����AV

UNAT rejected the request for an oral hearing, finding that it was not necessary or would assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. With regards to the motion to extend the Appellant’s rights as a staff member, UNAT held that there were no exceptional circumstances that would warrant the granting of the motion and the motion configured an attempt to supplement arguments already made in the appeal submissions. With regards to the motion to have UNAT remove immunity from certain staff members should her appeal fail, UNAT held that the motion was entirely misconceived, as such a...

UNAT rejected the request for an oral hearing, finding that it was not necessary or would assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. UNAT held that the staff member’s motion to remove immunity from certain staff members, should her appeal fail, was entirely misconceived, as such a request was entirely outside of the mandate of UNAT. UNAT dismissed the appeal against UNDT Order No. 133 (GVA/2015), finding that the Appellant had failed to present compelling grounds that UNDT had exceeded its jurisdiction in restricting its judicial review to a paper-only assessment and not...

UNAT rejected the request for an oral hearing and the production of documents since there was no need for further clarification. UNAT held that the Appellant’s contentions regarding the application of the Palestinian Labour Law No. 7 (2000) and the UNRWA DT’s error in calculating the time limits were misconceived. UNAT held that, regarding the procedure and timeline involved in challenging administrative decisions, former UNWRA Area Staff Rule 111. 3, which was in effect at the material time when the Appellant’s contract as a teacher was terminated, was applicable. UNAT agreed with the...

UNAT held that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate evidence of exceptional circumstances to justify the need to submit new evidence or file additional pleadings and, therefore, dismissed the Appellant’s motion. UNAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding that it would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. UNAT held that UNRWA DT was not required to set out its findings on every submission presented by the Appellant and the failure to do so did not amount to an error on the part of the UNRWA DT. UNAT upheld the order of UNRWA DT to rescind the contested...

UNAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding that an oral hearing was neither necessary nor would assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. Regarding the Appellant’s motion, UNAT held that there were no exceptional circumstances that would warrant the granting of the motion. UNAT held that the motion was essentially an attempt by the Appellant to supplement arguments already made in her appeal submissions. UNAT denied the motion. Regarding the appeal’s submissions, UNAT held that that UNDT had erred in law in rejecting the application on the basis that the Appellant’s...

UNAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding that it would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. UNAT held that the evidence showed that UNDT had correctly found that the administrative decision denying ASHI/MIP to the Appellant was communicated to her in an e-mail of 1 May 2014. UNAT agreed with UNDT that the e-mail of 27 May 2014 “did not refer to any new fact or information” and was “a mere confirmation of the earlier and unambiguous decision of 1 May 2014”. UNAT held that UNDT had not erred in law or fact resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision when...

UNAT held that there was no basis for receiving the Appellant’s motion for additional pleadings (such as exceptional circumstances), that the motion raised no new or compelling arguments and, accordingly, dismissed the motion. UNAT held that UNDT correctly concluded that the application was time-barred and not receivable as a result of the Appellant’s failure to file his application within the established time limits. UNAT noted that the Appellant had been provided two opportunities to make his case before UNDT and on both occasions, he failed to provide the information. UNAT held that failing...

UNAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding no need for further clarification of the issues. UNAT held that the Appellant failed to identify the grounds for his appeal, considering it defective. UNAT agreed with UNRWA DT that the Appellant had not complied with Staff Rule 111.3, which prescribes that the staff member is required to appeal to the JAB within thirty days. UNAT held that UNRWA DT’s conclusion that the application was not receivable did not present any errors of law or fact. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the

UNAT held that the appeal was not receivable ratione temporis, as he did not file it within the prescribed time limits. UNAT noted that even if the Appellant had requested a waiver of the time limit on the basis of exceptional circumstances, his appeal was time-barred by Article 7.4 of the UNAT Statute and was therefore not receivable. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT rejected the Appellant’s request for an oral hearing on the basis that it would be neither necessary nor useful since the relevant facts were clear, the witness was already heard by UNDT (by audio conference) as verified by UNAT, the unusual context of the case was insufficient to indicate that any fact or issue could be refined by specific testimony and it would not assist UNAT with the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. On the Appellant’s motion for additional hearings, UNAT held that the documents contained arguments already submitted, although phrased differently, and no...