Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT 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. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s contention that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT failed to consider his arguments regarding the former service on a ¡°specialist¡± post was without merit, noting that this issue was considered by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that neither Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT nor Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT 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. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT 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, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT 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. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT accordingly allowed the appeal in part and set aside Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯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.