
The UNAT held that the UNDT correctly identified...
The UNAT held that the issues on appeal were whether the UNDT erred in finding that the Secretary-General lawfully exercised his discretion in cancelling the Recruit from Roster Job Opening, whether the decision was supported by a rational and reasonable basis, and whether the UNDT erred in rejecting the staff member’s allegations of discrimination, improper motive, or procedural irregularity.
The UNAT found that the UNDT correctly applied established jurisprudence on staff selection, including the principle that the Administration is not obliged to complete a recruitment exercise once...
The UNAT held that the issues on appeal were whether the UNDT erred in finding that the staff member received full and fair consideration for the Temporary Job Opening, whether it erred in concluding that the non?selection decision was untainted by bias, discrimination, or other extraneous considerations, and whether it erred in declaring certain claims not receivable for failure to request management evaluation. It recalled that its role on appeal is not to conduct a de novo review, but to determine whether the UNDT committed an error of law, fact, or procedure resulting in an unreasonable...
The UNAT first held that the contested decision of 17 April 2011 did not constitute an appealable administrative decision and was not receivable ratione materiae, insofar as it merely advised the former staff member to go to the nearest UNHCR office and seek asylum or resettlement as a refugee.
Subsidiarily, even assuming that the e-mail of 17 April 2011 could have constituted a valid appealable administrative decision, the UNAT found that the former staff member’s application would nonetheless remain not receivable on two grounds. First, he did not request management evaluation of the...
