����AV

The Appeals Tribunal concluded that the UNDT did not err in finding that the Administration had established that AAR had unlawfully disclosed confidential information and had unlawfully failed to disclose a conflict of interest and recuse himself. 

The Appeals Tribunal was also satisfied that the administrative measure imposed on AAR was proportionate to his misconduct, and that the UNDT did not commit any error in awarding moral damages for the harm AAR incurred due to the undue delay in completing the disciplinary process.

The Appeals Tribunal therefore dismissed the appeals.

The UNAT held that the administrative decision concerning reimbursements to the staff member took effect in law on 7 May 2019, when he received the wire transfer from the Organization.  The reasons for this reimbursement amount were discussed with him shortly before the wire transfer was made.  Although explanations of the underlying calculations were repeated in subsequent email exchanges with the staff member, those repetitions were not additional or new administrative decisions that were open to challenge by the staff member, thereby resetting the statute of limitations.  

The UNAT found...

The initial decision to deny the Applicant EGT for the 2021-2022 academic year was modified following management evaluation. The Applicant was granted partial EGT for the 2020-2021 and 2021 2022 academic years, which resulted in a pro-rated recovery of the Applicant’s EGT for the 2020-2021 academic year and the granting of half of his EGT for the 2021 2022 academic year.

Pursuant to staff regulation 3.2(a), staff rule 3.9(g), and sec. 9.1 of ST/AI/2018/1/Rev.1, the Applicant is entitled to one round trip for her daughter during each academic year between her educational institution and his...

The undisputed facts are unambiguous and leave little room for different interpretations. An apology does not invalidate or undo the misconduct. The fact that the Applicant was not made aware of the negative impact of her practice has no relevance for the factual determination. As such, the Administration has established the facts underlying the disciplinary measure in question by preponderance of evidence.

The Applicant using expletives towards her subordinates and widely addressing her colleagues by nicknames in the workplace were compounded by her ignoring personal and professional...

The UNAT held that it was satisfied that execution of the UNDT Judgment (as affirmed by the UNAT) had occurred in Mr. Ozturk’s case. The Administration had complied with the UNAT Judgment and exercised its discretion in determining a new, revised amount to be deducted for child support from Mr. Ozturk's salary on the basis of national court orders.

The UNAT observed that Mr. Ozturk appeared only to disagree with the “refund calculation” by the Administration for prior overpayments. However, the UNAT noted that implementation by the Administration of a Tribunal’s order constitutes in itself an...

The Applicant essentially contests the Administration’s execution of Judgment Ozturk 2018- UNAT-892, i.e., the Administration’s reimbursement of USD41,173 made on 7 May 2019 for excess salary deducted pursuant to a child support court order.

While the Applicant sought to identify the UNMIK Administration’s email response dated 19 January 2023 as a contested decision, that email merely constitutes a mere reiteration of the Administration’s decision of 7  May 2019, and thus it does not constitute a new administrative decision.

The Applicant first became aware of the contested decision on 7 May...

UNAT held that the UNDT’s judgment in Rosca was no longer good law, having been overruled by UNAT in Costa. UNAT held that time limits prescribed for administrative review and management evaluation (in the new system) could not be waived under Article 8(3) of the UNDT Statute, due to a specific prohibition in this respect contained in Article 8(4) of the UNDT Statute, as interpreted by UNDT in Costa and affirmed by UNAT. UNAT held that the application was time-barred and the delay in filing could not be condoned. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT held that the Appellant had only presented arguments challenging the Administration’s behaviour and the decision to terminate her contract with UNMIK. UNAT held that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate how UNDT, by judging the application not receivable and dismissing it on this ground, could have exceeded its jurisdiction, failed to exercise it, made an error of law or procedure, or made an error of fact that resulted in a manifestly unreasonable decision. UNAT held that UNDT had correctly dismissed the application as not receivable since the request for administrative review had...

UNAT held that the Appellant failed to explain how UNDT exceeded or failed to exercise its jurisdiction or competence, erred on a question of law or procedure, or erred on a question of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. UNAT recalled that the UNDT Statute precluded UNDT from suspending or waiving the deadlines for management evaluation. UNAT held that UNDT was therefore correct in concluding that the application was not receivable and to reject it on that basis. UNAT dismissed the appeal and upheld the UNDT Judgment.

UNAT, applying Bertucci (2010-UNAT-062), rejected as not receivable an interlocutory appeal against UNDT’s decision that the determination by the Ethics Office, that no retaliation occurred, constituted an administrative decision falling within UNDT’s jurisdiction. The alleged lack of jurisdiction of UNDT was not clearly established in this case: the question of whether there was an administrative decision required adjudication on the merits of the case and could not be the subject of an interlocutory appeal. UNAT further held that the appeal against UNDT’s order for production of the OIOS...