PD A/10/Rev.3

  • Area Staff Personnel Directive No. A/4/Part II, Rev. 8/Section I
  • IPD 1/10
  • IPD/I/104.4
  • IPD/I/112.6/Rev.1
  • PD 1/4/Part I/Rev.1
  • PD A/10
  • PD A/10/Rev.1
  • PD A/10/Rev.3
  • PD A/17
  • PD A/2/Part.II/Rev. 4
  • PD A/23
  • PD A/3
  • PD A/4/Part II/Rev.7
  • PD A/4/Part VII/Rev.7
  • PD A/5/Part II
  • PD A/5/Rev.7/Part II
  • PD A/6/Amend.12/Part III
  • PD A/6/Amend.72
  • PD A/6/Part II/Amend.2
  • PD A/6/Part VI
  • PD A/60
  • PD A/9
  • PD A/9/Rev.10
  • PD I/104.2
  • PD No.A/3/Rev.1/Part XI/Amend.5
  • PD/A/1/Rev.1/Par1/Section 1
  • PD/A/4/Part II/ Rev.7/Section 1
    • Showing 1 - 4 of 4
    2025-UNAT-1514, Nadim El Haj

    The UNAT held that even though the Commissioner-General had mistakenly reimbursed the fine to Mr. El-Haj after the issuance of the UNRWA DT Judgment, since the fine was subsequently reimposed, the appeal was not moot.

    The UNAT held that in order to find that a staff member’s conduct was “serious misconduct” so as to warrant a more serious sanction, the Commissioner-General had to provide reasons for this determination. In this case, the Commissioner-General provided no reasons, and the UNAT rejected the Commissioner-General’s argument that reasons were not necessary because it was manifestly...

    2024-UNAT-1507, Mahmoud Ahmad Ali

    The UNAT held that the UNRWA DT rightly identified that the standard of proof for placing the staff member on ALWOP was whether there was reasonable suspicion or reasonable grounds to believe that the staff member had committed the alleged misconduct.

    The UNAT rejected the staff member’s argument that his ex-wife’s withdrawal of the complaint against him in a national court should have stopped all investigations against him. The UNAT noted that the national court had provided the case records to the Agency, and the Agency, following its complete assessment of the situation, can proceed with...

    2022-UNAT-1297, Eman Abed & Osama Abed

    The UNAT considered an appeal by the UNRWA staff members. The UNAT held that the UNRWA DT was incorrect in finding that the reminder letters were not reprimands for the purposes of Appellants being able to challenge the letters’ placement in their official status files. This was because such a reminder could not be considered a neutral action, but rather a warning of any possible disregard of the Agency’s regulatory framework. The UNAT found that to the eyes of an average person, such a reminder is undeniably akin to a reprimand.

    The UNAT agreed with the Appellants that there is no UNRWA...

    2022-UNAT-1290, Nael Mohammed Fares Jibril

    Mr. Jibril appealed.

    As regards the request for an oral hearing, the UNAT held that the factual and legal issues arising from this appeal had already been clearly defined by the parties and there was no need for further clarification. Moreover, an oral hearing would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case, as required by Article 18(1) of the UNAT Rules of Procedure. Accordingly, the request for an oral hearing is denied.

    The UNAT agreed with the UNRWA DT that the challenged administrative decision to place Mr. Jibril on Administrative Leave With Pay (ALWP) was lawful. ...