World Bank Administrative Tribunal Annual Report Fiscal Year 2024 Message from Tribunal President Janice Bellace As President of the World Bank Administrative Tribunal, I am honored to present this Annual Report, which highlights the Tribunal’s work and accomplishments during Fiscal Year 2024. As the sole independent judicial forum for addressing employment-related grievances within the World Bank Group, the Tribunal remains steadfast in its commitment to providing a fair and impartial process for all parties. This report offers an overview of the Tribunal’s activities, the significant legal issues it has examined, and emerging trends in its usage. These elements reflect the Tribunal’s enduring dedication to the principles of independence, fairness, and impartiality that are vital to its role. The cornerstone of the Tribunal’s authority lies in its independence, as enshrined in Article I of its Statute. This foundational principle not only ensures the Tribunal’s effective operation but also inspires trust among the parties who turn to it for resolution of complex employment disputes. Independence, both in fact and in perception, is essential to maintaining the confidence of World Bank Group staff and management alike. The work of the Tribunal goes beyond resolving individual disputes; it plays a pivotal role in safeguarding the integrity and fairness of the World Bank Group’s employment framework. Each case, regardless of size or complexity, contributes to the evolving body of jurisprudence that guides the institution in upholding the rights and responsibilities of its employees. As we reflect on the past year, I extend my deepest gratitude to my esteemed colleagues on the Tribunal for their unwavering dedication and expertise. Their collective commitment ensures that the Tribunal remains a robust and impartial forum for justice. I also acknowledge the contributions of the staff and stakeholders whose engagement with the Tribunal underscores its critical role in the World Bank Group’s mission. This fiscal year, we welcomed new judges to the Tribunal: Judge Halfeld, Judge Laker, and Judge Pangalangan. Their appointments bring a wealth of knowledge, experience, and dedication, further strengthening the Tribunal’s capacity to address the complex and evolving nature of employment- related disputes. We are confident that their contributions will enhance the Tribunal’s ability to uphold its core values of independence, fairness, and impartiality. Looking ahead, the Tribunal will continue to adapt to new challenges while maintaining its steadfast adherence to the principles of justice and fairness. It is with great pride that we carry forward this mission, contributing to a workplace environment grounded in integrity, respect, and accountability. 1 Executive Summary The World Bank Administrative Tribunal remains the exclusive and ultimate judicial forum for resolving disputes brought by World Bank Group staff alleging violations of their employment contracts or terms of appointment. Operating as an independent judicial body, as established under Article I, paragraph 2, of the Tribunal’s Statute, the Tribunal functions separately from World Bank Group management. The independence of the Tribunal is safeguarded by the Statute, which obligates the World Bank Group to respect and uphold this autonomy. All decisions rendered by the Tribunal are final and binding, providing definitive resolutions to the cases within its jurisdiction. Fiscal Year (FY) 2024 marked a period of notable transitions within the Tribunal. After a decade of distinguished service, Judges Mahnoush H. Arsanjani and Marielle Cohen-Branche concluded their terms, having reached the statutory limit of two consecutive five-year appointments. Their departure reflects the significant contributions they made to the Tribunal’s jurisprudence and its commitment to justice. The Tribunal also welcomed three new judges—Martha Halfeld Furtado de Mendonça Schmidt (Brazil), Thomas Laker (Germany), and Raul Pangalangan (Philippines)—who bring diverse and extensive expertise in international, administrative, and labor law. Their addition reinforces the Tribunal’s capacity to address complex employment disputes with fairness and impartiality. Throughout FY 2024, the Tribunal resolved a total of 17 cases, continuing its critical role in upholding the integrity of the World Bank Group’s employment framework. As part of its outreach efforts, the Tribunal sustained its publication of The Bench, a biannual electronic newsletter designed to keep staff informed about its work and decisions. All judgments, offering transparent and comprehensive insights, are available online at https://tribunal.worldbank.org. This year’s milestones underscore the Tribunal’s unwavering dedication to its mission of ensuring justice and fostering confidence in the World Bank Group’s employment policies and practices. The predominant issues brought before the Tribunal included employment contracts, jurisdictional matters, and ethical/respectful behaviors. Notable cases involved the scope of disciplinary sanctions, fair treatment during misconduct investigations, retaliation, the non-renewal of term appointments, mobility premium benefits, fairness in the selection process, batch rotation exercises, the Bank’s duty of care to staff, and workers’ compensation. 