É«¿âTV

UNAT held that it was satisfied that the rejection of the application as not receivable was correct on the basis that the Appellant did not seek decision review within the mandatory time period, which meant that UNRWA DT was precluded in law from considering the merits of his application. UNAT held that the Appellant did not identify how the UNRWA DT judgment was in any way defective or demonstrated that UNRWA DT erred in relation to its jurisdiction or committed an error of fact or law or procedure such as would warrant intervention by UNAT. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNRWA DT...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that UNDT made an error of law when it applied UNICEF Administrative Instruction CF/AI/2011-001 retroactively to review the non-renewal decision. UNAT held that UNDT erred in law in concluding that it was the duty of the Administration to take measures to remedy failings in performance. UNAT held that UNDT¡¯s conclusion that the non-renewal decision was vitiated by UNICEF¡¯s failure to take remedial measures to improve Mr Assale¡¯s performance was without legal basis. UNAT held that UNDT erroneously concluded that both the Chad Country...

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that there was no reason to reverse the finding of UNDT that a legitimate expectation of a one-year extension was unequivocally created by virtue of the decision taken at the Core Management Group meeting. UNAT affirmed the UNDT decision that Mr Munir had a legitimate expectation and the decision of the Resident Representative not to seek a one-year renewal of his contract was an unlawful exercise of discretion. UNAT held that the Secretary-General failed to demonstrate that the compensation was unreasonable because there was a...

UNAT held that UNDT correctly determined that it did not have jurisdiction to review the decision to suspend him without pay. UNAT held that UNDT was alert to the injury which the prolonged delay caused the Appellant. On the Appellant¡¯s complaint that UNRWA DT did not address his complaint regarding the deduction by UNRWA from his personal Provident Fund contributions upon his dismissal, apparently, to recoup an overpayment, UNAT held that there was no merit in the complaint and the Appellant failed to demonstrate any error of law or fact on the part of the UNRWA DT when it determined these...

UNAT held that the Appellant raised the same issues he raised before UNRWA DT and did not identify how the judgment was in any way defective. UNAT held that the Appellant did not identify any of the required grounds of appeal and failed to demonstrate that UNRWA DT committed any error of fact or law in arriving at its decision. UNAT held that the Appellant¡¯s case was fully and fairly considered by UNRWA DT and found no error of law or fact in its decision. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNRWA DT judgment.

UNAT considered whether the Appellant filed his appeal within the applicable time limit. UNAT noted that the 60-day time limit to file an appeal expired on 11 April 2016 and the Appellant filed his appeal on 12 April 2016. UNAT held that the appeal was time-barred and that the Appellant did not request a waiver or extension of the deadline from UNAT. UNAT accordingly did not need to address the Appellant¡¯s motion to submit additional evidence. Moreover, UNAT did not find any fault with UNRWA DT¡¯s holding, as it was clear that the Appellant did not meet the criteria for selection, and it was...

UNAT considered whether UNRWA DT made an error of fact, resulting in an unreasonable decision when it found that the Appellant submitted her request for decision review. UNAT found that the evidence showed that UNRWA DT did not make a factual error when it found that the request for decision review was made on 7 July 2014. UNAT noted that, as the request for decision review was submitted on 7 July 2014, the time for the Appellant to file an application for judicial review expired 120 days thereafter, on 4 November 2014. UNAT found that the Appellant¡¯s application for judicial review was not...

UNAT held that there was merit in the Appellant¡¯s argument that the issue to be decided was not whether he was entitled or not to the SOA, but the refusal of its retroactive payment at the correct rate from the date of the signature of his post description. UNAT held that UNRWA DT erred when it failed to consider that the Appellant was contesting a specific decision denying him a retrospective payment of the higher SOA. UNAT held that UNRWA DT erred in law in deciding that the Appellant had failed to identify an administrative decision capable of being brought within the scope of judicial...

UNAT considered the appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT rejected the Secretary-General¡¯s request for leave to submit new evidence since the Secretary-General had the opportunity to present the evidence before UNDT. UNAT further rejected the staff member¡¯s requests in response and to conduct an oral hearing finding that the appealed issues had been adequately clarified. UNAT held that UNDT had not erroneously substituted itself for the Administration. UNAT held that UNDT¡¯s findings were supported by evidence and would, therefore, not interfere with the determination as to the existence of...

UNAT held that, since the Appellant had not made an application to the UNRWA Internal Justice Committee on the issue of the recusal and conflict of interest, it would not permit the issue to be raised for the first time on appeal. UNAT held that the Appellant had failed to establish in his appeal that it was unreasonable for UNRWA DT to conclude that there was no evidence of bias in the decision to abolish his post. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNRWA DT judgment.