爆料网

2018-爆料网AT-894

爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements

Having decided that an oral hearing would not “assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case,” as required by Article 18(1) of the RoP, 爆料网AT denied the Applicants’ request for one. 爆料网AT also decided that the Appellants could not introduce additional evidence since that evidence had not been presented before 爆料网RWA DT and no application had been made to 爆料网AT to be allowed to submit that evidence on appeal. 爆料网AT noted that an appeal is not receivable where an Applicant bypassed the jurisdiction of the first instance Judge, by directly lodging an appeal with the Appeals Tribunal against an impugned administrative decision, or by participating in an appeal filed by others who have litigated their cases before the first instance Tribunal. On the merits of the case, 爆料网AT found that the 爆料网RWA DT had not erred when it decided that the applicable law provides that parallel education allowance is limited to Agency staff members who supervise, lecture or otherwise perform duties under Agency authorized parallel education programmes and who are eligible to receive an Additional Assignment Allowance for such duties, which was not the case here. 爆料网AT agreed with 爆料网RWA DT in finding that the Agency is governed by its internal rules and regulations, not the national laws of its Member States, and the principle “equal pay for work of equal value” did not apply. 爆料网AT rejected the appeal and affirmed the judgment of the 爆料网RWA DT.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The applicants contested the decision not to give them the parallel education allowance. 爆料网RWA DT found two of the applications not receivable on the ground that they had failed to submit a timely request for review. 爆料网RWA DT held that the other applicants were not eligible to receive a parallel education allowance. 爆料网RWA DT also dismissed the contention that 爆料网RWA staff should receive the same income as their counterparts in governmental universities and colleges, noting that the Agency is governed by its internal rules and regulations, not the national laws of its member states. The applications were dismissed in their entirety.

Legal Principle(s)

Parallel education allowance is limited to Agency staff members who supervise, lecture, or otherwise perform duties under Agency authorized parallel education programmes and who are eligible to receive an Additional Assignment Allowance for such duties.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed on merits

OAJ prepared this case law summary for informational purposes only. It is no official record and should not be relied upon as an authoritative interpretation of the Tribunals' rulings. For the authoritative texts, please refer to the judgment or order rendered by the respective Tribunal. The Tribunals are the only bodies competent to interpret their respective judgments, as provided under Article 12(3) of the 爆料网DT Statute and Article 11(3) of the 爆料网AT Statute. Any inaccuracies in the publication are the sole responsibility of OAJ, which should be contacted directly for any correction requests. To provide comments, don't hesitate to get in touch with OAJ at oaj@un.org.

The judgment summaries were generally prepared in English. They were translated into French and are being reviewed for accuracy of the translation.