2 Applicant demographics indicated a balanced representation, with 47 percent of applicants from World Bank Group headquarters and 53 percent from country offices. Notably, female applicants accounted for 59 percent of cases, which is a slight overrepresentation of the World Bank Group’s overall gender distribution. The Tribunal expeditiously considers cases, with an average processing time of eight months from the receipt of an application to the rendering of a judgment. In summary, the FY 2024 annual report underscores the Tribunal’s commitment to fairness, transparency, and accessibility. OVERVIEW The World Bank Administrative Tribunal is the only judicial forum, as well as the forum of last resort, for the resolution of cases submitted by World Bank Group staff members alleging non- observance of their contracts of employment or terms of appointment. Article I, paragraph 2, of the Tribunal’s Statute emphasizes, “The Tribunal is a judicial body that functions independently of the management of the World Bank Group. The independence of the Tribunal shall be guaranteed and respected by the World Bank Group at all times.” The Tribunal’s decisions are final and binding. WHO WE ARE The Tribunal is composed of seven independent judges who are nationals of different member states of the World Bank Group. The Tribunal’s Statute states that the judges “shall be persons of high moral character and must possess the qualifications required for appointment to high judicial office or be jurisconsults of recognized competence.” The Board of Executive Directors appoints judges from a list of candidates nominated by the World Bank Group President after appropriate consultation. The judges are appointed for a term of five years, renewable once. The judges on the Tribunal in FY 2024 were Janice Bellace (Tribunal President), a national of the United States; Seward Cooper (Tribunal Vice-President), a national of Liberia; Lynne Charbonneau (Tribunal Vice-President), a national of Canada; Ann Power-Forde, a national of Ireland; Martha Halfeld Furtado de Mendonça Schmidt, a national of Brazil; Thomas Laker, a national of Germany; and Raul Pangalangan, a national of the Philippines. The Secretariat, the administrative arm of the Tribunal, is managed by the Executive Secretary. As specified by the Tribunal’s Statute, the Executive Secretary, in discharging duties, is responsible solely to the Tribunal. CASE SUMMARY Caseload. Overall, the Tribunal decided 17 cases in FY 2024. All judgments are published online and can be viewed at https://tribunal.worldbank.org. Issues Raised. The issues most frequently brought to the Tribunal during FY 2024 related to employment contracts (35 percent), jurisdiction (26 percent), and ethical/respectful behaviors (18 percent). Notable issues addressed by the Tribunal in FY 2024 included issues surrounding the ending of employment, benefits and compensation, retaliation, and respectful treatment. 3 Demographics. Some 47 percent of applicants were based at World Bank Group headquarters, compared to 53 percent of applicants in country offices. The country office–based applications now reflect a steady increase over the course of the past six fiscal years and closely align with the makeup of the World Bank Group staff. The increase may be a consequence of outreach activities designed to ensure that the Tribunal is accessible to all staff regardless of duty station. In FY 2024, female applicants accounted for 59 percent of the applications and male applicants accounted for the remaining 41 percent. This gender distribution aligns with the increase observed in FY 2023 regarding the proportion of female applicants. Of the applicants holding graded positions, 76 percent were staff members at Grade Levels GE and above. The remaining 24 percent were staff members at Grade Levels GA through GD. Approximately 41 percent of applicants held Open-Ended appointments and 59 percent held Term appointments. No applicants held extended or short-term consultancy contracts. The charts below display the demographics of Tribunal applicants alongside the World Bank Group’s staff demographics for visual comparison of the data. Tribunal Applicant Demographics, FY 2024 World Bank Group Staff Demographics, FY 2024 Average Processing Time. The exchange of written pleadings between an applicant and respondent takes close to six months before a case is ready for the Tribunal’s deliberation. Factors that affect processing time