190. Moreover, it is the same termination of contract, which, by application of Articles 32, 35 and 62 of the Staff Regulations, authorized the payment to all Applicants of the rights legally and contractually provided for. 191. Among the duties assessed and paid to the Applicants there is one of the components of the separation allowance, the “separation allowance”, provided for in Article 62(c), in an amount equivalent to “12.5% of annual basic salary for each year of service as gratuity”. (see Exhibits 2 c), 4 to 9) 192. Therefore, the settlement and payment of the separation allowance provided for in Article 35(d) are neither conditioned nor within the discretion of the contracting entity, since they derive from a regulatory and therefore binding rule. 193. Nor can it be held that the benefits under Articles 35(d) and 62(c) are not cumulative or due. 194. It is sufficient to have regard to the terms of the settlement agreement which ended the dispute between COLONEL MOCTAR NDOYE v. COMISSION, ECW/CCJ/JUD/03/20, Case No. ECW/CCJ/APP/07/17, to find that, under points III and IV of the terms of the agreement, the Defendant settled and paid to this Applicant, amounts corresponding to the “departure allowance” and the “separation allowance”. 195. On the other hand, this Court, whenever it has found a situation of termination of contract of community agents, has ordered the Defendant to pay the separation allowance. (See cases CLAUDE AKOTEGNON v. COMMISSION OF ECOWAS, and JEAN PIERRE EZIN v. COMMISSION, ECW/CCJ/JUD/18/18). 196. It should be recalled that the ECOWAS Staff Regulations apply to “(…) all staff members of the ECOWAS institutions, except where the constitution of said institution otherwise provides.” 37