In this Application, the Applicant requests, pursuant to Article XIII of the Statute of the Tribunal, revision of the Tribunal’s judgment in Mpoy-Kamulayi (No. 3), Decision No. 449 [2011].  

In this Application, the Applicant complains of a variety of actions and decisions, largely procedural, taken by a Peer Review Services panel and the PRS secretariat in the course of their review of PRS Request for Review No. 53. Application is summarily dismissed. 

In this Application, the Applicant seeks revision, on the basis of Article XIII of the Tribunal’s Statute, of the Tribunal’s judgment in Yoon (No. 13, No. 14, No. 16, No. 17 and No. 18), Decision No. 447 [2011]. 

This case deals with the Applicant's claim that the Bank misinterpreted and misapplied Staff Rule 7.02 (“Benefits on Ending Employment”) by refusing to pay him a Resettlement Grant upon his separation from service with the Bank and subsequent employment with the United Nations Children's Fund (“UNICEF”)

The Applicant challenges the Bank‟s decision not to include him on the shortlist for the position of Lead Private Sector Development Specialist, level GH, based in Accra, Ghana (“GH position”) for which he applied in 2010.

On 30 June 2011 the World Bank Group Staff Association filed an amicus curiae brief supporting the submissions of the Applicant. The Tribunal decided to accept the brief as part of the record.

The Applicant challenges the Bank’s decision to recall him from his assignment in Abuja, Nigeria, and to reassign him to another position.

The Applicant's claims may be considered to relate to the following: (i) allegations that staff members at the Bank have placed an “electrochemical sensor” in her body by which she is being subjected to assault and harassment through “remote neural monitoring”; (ii) the Bank;s decision in June 2010 to restrict the transmittal of the Applicant's e-mail messages to other staff members; (iii) the Bank's decision in July 2010 to condition any future employment opportunities for the Applicant upon “consultation” with Human Resources, in view of concerns about her health; and (iv) the Bank's decisions in July 2010 to restrict the Applicant's access to Bank premises, and to require that she be accompanied by someone from Human Resources.

The Applicant challenges the Bank‟s decision to terminate her contract of employment, pursuant to Staff Rule 3.00, paragraph 10.09, which governs mandatory termination of a staff member‟s service if s/he is convicted of a “felonious criminal offense.”

The Applicant is challenging the Bank’s failure to promote her to a more senior position.

The Applicant claims that the Bank violated his rights as a staff member in the selection process for the Chief Economist position in the Middle East and North Africa Region (“MNA”).

The Applicant challenges the Bank‟s decisions not to select him for two Grade H (“level GH”) positions for which he was interviewed in 2009, one being the position of Country Program Coordinator in the Francophone Western Africa Region (“CPC Position”), and the other the position of Lead Economist (Trade and Regional Integration) in the Office of the Sector Director in the Africa Region (“Lead Economist Position”).

The Applicant claims that the Bank violated his rights in investigating him for misconduct.

The Applicant claims that the decision to reassign him to a non-managerial position and the decision shortly thereafter to conduct a Supplementary Performance Evaluation were de facto disciplinary measures and constituted an abuse of discretion.

The Applicant seeks full reimbursement of hotel expenses he had incurred in relation to his relocation to Abuja, Nigeria.

The Applicant challenges the Bank‟s decision to terminate his employment for committing misconduct, and alleges that his due process rights were violated in the context of the Bank‟s investigations into the allegations that he committed misconduct.

This judgment deals with five applications in which the Applicant challenges actions taken by the Bank relating to the decision to place her on administrative leave pending the termination of her employment, to carry out a weapons check and monitor her private email account and to impose restrictions on her access to its premises in connection with and following the termination of her employment.

Withdrawal.

Application dismissed.

This case deals with the Applicant’s claim that the Bank breached his contract of employment and terms of appointment when the Mobility Premium paid to him by the Bank was reduced after his wife began working for the International Monetary Fund (“IMF” or “Fund”) and became eligible for IMF benefits.