2023-Ģ��ƵAT-1349

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

The Ģ��ƵAT considered an appeal by the staff member.

The Ģ��ƵAT found that, in his appeal, the staff member failed to state the grounds of appeal, identify the defects of the impugned judgment and demonstrate on which grounds it was erroneous.

The Ģ��ƵAT noted that, in reaching its conclusion, the Ģ��ƵRWA DT found that the staff member admittedly did not submit a request for decision review. The Ģ��ƵRWA DT did not err when it found that the staff member��s application was on that basis not receivable ratione materiae.

The Ģ��ƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed Judgment No. Ģ��ƵRWA/DT/2022/022.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

A staff member contested the decision to impose on him the disciplinary measures of a written censure, a fine equivalent to two months�� salary and deferment of eligibility for promotion for a period of one year for inflicting corporal punishment against a student.

In Judgment No. Ģ��ƵRWA/DT/2022/022, the Ģ��ƵRWA DT dismissed the application as not receivable.

Legal Principle(s)

As a general rule, a party must submit their arguments in their appeal brief and not after it. Additional arguments can only be filed in limited situations where exceptional circumstances are presented.

The Appeals Tribunal is not a forum for a party to reargue the case without identifying the defects and demonstrating on which grounds an impugned judgment is erroneous.

A summary judgment may be issued by the Ģ��ƵRWA DT when there is no dispute concerning the material facts and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Unlike the Staff Rules of the United Nations, the Ģ��ƵRWA Statute and Area Staff Rules provide no exemption from the general requirement of requesting decision review or management evaluation being a mandatory first step in the appeal process.

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

Said Ali Tamalawi

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement