The Applicant contests her classification as a Non-Regular Staff (NRS) during the period from 1990 to 1998 and claims past pension credit for her service in that capacity. The Applicant fails, however, to meet the basic jurisdictional standards set forth by the Tribunal’s Statute. Article II, paragraph 2(i), of the Tribunal’s Statute provides that an application will be inadmissible if the applicant has not “exhausted all other remedies available within the Bank Group” prior to coming to the Tribunal, save in exceptional circumstances as decided by the Tribunal, or unless the applicant and the respondent have agreed to submit the application directly to the Tribunal.
 

Summarily dismissed.

 The Applicant seeks past pension credit for her service as a Non-Regular Staff (NRS). Application summarily dismissed.

In the present application, the Applicant again invokes Article XIII(1) of the Tribunal’s Statute, arguing that he has discovered a new fact which would have had a 
“decisive influence had it been known to Applicant and the Tribunal at the time [Decision No. 259] was considered.” Application dismissed.

The present application challenges the Respondent’s “decision to submit knowingly false statements and allegations to the World Bank Administrative Tribunal” in connection with the merits phase of the previous case.

The Applicant seeks past pension credit for his service as a Non-Regular Staff (NRS). The application appears to have been based on information made available by the World Bank Staff Association, which states that former NRS, “whether they have already filed with the Appeals Committee or not, can file an appeal with the Administrative Tribunal.” The approach taken by the Applicant misperceives the basic jurisdictional standards set forth by the Tribunal’s Statute. Article II, paragraph 2(i), of the Tribunal’s Statute provides that an application will be inadmissible if the applicant has not “exhausted all other remedies available within the Bank Group” prior to coming to the Tribunal, save in exceptional circumstances as decided by the Tribunal, or unless the applicant and the respondent have agreed to submit the application directly to the Tribunal.
 

Application summarily dismissed.

The Applicant seeks past pension credit for her service as a Non-Regular Staff (NRS). Application summarily dismissed.

Summarily dismissed.

The Applicant attempts to found jurisdiction over her past pension benefit claims on the individual efforts of an applicant in an earlier Tribunal judgment, Prescott, Decision No. 253 [2001], to obtain redress for his own past pension benefit claims.

The Applicant attempts to found jurisdiction over her past pension benefit claims on the individual efforts of an applicant in an earlier Tribunal judgment, Prescott, Decision No. 253 [2001], to obtain redress for his own past pension benefit claims.

 The Applicant seeks past pension credit for her service as a Non-Regular Staff (NRS).

The Applicant seeks past pension credit for her service as a Non-Regular Staff (NRS). The application appears to have been based on information made available by the World Bank Staff Association, which states that former NRS, “whether they have already filed with the Appeals Committee or not, can file an appeal with the Administrative Tribunal.” Application summarily dismissed.
 

 The Applicant attempts to found jurisdiction over her past pension benefit claims on the individual efforts of an applicant in an earlier Tribunal judgment, Prescott, Decision No. 253 [2001], to obtain redress for his own past pension benefit claims.

The present application explicitly seeks to challenge this refusal of reinstatement.  The Bank asks that the case be dismissed pursuant to Article II(2) of the Statute because it was not brought within 90 days of the July 10, 2000, letter.

The Applicant challenges three decisions which had the following respective effects: (1) placing him on a performance improvement plan (PIP) for 2 unsatisfactory performance soon after withdrawal of a decision to make him redundant; (2) rating his performance as unsatisfactory in the 1999 overall performance evaluation (OPE); and (3) terminating his employment for unsatisfactory performance in breach of the procedure set out in Staff Rules 5.03 and 7.01. He contends that these decisions were arbitrary, discriminatory, and retaliatory; and therefore constituted an abuse of discretion

The Applicant claims that the decision not to include her on the shortlist for four Disbursement Analyst Positions for which she had applied and the decision to award her a below average merit increase in 1999 were a result of retaliation against her and constituted an abuse of discretion.

The Applicant challenges as retaliatory and an abuse of process a number of decisions by the Bank: (i) the initial decision to reassign him; (ii) the decision to rescind the reassignment and to declare him redundant; and (iii) the subsequent decision to rescind the redundancy and to reassign him.

This case concerns a claim by the Applicant about the unfair denial of participation in the Staff Retirement Plan (SRP) and related benefits for the whole period of his service with the Bank as a Long-Term Temporary. The claim also raises questions of misclassification.

This case concerns a claim for pension credits and related benefits during the period the Applicant held a Non-Regular Staff (NRS) Consultant position before April 15, 1998. The claim is based on arguments that the Bank pursued policies in violation of the Principles of Staff Employment and the relevant Staff Rules and that it misclassified the Applicant’s position.