may include the number of cases decided in one session, whether 4 jurisdiction and merits were decided in the same judgment, whether a hearing was held, the nature and complexity of the case and the scheduling of Tribunal sessions, and whether the parties have requested an extension or a stay of proceedings. During FY 2024, on average, it took the Tribunal eight months to dispose of a case from the time it received an application to when it rendered a judgment, which is the same as the average processing time observed in FY 2023. TRIBUNAL ELECTS NEW LEADERSHIP During its November 2023 session, the Administrative Tribunal elected Judge Janice Bellace as President and Judges Seward Cooper and Lynne Charbonneau as Vice-Presidents. Each brings exceptional experience and expertise to their new roles. Judge Janice Bellace From the United States, Judge Bellace previously served as Tribunal Vice-President. She is a professor of legal studies, business ethics, and management at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. A leader in several professional organizations, she has served as President of the International Labour and Employment Relations Association, the International Society for Labour and Social Security Law, and the US Labor and Employment Relations Association. Judge Seward Cooper Hailing from Liberia, Judge Cooper brings a wealth of experience in governance and legal counsel. He served as Legal Advisor to President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf from 2011 to 2016. Previously, he was the African Development Bank’s first Chief Counsel and Head of Unit for Good Governance, and later became the inaugural head of its Integrity and Anti-Corruption Office. Judge Lynne Charbonneau A corporate director and labor and employment law expert from Canada, Judge Charbonneau chairs the Human Resources and Compensation Committee at one of Canada’s largest credit unions. She is also the past Chair of the ActSafe Safety Association, an organization dedicated to worker health and safety. Her prior experience includes a successful career in the private banking sector. The Tribunal looks forward to the leadership and vision these accomplished judges will bring to their roles in advancing its mission. TRIBUNAL EXPRESSES GRATITUDE TO JUDGES ARSANJANI AND COHEN- BRANCHE FOR A DECADE OF DISTINGUISED SERVICE The Tribunal bids farewell to Judges Mahnoush H. Arsanjani and Marielle Cohen-Branche after a decade each of dedicated and exemplary service. Both judges leave a legacy of respect and admiration from their colleagues across all levels of the Tribunal. Judge Mahnoush H. Arsanjani A distinguished jurist from Iran, Judge Arsanjani recently served as the Tribunal’s second female president. Over her two-year tenure as president, she presided over numerous cases that led to significant rulings on employees’ rights and responsibilities. Known for her balanced approach, 5 she facilitated deliberations by sharing her own perspectives while remaining open to the views of others. Judge Arsanjani’s contributions to the Tribunal were informed by her extensive expertise in international law, administrative law, and banking law. Her career spans more than three decades with the United Nations Office of Legal Affairs, where she held various leadership roles, including Director of the Codification Division and Secretary to the International Law Commission. Her influence extended to drafting the Charter of the International Energy Forum and serving as Vice- President of the American Society of International Law. Judge Arsanjani has also authored numerous publications on international courts and lawmaking, further solidifying her reputation as a leading figure in her field. Judge Marielle Cohen-Branche Judge Cohen-Branche, a native of France, brought her rich experience in administrative law and international banking to her role as Tribunal Vice-President, a position she held for four years. Her perspectives, deeply rooted in French administrative law, were highly valued by her peers, as was her ability to advocate strongly for her views while fostering consensus among members. Before her appointment to the Tribunal, Judge Cohen-Branche served as a judge at France’s highest court, the Cour de cassation, and as a member of the World Bank’s Sanctions Board and Sanctions Commission. Her career also includes significant contributions to the development and private banking sectors, where she served as ombudsperson for the French Stock Exchange Regulator. For her distinguished service to France, she was awarded the French Legion of Honour. A Legacy of Engagement and Excellence Beyond their legal contributions, Judges Arsanjani and Cohen-Branche embraced opportunities to connect with staff and stakeholders through “Meet the Judges” events, fostering dialogue and understanding. Both judges valued hearing from individuals across diverse backgrounds, complementing