2014-UNAT-414, Mahfouz
UNAT held that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate any error of law or fact committed by UNRWA DT. UNAT held that the appeal was not based on any of the grounds set out in Article 2. 1 of the Special Agreement between the United Nations and UNRWA and that UNAT, therefore, had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNRWA DT judgment.
UNRWA DT judgment: The Applicant contested the decision to deny his request for special leave with pay (SLWP) or special leave with partial pay (SLWPP). UNRWA DT dismissed the application, concluding that the impugned decision was within UNRWA’s discretion, which was properly and lawfully exercised. UNRWA DT found that the Appellant had erred in attempting to rely on the benefits accorded to the faculty of the University of Jordan under Article 14 of its Legislation as he was, rather, subject to the internal legislation of the Agency. UNRWA DT found that UNRWA was not obliged to grant his request for paid, or partially paid, leave. UNRWA DT found that were the Agency to disregard the requirements of Article 3. 3 of PD A/17 [(which requires available funds prior to the approval of Agency expenditure on staff training)] it would have been not only unlawful but arguably an act of gross irresponsibility. UNRWA DT noted that there had been no allegation that the reason proffered by the Agency was not valid.
It is not sufficient for the Appellant to state that he/she disagrees with the UNRWA DT’s findings of fact and to repeat the arguments submitted before the first instance court, as UNRWA DT has broad discretion to determine the weight it attaches to the evidence with which it is presented. The consistent jurisprudence of UNAT emphasizes that the appeals procedure is of a corrective nature and is not an opportunity for a dissatisfied party to reargue his or her case. Rather, he or she must demonstrate that the court below has committed an error of fact or law warranting intervention by UNAT (judgment No. 2010-UNAT-035).