����AV

The UNAT held that the UNRWA DT had appropriately concluded that Mr. Issa failed to submit a timely Request for Decision Review regarding the first of three months’ non-payment of his salary. However, the UNAT held that, since each non-payment constitutes a separate administrative decision, Mr. Issa's Request for Decision Review regarding the second- and third-months’ non-payment was timely, rendering his application partially receivable.

The UNAT further concluded however, that since Mr. Issa disregarded a directive circulated before his annual leave (when he was able to check his e-mail)...

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 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 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...

Mr. Mousa appealed. As regards Mr. Mousa’s request for an oral hearing, the UNAT held that he did not provide a compelling reason why an oral hearing should be granted in this appeal.  As the case deals with the issue of receivability ratione materiae, an oral hearing is not necessary and would not “assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case” within the meaning of Article 18(1) of the UNAT’s Rules of Procedure. The UNAT also found that Mr. Mousa’s appeal did not refer to any of the grounds of appeal mentioned in Article 2(1) of the UNAT Statute.  The only submission regarding the...

Mr. Zeid appealed.  As a preliminary matter, UNAT dismissed Mr. Zeid's request for an oral hearing finding that the factual and legal issues arising from the appeal had already been clearly defined by the parties; and that an oral hearing would not “assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case”. UNAT held that the UNRWA DT correctly found that there was no evidence of a request for decision review, that the e-mail exchanges whereby Mr. Zeid had made inquiries regarding the reasons for the contested decision were not a request for decision review, but rather were informal attempts to...

UNAT held that the Appellant’s claim, that a final decision on her 2013 request for post reclassification was only issued in 2019, could not be considered as it was raised for the first time at the appellate level. UNAT held that UNRWA DT correctly found that the 12 December 2014 e-mail which informed her that all classifications were on hold constituted an administrative decision because it rejected her request for immediate reclassification. UNAT held that to allow the Appellant’s argument that the postponement or freezing of requests for reclassification does not constitute an...

UNAT noted that UNRWA DT’s analysis of whether Mr. Faour had timely requested review of the decision not to renew his contract, the UNRWA DT focused on Mr. Faour’s omnibus letter (of 17 December 2018) to his superior containing many complaints, including a request for review of his performance review, but no request for review of the contested decision (the non-renewal of his contract). UNAT found, however, that other correspondence from Mr. Faour that was within the statutory 60 days to request a decision review did fulfill the minimum criteria required by UNAT judgments: it identified 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 found that the Appellant and her counsel were provided with an adequate opportunity to file an application in a timely manner, but failed to do so, causing her application before UNRWA DT to be non-receivable. UNAT further held that, even if it were to disregard the untimely submission of the application before UNRWA DT, the application would remain non-receivable because the Appellant did not seek in a timely manner the required request for review of the contested administrative decision she intended to overturn. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNRWA DT judgment.