51³Ô¹Ï

PD A/10/Rev.3

  • Area Staff Personnel Directive No. A/4/Part II, Rev. 8/Section I
  • 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 - 3 of 3

    2024-UNAT-1507, Mahmoud Ahmad Ali

    Non-disciplinary Non-disciplinary/administrative measures Burden of proof Disciplinary matters / misconduct

    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...

    Full judgment
    Case digest

    2022-UNAT-1297, Eman Abed & Osama Abed

    Disciplinary matters / misconduct Non-disciplinary/administrative measures Jurisdiction / receivability (UNDT or first instance) Subject matter (ratione materiae)

    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...

    Full judgment
    Case digest

    2022-UNAT-1290, Nael Mohammed Fares Jibril

    Investigation (see category: Investigation) Subject matter (ratione materiae) Oral hearings Production of documents Compensation (see also, Compensation) Disciplinary matters / misconduct Jurisdiction / receivability (UNAT) Procedure (first instance and UNAT) Remedies

    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. ...

    Full judgment
    Case digest