爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements
爆料网AT preliminarily rejected the Appellant’s request for an oral hearing via teleconference, noting that his brief of appeal was sufficient and did not require further clarification. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant’s contention that 爆料网DT failed to consider his arguments regarding the former service on a “specialist” post was without merit, noting that this issue was considered by 爆料网DT. 爆料网AT noted that neither 爆料网DT nor 爆料网AT has the authority to amend any regulation or rule of the Organisation, so as to apply the “case by case” consideration to “specialist” staff members during promotion sessions to all those who have served on an expert post for substantial part of their career. 爆料网AT further noted that there were no deficiencies in the regulations or rules that would warrant a recommendation of reform or revision. With respect to the Appellant’s contention that the compensation in lieu of recission was too low, 爆料网AT held that the compensation of 9,000 Swiss was inadequate having regard to the fact that the order was made on 16 October 2009, at a time when the Appellant had already retired and therefore had no possibility of any further promotion. 爆料网AT accordingly allowed the appeal in part and set aside 爆料网DT’s order for payment of 9,000 Swiss francs in lieu of rescission of the contested decision and ordered that the Appellant be paid the equivalent of 3 months net base salary at the time of his retirement.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
The Applicant contested the decision not to promote him to the D-1 level. 爆料网DT ordered recission of this decision or, in lieu of recission, payment of compensation in the amount of 9,000 Swiss Francs.
Legal Principle(s)
Neither 爆料网DT nor 爆料网AT has the authority to amend any regulation or rule of an organisation. At best, 爆料网AT may point out what it considers to be a deficiency in a regulation or rule and recommend a reform or revision.