Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

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, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the Applicants¡¯ request for one. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also decided that the Appellants could not introduce additional evidence since that evidence had not been presented before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT and no application had been made to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT to be allowed to submit that evidence on appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT 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, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA 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. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA 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. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the appeal and affirmed the judgment of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT.