Rule 110.1

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...

UNAT considered an appeal by Mr. Al Othman against UNRWA Judgment No. UNRWA/DT/2020/073. It also considered a cross-appeal by the Commissioner-General of UNRWA, to the extent that the Judgment awarded Mr. Al Othman compensation.

UNAT held that there was clear and convincing evidence established that Mr. Al Othman committed the alleged offences. The UNRWA DT conclusions were accurate, based on evidence on record and common knowledge and UNAT found no reason to differ from them. UNAT shared the UNRWA DT’s view that the only reasonable conclusion available to the trial Judge, resulting from the...

The UNAT decided that mistakes in the way the summary dismissal decision was communicated to the appellant did not affect the fact that the real decision had ultimately been taken by the competent person in the Commissioner-General and not by any delegated authority.

It was undisputed that Mr. Mohammad was not afforded the opportunity to comment on the additional evidence produced against him after the re-opening of the investigation (two interviews of student B’s mother and student B). However, neither in his appeal nor in his initial application to the UNRWA DT did he point out any...

UNAT held that UNRWA DT exercised its discretion to proceed by summary judgment lawfully and appropriately.

UNAT held that the UNRWA DT erred when it decided that the Appellant’s application was not receivable ratione materiae. UNAT noted that the case was almost identical to Osama Abed & Eman Abed v. Commissioner-General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (Judgment No. 2022-UNAT-1297). Consistent with this Judgment, UNAT held that the placement of a letter reminding the Appellant of her obligation to behave at all times in a manner...

UNAT held that UNRWA DT did not commit an error in procedure, such as to affect the decision of the case pursuant to Article 2(1) of the UNAT Statute. UNAT rejected the argument that the fact that the Appellant did not receive the recordings of the hearing or transcript affected the decision of the case. UNAT held that the Appellant merely repeated arguments raised before UNRWA DT. UNAT accepted UNRWA DT’s finding that the Appellant had ample opportunity to respond to allegations and provide comments on the investigation report and exhibits. UNAT held that UNRWA DT made fundamental errors of...

UNAT noted that, when reviewing a sanction imposed by the Administration, it needed to examine whether the facts on which the sanction was based were established; whether the established facts legally amounted to misconduct; and whether the disciplinary measure applied was disproportionate to the offense. UNAT affirmed the Commissioner-General’s decision to discipline the staff member for misconduct. However, in light of the mitigating factors, UNAT held that the disciplinary measure was disproportionate to the offense and substituted the disciplinary measure of demotion with that of a written...

UNAT held that the Appellant had failed to establish any error in fact or law which would warrant the reversal of the UNRWA DT judgment under appeal. UNAT held that UNRWA DT had correctly characterized the contested administrative decision subject to its judicial review as a demotion and subsequent transfer, which was taken after disciplinary proceedings. UNAT held that UNRWA DT had not erred when, after conducting an adequate review of the requirements for the adoption of a disciplinary measure, it concluded that there had been misconduct and that the sanction was legal and proportionate to...

UNAT considered the appeal. UNAT noted that UNRWA’s disciplinary system provides that the Commissioner-General may only impose such disciplinary measures on current staff members. UNAT accordingly found that UNRWA DT erred in finding that the Commissioner-General was entitled to impose the disciplinary measure of a fine after the Appellant’s employment ended and held that the disciplinary measure had to be rescinded. With respect to the Appellant’s request for compensation, UNAT noted that it may only award compensation for harm in cases where the individual presented evidence, other than...

As a preliminary matter, UNAT held that an oral hearing was not necessary and would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case as the Appellant had not provided grounds for an oral hearing beyond seeking to confront the witnesses and comment on existing evidence. Whilst UNAT held that the Appellant failed to identify any errors of law or fact by UNRWA DT as required under Art 2(1) UNAT Statute, UNAT did go on to consider his appeal as he was not represented. UNAT held that UNRWA DT had correctly applied the standard of review for disciplinary cases and that UNRWA DT’s exercise...

UNAT agreed with the UNRWA DT that the contested decision was a lawful exercise of discretion. Regarding the Appellant’s claim that the process was tainted because of the lapse of time since the complained of behavior occurred (ten years) and because of the hearsay nature of the evidence, UNAT explained that these same arguments were made both to the DT and to the Administration during the investigation phase. The Tribunal agreed with the UNRWA DT that there was sufficient corroborating evidence to back the allegations. The Tribunal also noted that it is within the UNRWA DT’s role to review...