UNAT held that UNDT did not err in law or in fact in finding that the Appellant’s application was not receivable in that it failed to identify an administrative decision within the meaning of Article 2(1)(a) of the UNDT Statute. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.
UNAT held that the first time the Appellant’s claim for implementation of the sanction (an apology to the Appellant) was raised was on appeal and that it was therefore not receivable, however, UNAT held that the Appellant was not barred from requesting UNRWA to enforce its letter of censure. On the Appellant’s claim for moral damages, UNAT found no error in UNRWA DT’s order denying the Appellant’s request for moral damages since there was no evidence of harm. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNRWA DT judgment.
On appeal, UNAT limited its consideration to the issue of the amount of compensation awarded in lieu of rescission and the amount of compensation awarded for harm. On the issue of in lieu compensation, UNAT held that the Appellant failed to advance any error of law or of fact leading to a manifestly unreasonable decision. UNAT noted that in lieu compensation is not intended to compensate for the possible harm suffered by the injured person, as that is the specific aim of compensation for harm. UNAT held that UNRWA DT had the discretion to fix this amount as a generic sum and was not bound by...
UNAT considered that the 1994 and 2018 requests made by the Appellant to change his date of birth were essentially the same requests. UNAT recalled that the reiteration of an original administrative decision if repeatedly questioned, does not reset the clock with respect to the statutory timeline. UNAT held that the statutory period during which the Appellant had to file a challenge to the 1994 decision expired in 1997. UNAT held that UNRWA DT did not err in dismissing the application. On consideration of the Respondent’s claim to award costs, UNAT was not satisfied that the pursuit of the...
UNAT held that the Applicant failed to discharge his evidentiary burden to establish that his application was filed timeously. UNAT held that the application was 8 days late and, as such, not receivable. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNRWA DT judgment.
UNAT held that UNRWA DT failed to address some issues before it, in respect of which the Appellant is entitled to a reasoned decision. UNAT held that UNRWA DT erred in declining the Appellant’s implicit request for a hearing in person, at least without having considered it and given reasons. UNAT held that the termination of the Appellant’s appointment could not be assessed as hasty, premature, or arbitrary, with particular reference to the Medical Board process. UNAT held that any opportunity of the Appellant’s appointment to that vacancy had therefore passed, irrespective of her...
UNAT considered two appeals (consolidated) by Mr ElShanti of judgment No. UNRWA/DT/2019/051 and judgment No. UNRWA/DT/2019/065 respectively. On the consolidation of the cases, UNAT held that UNRWA DT had broad discretion in managing its cases and that it would only intervene in clear cases of denial of due process of law affecting a party’s right to produce evidence. Accordingly, UNAT rejected Mr ElShanti’s arguments against consolidation. UNAT held that there was no merit to Mr ElShanti’s claims that the characterization of the impugned administrative decision was incorrect, noting that UNRWA...
UNAT found the UNDT correctly reviewed and rescinded the contested decision because of the procedural irregularities encountered during the investigation. But in addition to the procedural issues, UNAT also noted there were other significant errors. The Tribunal found that the panel erred when it sought to determine the Medical Officer’s intent during the breast examination. The panel had previously concluded that there was no clear and convincing evidence that the actions of the Medical Officer during the breast examination were sexual in nature. Referring to Section 1.3 of ST/SGB/2008/5, the...
The staff member submits that the “decisive fact” which was unknown to him and to the Appeals Tribunal was the erroneous interpretation and application from case to case of Article 10(5) of the UNRWA DT Statute, Regulation 11.3 of the UNRWA International Staff Regulations and Article 9(1)(a) of the UNAT Statute. UNAT disagreed that a variance in the interpretation or application of the law from case to case constitute a “decisive fact” that would warrant revision. The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that it did not meet the statutory requirements and that it was in fact a disguised...
UNAT held that UNRWA DT erred in law or in failing to take into account in that calculation the probable length of Mr Dabbour’s tenure in that role which was known to have been of a fixed duration of three years. UNAT held that, although the UNRWA DT in Mr Dabbour’s case had recorded its conclusions on some of these considerations, it did not do so at all in respect of others making it difficult, if not impossible, to ascertain objectively how it reached the apparently modest figure of compensation in lieu of recission of USD 1,000. UNAT held that there was nothing to indicate why UNRWA DT did...
