爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements
The 爆料网DT found that the Applicant appealed against several decisions, namely the decision to transfer her from 爆料网OPS to WHO and back to 爆料网OPS, the decision to deny her return rights to 爆料网OPS, and her separation from 爆料网OPS upon the end of her SLWOP. The 爆料网DT found that the application was time-barred with respect to all those decisions.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
As a 爆料网OPS 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 爆料网OPS to WHO, hence separated from 爆料网OPS, and continued to work for the GF which was then an entity under WHO. When the GF became an independent organization under Swiss law, 爆料网OPS agreed to a transfer back of the Applicant to 爆料网OPS, under reimbursable loan to the GF, to allow her to keep her status as a 爆料网JSPF participant. The letter of appointment from 爆料网OPS, 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, 爆料网OPS informed the Applicant that under the reimbursable loan agreement, she had no right to return to 爆料网OPS; however, 爆料网OPS agreed to grant her a one year SLWOP, at no-cost to 爆料网OPS, 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.