����AV

As regards the request for an oral hearing, the UNAT held that the UNRWA DT had lawfully exercised its discretion and given a reasonable explanation for not holding an oral hearing.  The UNRWA DT correctly determined that the comprehensive documentary evidence before it was sufficient to render a decision without the need for an oral hearing, especially as the issue was one of receivability. Further, the appellants have not shown how the denial of the request to hold an oral hearing affected the Judgment. With respect to the issue of receivability, the UNAT agreed with the UNRWA DT and upheld...

UNAT dismissed the appeal. As a preliminary matter, UNAT denied AAB's request for an oral hearing on grounds that there was no need for further clarification since the factual and legal issues arising from the appeal had already been clearly defined by the parties, and an oral hearing would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. UNAT dismissed AAB's claim that her right to a fair trial before the UNDT had been violated because, since the application was found not to be receivable, and she was denied the opportunity to file a rejoinder. UNAT noted that there is no...

UNAT considered an appeal by Mr. Zaqqout. As regards an oral hearing, UNAT found that since the application was dismissed on grounds of receivability, Mr. Zaqqout’s arguments were not persuasive enough so as to justify an oral hearing at this stage. Some of the issues raised in the appeal were connected to the merits of Mr. Zaqqout’s application and did not meet the threshold of the receivability assessment. Since Mr. Zaqqout was made aware at the very early stage of the proceedings of the UNRWA’s allegation that he had been notified of the impugned decision on 30 December 2018, he should have...

Mr. Zeid appealed.  As a preliminary matter, UNAT dismissed Mr. Zeid's request for an oral hearing finding that the factual and legal issues arising from the appeal had already been clearly defined by the parties; and that an oral hearing would not “assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case”. UNAT held that the UNRWA DT correctly found that there was no evidence of a request for decision review, that the e-mail exchanges whereby Mr. Zeid had made inquiries regarding the reasons for the contested decision were not a request for decision review, but rather were informal attempts to...

UNAT held that UNDT erred in failing to consider adequately the Appellant’s evidence, noting she was not given the opportunity to prove her case, including allegations of discrimination, at the UNDT hearing, which included the opportunity to call evidence and to challenge the Administration’s evidence. UNAT held that UNDT erred in law in allowing testimony to be given at the hearing that was neither sworn, affirmed, nor made under a promise, to tell the truth. UNAT allowed the appeal, set aside the UNDT judgment and ordered reinstatement or the award of compensation in lieu of reinstatement in...

UNAT concurred with UNDT that the case was time-barred and not receivable. UNAT noted that, while the Appellant referred to an accident that prevented her from filing on time, she did not mention this to UNDT and raised it for the first time before UNAT. UNAT held that, while Article 2. 5 of the UNAT Statute allows it to admit further evidence in exceptional circumstances, it would not admit evidence that was known to the party and could have been presented to UNDT. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that the counsel of the Secretary-General had not been notified of the hearing date due to a technical error in the e-mail communication, which prejudiced seriously the Secretary-General’s defence. UNAT held, therefore, that the UNDT judgment should be set aside, and the matter retried afresh. UNAT upheld the appeal and vacated the UNDT judgment. The case was remanded to UNDT to be heard afresh.

UNAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding that the issues raised on appeal did not require further clarification. UNAT rejected the submission from the Secretary-General that the appeal was time-barred since the appeal was a corrected appeal and, therefore, conform to the requirements of Article 8 of the UNAT RoP. UNAT held that the Appellant had failed to identify one of the five grounds of appeal which could give legal basis to her appeal and that her arguments were the same made before UNDT. UNAT held that the Appellant had failed to establish how UNDT had erred on questions of...

UNAT rejected the Secretary-General’s interlocutory appeal against the UNDT order as not receivable, finding that UNDT had discretionary authority in case management and the production of evidence in the interest of justice. UNAT held that UNDT had decided on a measure of inquiry, the necessity of which it had sole authority to assess. UNAT held that it was not in the interest of the internal system of justice to consider an appeal against a simple measure of inquiry.

UNAT considered whether the Commissioner-General erred in adopting the JAB’s recommendation not to accept the Appellant’s withdrawal letter and whether the Appellant was entitled to compensation for moral and material damages. UNAT referred to Jordan Field Staff Circular No. J/17/97, which provides that withdrawal of resignations will normally not be accepted unless it is evident that such withdrawal is in the sole interest of the work. UNAT noted that the evidence on record revealed that the Appellant’s services were unsatisfactory. UNAT held that the Appellant provided no evidence of...