their own extraordinary careers with an inclusive approach to their roles. Their departures mark the end of an era for the Tribunal, but their contributions and dedication will remain an enduring part of its history. The Tribunal extends its heartfelt gratitude to both judges for their service and wishes them the very best in their future endeavors. TRIBUNAL WELCOMES THREE NEW JUDGES The Administrative Tribunal is pleased to announce the appointment of three distinguished new judges, each bringing extensive and diverse expertise to its deliberations. Their collective experience enhances the Tribunal’s capacity to address complex cases with insight and impartiality. Judge Martha Halfeld Furtado de Mendonça Schmidt A Brazilian national, Judge Halfeld joins the Tribunal with a distinguished career as a labor judge in Brazil and as a member of the United Nations Appeals Tribunal and the Inter-American Development Bank Administrative Tribunal. She holds a PhD and a master’s degree in law from the Université Panthéon-Assas (Paris II) in France. Judge Halfeld has taught at Brazil’s National Judicial Training Centre for Labor Judges and authored over 40 articles on topics ranging from human rights to international labor standards. 6 Judge Thomas Laker Judge Laker, from Germany, brings a wealth of experience in administrative law and conflict resolution. He previously served as Judge and President of the United Nations Dispute Tribunal in Geneva and as Presiding Judge at the Administrative Tribunal in Hamburg. Currently, he chairs the Panel of Adjudicators for the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe and serves on the Administrative Tribunals of multiple international organizations, including the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East. He is also a co-author of the Handbook on the Internal Justice System at the United Nations. Judge Raul Pangalangan A national of the Philippines, Judge Pangalangan presided over landmark cases involving war crimes and crimes against humanity during his tenure as a Judge at the International Criminal Court in The Hague. He is a professor of constitutional law and public international law at the University of the Philippines, where he previously served as Law Dean. Currently, he is co-chair of the Asian Journal of International Law and editor-in-chief of the Philippine Yearbook of International Law. Judge Pangalangan is also a member of the Permanent Court of Arbitration (The Hague) and has been elected to the Institut de Droit International. The new judges participated in their first session from April 29 to May 3, during which the Tribunal issued seven judgments and one order. Their contributions are already strengthening the Tribunal’s work in ensuring justice and accountability. NOTABLE CASES HE v. IBRD, Decision No. 698 [2023] Issue: The applicant contested the decision not to renew her appointment. The applicant joined the Bank in 2019 as the first Chief Data Privacy Officer, Grade Level GI. In October 2022, the applicant was informed that her appointment would not be renewed because “senior management has decided to adjust the role of the leadership of the data privacy function to cover it with a lower grade level staff.” The applicant contested the decision, claiming it was an abuse of discretion and was carried out in violation of a fair and reasonable procedure. The Tribunal considered both whether the Bank’s purported change in business needs provided a reasonable and observable basis for the non-renewal decision and whether the Bank acted with fairness and transparency in making the decision. Decision: The Tribunal accepted the Bank’s determination that there was a change in business needs, namely, that, after the Data Privacy Office’s initial setup, there was no longer a need for a GI-level Chief Data Privacy Officer and that the office could be organizationally housed under a different Vice Presidency Unit. However, the Tribunal found that this change in business needs did not provide the applicant a reasonable and observable basis for the non-renewal decision, determining that the Chief Data Privacy Officer role continued, the applicant’s skills matched the identified skills for the role, and the applicant was a good performer. Thus, the Tribunal found that the Bank abused its discretion regarding staffing needs and failed to treat the applicant fairly. 