2018-UNAT-881, Mansour
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.
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.
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.