¹ú²úAV

2018-UNAT-881

2018-UNAT-881, Mansour

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

UNAT considered the content of the Appellant’s appeal, the UNRWA DT judgment, and the Appellant’s request for compensation for material and moral damages and costs. UNAT found that the Appellant’s appeal was defective in that it failed to identify any of the five grounds of appeal set out in Article 2(1) of the Statute as forming the legal basis of his appeal. UNAT also held that there was no error in the UNRWA DT’s findings that the Administration’s decision not to confirm the Appellant’s appointment was solely based on his performance and that his allegations of harassment and discrimination were not supported by evidence. UNAT further held that, as there was no illegality, there could be no compensation for harm under Article 9(1)(b) of the UNAT statute. UNAT also dismissed the Appellant’s request for costs because the Commissioner-General had not abused the proceedings. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed UNRWA DT’s judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the decision not to confirm his appointment. UNRWA DT rejected the Applicant’s claim that the Agency did not give him any advice or guidance. UNRWA DT found no merit in the Applicant’s claim that reports indicated that he had made significant progress. UNRWA DT also rejected the Applicant’s contention that he had been assigned tasks that were not part of his job description. UNRWA DT further concluded that the Applicant’s allegations of harassment and discrimination were not supported by the evidence and dismissed his application.

Legal Principle(s)

A party appealing a judgment of the UNRWA DT is unlikely to succeed in having the judgment reversed, modified, or the case remanded to the UNRWA DT 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.

Applicants/Appellants
Mansour
Entity
Case Number(s)
Tribunal
Registry :
Date of Judgement
Judge(s)
Language of Judgment
Issuance Type