Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Held or Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Pronouncements
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Applicant appealed against several decisions, namely the decision to transfer her from Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOPS to WHO and back to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOPS, the decision to deny her return rights to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOPS, and her separation from Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOPS upon the end of her SLWOP. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the application was time-barred with respect to all those decisions.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
As a Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOPS staff member, the Applicant was seconded to WHO to work for the Global Fund to fight Aids Tuberculosis and Malaria (GF). When her secondment to WHO came to an end, she was transferred from Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOPS to WHO, hence separated from Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOPS, and continued to work for the GF which was then an entity under WHO. When the GF became an independent organization under Swiss law, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOPS agreed to a transfer back of the Applicant to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOPS, under reimbursable loan to the GF, to allow her to keep her status as a Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF participant. The letter of appointment from Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOPS, signed by the Applicant, contained a special condition according to which the appointment was limited to her assignment under reimbursable loan to the GF. When the Applicant¡¯s contract with the GF was terminated, for reasons of underperformance, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOPS informed the Applicant that under the reimbursable loan agreement, she had no right to return to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOPS; however, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOPS agreed to grant her a one year SLWOP, at no-cost to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOPS, to allow her to keep her status as an internal candidate when applying for vacancies. When the one-year SLWOP came to an end, it was extended for another three months, after which the Applicant was separated.
Legal Principle(s)
Scope of an application: While an Applicant must properly single out each and every administrative decision which she/he wants to contest, it is also the duty of the Judge to adequately interpret the terms of an application. Receivability ratione temporis: The statutory time-limits start to run when the person was informed of a decision, not when he/she was provided with reasonable belief that there were grounds to request management evaluation; a decision which merely confirms an earlier decision does not lead to the deadline under staff rule 11.2(c) to start anew.