2018-UNAT-837 | SYSTEM OF ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

2018-UNAT-837, Isteti

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

UNAT considered the appeal, which was not accompanied by a legal brief explaining the basis of the appeal. UNAT noted that the Appellant failed to identify by citation to any provision in Article 2. 1 of the Statute, the grounds for his appeal, and was required to do so. Accordingly, UNAT found the appeal to be defective and not allowed. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed UNRWA DT’s judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

The Applicant contested a second decision that his position would not be extended past him reaching the age of retirement. UNRWA DT held that the Agency was justified in refusing the Applicant’s second request for an extension beyond his retirement age because his post was already advertised long before his second request. UNRWA DT held that the Applicant failed to offer evidence that he was subject to discrimination and noted that such discrimination could only exist if he was treated differently from individuals in the same circumstance. UNRWA DT further held that the Applicant’s argument that Jordanian law permits staff to remain in service until age seventy was without legal merit, as the Agency is not bound by the laws of member states but is governed by its internal laws and regulations. UNRWA DT dismissed the application.

Legal Principle(s)

A party appealing a judgment of a first instance tribunal (the UNDT or UNRWA DT) will not succeed in having the judgment reversed, modified, or the case remanded unless the appeal challenges the impugned judgment on one or more of the grounds referred to in Article 2(1)(a) to (e) of the Statute.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed on merits

OAJ prepared this case law summary for informational purposes only. It is no official record and should not be relied upon as an authoritative interpretation of the Tribunals' rulings. For the authoritative texts, please refer to the judgment or order rendered by the respective Tribunal. The Tribunals are the only bodies competent to interpret their respective judgments, as provided under Article 12(3) of the UNDT Statute and Article 11(3) of the UNAT Statute. Any inaccuracies in the publication are the sole responsibility of OAJ, which should be contacted directly for any correction requests. To provide comments, don't hesitate to get in touch with OAJ at oaj@un.org.

The judgment summaries were generally prepared in English. They were translated into French and are being reviewed for accuracy of the translation.

Full Judgment

Applicants/ Appellants

Isteti

Entity

FESA

Case Number(s)

2017-1130

Tribunal

UNAT

Registry Location :

New York