¹ú²úAV

The UNAT found that an objective reading of the staff member’s request for decision review showed clearly that she had only contested the second and not the first reprimand, both issued for not performing assigned teaching tasks. The UNAT considered references to the official having issued it, its date and the remedy sought indicated in the request. The UNAT therefore held that the UNRWA DT had not erred in fact or in law when it considered that the staff member had not submitted a request for decision review in respect of the first reprimand and found the application in the respective part...

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 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...

UNAT affirmed the UNRWA DT decision that the application was not receivable as consistent with UNRWA Area Staff Rule 111. 2 and Article 8 of the UNRWA DT Statute. On alleged errors in procedure, UNAT noted that the Appellant had no opportunity to challenge the untimeliness of the Commissioner-General’s reply before UNRWA DT, but that, since the Appellant had not demonstrated how the untimely reply affected UNRWA DT’s decision on receivability, UNAT found no merit on this ground. UNAT held that there was no error in UNRWA DT’s reasoning on the issue of EVR. UNAT held that, absent an appealable...

UNAT held that it was satisfied that the rejection of the application as not receivable was correct on the basis that the Appellant did not seek decision review within the mandatory time period, which meant that UNRWA DT was precluded in law from considering the merits of his application. UNAT held that the Appellant did not identify how the UNRWA DT judgment was in any way defective or demonstrated that UNRWA DT erred in relation to its jurisdiction or committed an error of fact or law or procedure such as would warrant intervention by UNAT. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNRWA DT...

UNAT found no error in the UNRWA DT finding that the application was not receivable ratione temporis. UNAT rejected the Appellant’s contention that UNRWA DT erred in that it examined the timeliness of his application sua sponte, without it having been raised by the Respondent, holding that the competence of UNRWA DT to review the observance of the statutory deadlines for filing an application can be exercised even if the parties or the administrative authorities do not raise the issue because it constitutes a matter of law and the UNRWA DT Statute prevents UNRWA DT from receiving a case which...

UNAT considered whether UNRWA DT correctly concluded that the application was non-receivable ratione materiae. UNAT found that the Appellant failed to reference the grounds of appeal he relied upon, pursuant to Article 2(1) of the UNAT Statute. UNAT held that, because the Appellant did not identify the defects or grounds that rendered the impugned decision erroneous, the appeal must fail for this reason alone. In considering the rest of the appeal, UNAT also found that the Appellant knew, or reasonably should have known, that his allowance request had been refused since 2009. Moreover, UNAT...