¹ú²úAV

UNAT held that, given the written instructions provided to the Appellant, it was completely understandable that he proceeded to request again the review of the contested decision. UNAT held that UNRWA DT erred when it found that he ought not to have done so and could not claim to have been legitimately misled as to the appeals procedure. UNAT held that UNRWA’s holding that the Appellant should have known the applicable legal framework and filed his appeal on time was unsustainable. UNAT noted that the Commissioner-General did not dispute the Appellant’s claim that the UNRWA Area Staff Rules and Regulations and the UNRWA JAB Rules of Procedure were not disseminated in Arabic. UNAT held that the late response of the Commissioner-General effectively re-set the clock for appeal and therefore the appeal was, indeed, timely. UNAT vacated the UNRWA DT judgment and remanded the matter to UNRWA DT for a decision on the merits.