¹ú²úAV

UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNRWA DT Judgment.  UNAT held that the UNRWA DT correctly concluded that the decision-maker had not exercised his discretionary power properly, in that the Agency had unlawfully paid Ms. Jarallah an SPOA of 25 per cent instead of an SOA of 35 per cent which was stipulated in her contract of employment.  

UNAT found that a valid and binding contract of employment existed between Ms. Jarallah and the Agency.  An integral part of Ms. Jarallah's letter of appointment was the Job Description contained in the vacancy announcement with a reference to the 35...

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 held that the UNRWA DT correctly exercised its broad discretion with regard to its case management in concluding that the record before it was sufficient to render a decision without an oral hearing.  It concluded that the Appellant has not presented any grounds as to why an oral hearing would have been necessary and thus did not show that the UNRWA DT exercised its discretion in such manner as to affect the outcome of the case, as required by Article 2(1)(d) of the Appeals Tribunal Statute.

With regard to the Appellant’s argument that the non-selection decision was unlawful because...

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.

UNAT considered an appeal by Mr. Loubani. UNAT held that while a preliminary assessment [regarding potential evidence by witnesses nominated by Mr. Loubani to be interviewed] should have been made by the investigators, this was done by UNRWA DT, and the evidence found to be so inadequate as to be safely ignored.

Mr. Loubani had an opportunity to present this evidence before UNRWA DT, so that its proper assessment meant that his due process right was allowed, albeit belatedly. It would have made no difference to the outcome had the investigators done so.  The investigators would have reached...

The UNAT noted that the simple issue arising in this appeal was whether it was appropriate and correct for the judge to have proceeded with the application for review of the contested decisions while the motion for recusal was pending. The UNAT held that the straightforward answer is that it was not. 

An application for recusal can be brought at any time in the proceedings and is usually a difficult strategic choice for the party making the challenge. Such an application is made, typically, at the moment the party loses confidence in the judge. Its timing will depend on the circumstances. The...

UNAT considered an appeal by Mr. Al Othman against UNRWA Judgment No. UNRWA/DT/2020/073. It also considered a cross-appeal by the Commissioner-General of UNRWA, to the extent that the Judgment awarded Mr. Al Othman compensation.

UNAT held that there was clear and convincing evidence established that Mr. Al Othman committed the alleged offences. The UNRWA DT conclusions were accurate, based on evidence on record and common knowledge and UNAT found no reason to differ from them. UNAT shared the UNRWA DT’s view that the only reasonable conclusion available to the trial Judge, resulting from the...

The UNAT decided that mistakes in the way the summary dismissal decision was communicated to the appellant did not affect the fact that the real decision had ultimately been taken by the competent person in the Commissioner-General and not by any delegated authority. 

It was undisputed that Mr. Mohammad was not afforded the opportunity to comment on the additional evidence produced against him after the re-opening of the investigation (two interviews of student B’s mother and student B).  However, neither in his appeal nor in his initial application to the UNRWA DT did he point out any...

The UNAT held that the Applicant’s application for revision did not comply with the requirements set out in Article 11(1) of the Appeals Tribunal Statute and Article 24 of the Appeals Tribunal Rules of Procedure.  Indeed, it concluded that there was no fact discovered after the issuance of the UNAT Judgment, which was unknown to the Appeals Tribunal and to the Applicant.  Rather, it found that his submissions basically repeat or add to the same arguments which were previously assessed by the Agency, the UNRWA DT and the Appeals Tribunal.  It concluded that the only new arguments advanced by...

The UNAT held that the Appellant has failed to discharge her burden and has not demonstrated that the UNRWA DT committed any of the errors outlined in Article 2(1) of the UNAT Statute.  It concluded that the Appellant relitigated arguments that failed before the UNRWA Dispute Tribunal and expressed her general disagreement with the impugned Judgment.

The UNAT held that the contested decision was a valid and lawful exercise of the Agency’s discretion.  It found that the Agency reviewed and considered the Appellant’s request for telecommuting in accordance with the legal framework, i.e. Area...