7 The Tribunal also found that the Bank failed to act with fairness and transparency, noting the absence of contemporaneous documentation of the non-renewal decision, the initial lack of transparency regarding who made the non-renewal decision, and the Bank’s failure to alert the applicant of the possibility that her reluctance to support the reorganization of the Data Privacy Office and its new reporting line could be a factor in the renewal of her appointment. The Bank was ordered to pay the applicant two years’ salary for the improper non-renewal decision and its implication on her pension benefits; six months’ salary for the Bank’s failure to act with fairness and transparency; six months’ salary for the harm to the Applicant’s career prospects, reputation, and professional life; and the Applicant’s full legal fees and costs. HM v. IBRD, Decision No. 703 [2024] Issue: The applicant challenged the Bank’s decisions not to select him for a position during a batch rotation exercise and not to extend his term appointment. The applicant held various successive term appointments with the Bank for over fifteen years in several regions of operation. The applicant participated in the FY 2021 and 2022 batch rotation exercises but was not reassigned during either exercise. Following the FY 2022 batch rotation exercise, the applicant’s manager informed him that his contract would not be extended. During peer review proceedings, the applicant’s manager cited two bases for the non-extension decision: (i) the applicant was not reassigned during the batch rotation exercise, and (ii) the applicant had reached the regional term limit for his position. The Tribunal first considered whether it had jurisdiction to review the applicant’s non-selection claim. Next, the Tribunal considered whether the non-extension decision violated the applicant’s due process rights and whether there was a reasonable and observable basis for the non-extension decision. Decision: The Tribunal determined first that it did not have jurisdiction to review the applicant’s non-selection claim, as the claim was filed beyond the statutory limits. The Tribunal noted, however, that, because the Bank cited the batch rotation exercise outcome as a basis for the non- extension decision, the Tribunal would have regard to the facts relating to the non-selection decision, on both substantive and procedural grounds, to the extent that they were pertinent to the merits of the applicant’s non-extension claim. The Tribunal next found that the Bank’s failure to provide the applicant in writing with the reasons for the non-extension decision, at the time the decision was communicated to him, constituted a due process violation. It further found that the FY 2022 batch rotation exercise, as applied to the applicant, lacked transparency and was an abuse of discretion; therefore, the Tribunal did not accept that the results of the exercise served as a reasonable and observable basis for the non- extension decision. The Bank was ordered to pay twenty-one months’ net salary and contribute to the applicant’s legal fees and costs. 8 HN v. IBRD (Merits), Decision No. 704 [2024] Issue: The applicant claimed that the Bank breached its duty of care in response to the applicant’s worsening medical condition. In early 2022, the applicant began to experience gastroenterological symptoms while stationed in Guinea-Bissau. After testing revealed that she had two bacterial infections, the applicant reached out to the Bank’s Health and Safety Directorate (HSD) to inform them of her symptoms and diagnosis. In early April 2022, the applicant again experienced symptoms, and HSD informed her that a non-emergency medical evacuation (NEME) would not likely be approved but recommended that she apply for out of country care (OOCC). The applicant contacted HSD again at the end of April with worsening symptoms and was again advised to apply for OOCC, which she did. After the applicant sent a picture of her abdomen to HSD, on 2 May 2022, HSD approved a NEME for the applicant’s evacuation to Spain where she received a diagnosis of colon cancer. The Tribunal considered whether the Bank exercised its duty of care to the applicant under the prevailing circumstances. Decision: The Tribunal determined that nothing in the medical reports or information provided by the applicant to HSD would indicate that the applicant’s circumstances met the conditions for a NEME set out in the Staff Rules. The Tribunal determined that the Bank acted entirely reasonably in responding to the information supplied by the applicant in terms of both the advice it provided to the applicant and the actions it took to ensure that adequate medical care was provided. The Tribunal found that the Bank met and, indeed, went beyond its duty of care in all the prevailing circumstances. The application was dismissed. 9 FY 2024 TRIBUNAL COMPOSITION SECRETARIAT COMPOSITION Janice Bellace – President Zakir Hafez (United States) Executive Secretary Seward Cooper – Vice President Devon Bromfield (Liberia) Senior Counsel Lynne Charbonneau – Vice President Mohammad Edirissa Faal (Canada) Counsel Ann Power-Forde – Judge (Ireland) Kaara Martinez Counsel Martha Halfeld Furtado de Tara Ippoliti Mendonça Schmidt – Judge Associate Counsel (Brazil) Thomas Laker – Judge Farkanda Haseen (Germany) Legal Analyst Raul Pangalangan – Judge Robert Newman (Philippines) Legal Assistant 10