The Applicant challenges the decision not to confirm her probationary appointment, on the grounds of abuse of discretion and failure to apply the Staff Rules. She also challenges actions related to the appointment of her predecessor in her position. She claims as relief: withdrawal of the notice of non-confirmation of May 3, 2001; retrospective reinstatement; revocation of the unfair and adverse OPE; compensation for lost income/pension and damage to her reputation; and costs of approximately $15,000.

The Applicant contends that he was improperly made redundant. He requests reinstatement, compensation in the amount of three years’ net salary “for loss of career and employment opportunity and moral damages for acute mental suffering,” as well as costs.

 The Applicant, a Ghanaian national, alleges in his application that he was the victim of racial discrimination during his work at the Bank as a Consultant/Bank Temporary between 1991 and 1994. Although the Applicant claims that this discrimination prevented him from obtaining a Regular appointment and forced him to leave the Bank in April 1994, he took no steps to obtain redress either at the time of his departure or during his service with the Bank.
 

The Applicant failed to exhaust the proper remedies within the Bank in a timely manner. Although he left the Country Office and transferred to Headquarters in Washington, D.C. in 1990, he did not file his claim with the PBAC until April 16, 2002, well beyond the pertinent time limit provided in the Staff Rules. Accordingly, the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to decide the merits of the Applicant’s claims, by virtue of the exhaustion requirement set forth in Article II, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Tribunal.

The Applicant failed to exhaust the proper remedies within the Bank in a timely manner. 

The Applicant failed to exhaust the proper remedies within the Bank in a timely manner. 

The Applicant failed to exhaust the proper remedies within the Bank in a timely manner. 

The Applicant failed to exhaust the proper remedies within the Bank in a timely manner. 

The Applicant failed to exhaust the proper remedies within the Bank in a timely manner. 

The Applicant failed to exhaust the proper remedies within the Bank in a timely manner. 

The Applicant failed to exhaust the proper remedies within the Bank in a timely manner. 

The Applicant failed to exhaust the proper remedies within the Bank in a timely manner. 

The Applicant failed to exhaust the proper remedies within the Bank in a timely manner. 

The Respondent contends that the Tribunal is without jurisdiction to decide this application because of the Applicant’s failure in a timely manner to exhaust the appropriate internal remedies. The Application is dismissed.

The Respondent has raised a jurisdictional objection asking the Tribunal to hold the application inadmissible for lack of jurisdiction because the Applicant failed to exhaust all prior remedies available within the Bank Group as required by Article II, paragraph 2(i), of the Tribunal’s Statute.
 

The Respondent has raised a jurisdictional objection asking the Tribunal to hold the application inadmissible for lack of jurisdiction because the Applicant failed to exhaust all prior remedies available within the Bank Group as required by Article II, paragraph 2(i), of the Tribunal’s Statute.
 

Settled.

This case concerns complaints about a negative assessment by Bank officials of the Applicant’s performance during the probationary period of his appointment, the handling by the Bank of a disability that allegedly affected him, and an alleged unfulfilled promise to reinstate the Applicant in his former position. The Applicant seeks reinstatement, compensation and other remedies.

As the Applicant has not exhausted internal remedies with regard to his claims, his application is clearly irreceivable.The Tribunal for this reason orders the parties to attempt settlement of the Applicant’s Termination Grant claim through mediation or other informal means. Even if the matter is beyond the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, the Tribunal feels that such an attempt at settlement would be in the best interest of justice.

This case involves claims by the Applicant regarding alleged mismanagement of his career, non-selection to an Open-Ended position, and damage to his reputation.