Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Noting that the Applicant had neither filed an application on the merits nor any other application with regard to this case file, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT closed the case.

The Tribunal cannot review the Alleged Harassment complaint as management evaluation is a prerequisite to an application before the Tribunal¡ªsee Planas 2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-049 and Syed 2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-061. The Tribunal does not have the power to suspend or waive time limits¡ªsee Costa 2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-036. In this case there was no request for, or grant of an extension by the Secretary General. Therefore, regardless of whether there were attempts at informal resolution (or, indeed any other circumstance or factor), the Applicant¡¯s challenge to the First Decision is out of time as it was filed more than 60 days after...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found the application receivable and determined that the post number provided by the ICSC for reclassification purposes was that of a Compensation Officer with functions distinct from those performed by the applicant. Therefore, in the absence of a properly budgeted post, the request of the ICSC was a request for classification advice prior to a budgetary submission, which required General-Assembly approval. The reclassification proposal was not included in the budgetary submission to the General Assembly, and, accordingly, the General Assembly did not approve the proposed...

The applicant failed to show that her case met the criteria under art. 2.2 of the Statute and art. 13 of the Rules of Procedure.

Outcome: Application was rejected.