2014-Ģ��ƵAT-414

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT held that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate any error of law or fact committed by Ģ��ƵRWA DT. Ģ��ƵAT held that the appeal was not based on any of the grounds set out in Article 2. 1 of the Special Agreement between the United Nations and Ģ��ƵRWA and that Ģ��ƵAT, therefore, had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Ģ��ƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ģ��ƵRWA DT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

Ģ��ƵRWA DT judgment: The Applicant contested the decision to deny his request for special leave with pay (SLWP) or special leave with partial pay (SLWPP). Ģ��ƵRWA DT dismissed the application, concluding that the impugned decision was within Ģ��ƵRWA��s discretion, which was properly and lawfully exercised. Ģ��ƵRWA DT found that the Appellant had erred in attempting to rely on the benefits accorded to the faculty of the University of Jordan under Article 14 of its Legislation as he was, rather, subject to the internal legislation of the Agency. Ģ��ƵRWA DT found that Ģ��ƵRWA was not obliged to grant his request for paid, or partially paid, leave. Ģ��ƵRWA DT found that were the Agency to disregard the requirements of Article 3. 3 of PD A/17 [(which requires available funds prior to the approval of Agency expenditure on staff training)] it would have been not only unlawful but arguably an act of gross irresponsibility. Ģ��ƵRWA DT noted that there had been no allegation that the reason proffered by the Agency was not valid.

Legal Principle(s)

It is not sufficient for the Appellant to state that he/she disagrees with the Ģ��ƵRWA DT��s findings of fact and to repeat the arguments submitted before the first instance court, as Ģ��ƵRWA DT has broad discretion to determine the weight it attaches to the evidence with which it is presented. The consistent jurisprudence of Ģ��ƵAT emphasizes that the appeals procedure is of a corrective nature and is not an opportunity for a dissatisfied party to reargue his or her case. Rather, he or she must demonstrate that the court below has committed an error of fact or law warranting intervention by Ģ��ƵAT (judgment No. 2010-Ģ��ƵAT-035).

Outcome

Appeal dismissed on merits

OAJ prepared this case law summary for informational purposes only. It is no official record and should not be relied upon as an authoritative interpretation of the Tribunals' rulings. For the authoritative texts, please refer to the judgment or order rendered by the respective Tribunal. The Tribunals are the only bodies competent to interpret their respective judgments, as provided under Article 12(3) of the Ģ��ƵDT Statute and Article 11(3) of the Ģ��ƵAT Statute. Any inaccuracies in the publication are the sole responsibility of OAJ, which should be contacted directly for any correction requests. To provide comments, don't hesitate to get in touch with OAJ at oaj@un.org.

The judgment summaries were generally prepared in English. They were translated into French and are being reviewed for accuracy of the translation.

Applicants/Appellants

Mahfouz

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement