±¬ÁÏÍø

The disciplinary decision was based on two allegations: first, that the staff member committed a physical assault during a domestic dispute; and second, that the staff member failed to immediately report an arrest and criminal proceedings to the Secretary?General, contrary to staff rule 1.5(d). Regarding the assault allegation, the Tribunal found the evidence sufficient and compelling. It relied on contemporaneous police records, a judicial order of protection identifying the staff member as the aggressor, photographic evidence of injury, consistent sworn statements obtained during the...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT 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 ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in finding that the staff member¡¯s action of gifting a sex toy to a subordinate was inappropriate, as it transgressed the boundary between the professional and personal life of the subordinate, even if the event took place in private. Whether solicited or not, it had the potential to negatively impact the image and interests of the Organization. Consequently, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT concluded that by doing so, the staff member failed to uphold the required standard expected of her role as a manager.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT committed no error in finding that...

The Appeals Tribunal concluded that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT 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 ±¬ÁÏÍøDT 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 ±¬ÁÏÍøAT 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 ±¬ÁÏÍøAT 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 ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was satisfied that execution of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Judgment (as affirmed by the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT) had occurred in Mr. Ozturk¡¯s case. The Administration had complied with the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT 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 ±¬ÁÏÍøAT observed that Mr. Ozturk appeared only to disagree with the ¡°refund calculation¡± by the Administration for prior overpayments. However, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT 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- ±¬ÁÏÍøAT-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 ±¬ÁÏÍøMIK 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...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s judgment in Rosca was no longer good law, having been overruled by ±¬ÁÏÍøAT in Costa. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT 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 ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute, due to a specific prohibition in this respect contained in Article 8(4) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute, as interpreted by ±¬ÁÏÍøDT in Costa and affirmed by ±¬ÁÏÍøAT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the application was time-barred and the delay in filing could not be condoned. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.