����AV

The UNAT considered an appeal by the Commissioner-General of the UNRWA.

The UNAT found that by the Commissioner-General had been ordered to take a new decision with respect to the staff member’s request in view of the increase in his managerial and budgetary duties and responsibilities.

The UNAT was of the view that the Commissioner-General had not been specifically ordered to upgrade his post or to grant him a special allowance; the UNRWA DT had deemed it to be within the discretion of the Commissioner-General to decide whether or not he should be compensated.  

The UNAT noted that the...

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 considered an appeal by the Commissioner-General.

The UNAT found that the UNRWA DT erred in its determination.

The UNAT was of the view that in accordance with the Area Staff Rules, which provided for the application of the last published interest rate up to and including the month immediately preceding payment to the calculation of a staff member’s Provident Fund benefits.  Given that the staff member made his request on 23 December 2020, the applicable legal instrument in the present case was PFS/19/2020 issued on 12 December 2020, and not PFS/20/2020 issued on 13 January 2021 as...

Mr. Jibril appealed.

As regards the request for an oral hearing, the UNAT held that the factual and legal issues arising from this appeal had already been clearly defined by the parties and there was no need for further clarification.  Moreover, an oral hearing would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case, as required by Article 18(1) of the UNAT Rules of Procedure.  Accordingly, the request for an oral hearing is denied.

The UNAT agreed with the UNRWA DT that the challenged administrative decision to place Mr. Jibril on Administrative Leave With Pay (ALWP) was lawful. ...

UNAT dismissed Mr. Zaqqout's application for correction of judgment on the grounds that Mr. Zaqqout attempted to relitigate his case instead of demonstrating mistakes in the nature of those intended to be covered by Article 11(2), and he had failed to explain the significant delay in applying to correct the alleged errors.

UNAT also dismissed Mr. Zaqqout's application for revision of judgment.  UNAT found that this being the second application for revision Mr. Zaqqout had filed in this case, he was required to demonstrate exceptional circumstances, a test he did not meet; and that even if the...

The UNAT held that the supposedly unknown facts that Mr. Al Dirawi detailed in his application for revision of the UNAT Judgment focus on findings and conclusions in the UNAT Judgment with which he disagrees. Notably, these matters were considered in the original appeal and Mr. Al Dirawi basically submits a second appeal for a reassessment of the facts in his case, a remedy which is not available to the parties once the Appeals Tribunal has issued a final judgment. The UNAT thus held that Mr. Al Dirawi's application was not receivable.

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 held that UNRWA DT exercised its discretion to proceed by summary judgment lawfully and appropriately.

UNAT held that the UNRWA DT erred when it decided that the Appellant’s application was not receivable ratione materiae.  UNAT noted that the case was almost identical to Osama Abed & Eman Abed v. Commissioner-General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (Judgment No. 2022-UNAT-1297).   Consistent with this Judgment, UNAT held that the placement of a letter reminding the Appellant of her obligation to behave at all times in a manner...

The UNAT found no errors in the UNRWA DT Judgment and dismissed the appeal. The UNAT found that the UNRWA DT correctly held that Mr. Neekhra’s due process rights were not violated by an undue delay in the investigation proceedings; that Mr. Neekhra’s actions to copy-paste excerpts from internal/external sources without proper citation was a violation of the Agency’s regulatory framework and constituted misconduct; and that the disciplinary measures of a written censure and deferment of eligibility for consideration for promotion were proportionate to the offense.  The UNAT dismissed 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...