¹ú²úAV

ArUNAT held that UNRWA DT’s decision not to hold an oral hearing was a shortcoming since the parties had not agreed to the case being decided on the papers and the facts needed to be established by witnesses and/or further documentary evidence. On the question of bias and its possible bearing on the outcome of the selection process, UNAT held that UNRWA DT should have engaged in a thorough examination of the facts, rather than drawing an inference. UNAT held that the inference drawn by UNRWA DT, that it was realistic to conclude that not all of the posts could be filled by suitable candidates, was not reasonable in the circumstances. UNAT held that a number of facts were not sufficiently established before UNRWA DT, such as whether answers given in Arabic were translated. UNAT held that there was not an adequate fact-finding exercise by UNRWA DT, which would have enabled UNAT to review whether the administrative decision was lawful. UNAT held that UNRWA DT’s determinations that there was no bias, prejudice, and unlawfulness and that there was fair and adequate consideration were not supported by the facts. UNAT held that the fact-finding exercise was incomplete, which constituted a clear error of procedure and violation of due process such as to affect the decision of the case. UNAT granted the appeal, vacated the UNRWA DT judgment, and remanded the cases for a hearing de novo before a different UNRWA DT Judge and adjudication on the merits.