±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding that the appeal had been clearly defined and that there was no need for further clarification. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the motion to file additional pleadings and additional evidence since the Appellant had failed to demonstrate any existence of exceptional circumstances that justified the need to file additional pleadings or to submit additional evidence. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the motion only presented factual and legal contentions that reiterated arguments made in the appeal brief. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further held that the Appellant had failed in his grounds of appeal...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate any error in the finding by ±¬ÁÏÍøDT that he had failed to meet his burden of proving that the assignment to work in Sector East was motivated by improper consideration. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT properly considered the relevant facts and the applicable law in concluding that the Administration had followed the prescribed procedures and acted in accordance with the internal law of the Organisation in separating him for abandonment of post. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant could not choose to ignore a lawful direction by the Administration to provide medical...