Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Article 31

  • Annex I
  • Annex IV
  • Annex ll
  • Article 1
  • Article 1(l)
  • Article 1(q)
  • Article 1(v)
  • Article 10
  • Article 13
  • Article 2
  • Article 22
  • Article 22(b)
  • Article 22(c)
  • Article 24
  • Article 24(a)
  • Article 25
  • Article 25(b)(i)
  • Article 27
  • Article 28
  • Article 28(d)
  • Article 29
  • Article 29(e)
  • Article 30
  • Article 30(b)
  • Article 31
  • Article 31 (b) (ii)
  • Article 31(a)
  • Article 31(b)(i)
  • Article 32
  • Article 32(a)
  • Article 32(b)
  • Article 33
  • Article 33(a)
  • Article 34
  • Article 35
  • Article 35(b)(i)
  • Article 35ter
  • Article 38
  • Article 4(b)
  • Article 4(c)
  • Article 40
  • Article 44
  • Article 45
  • Article 48
  • Article 48(a)
  • Article 49(b)
  • Article 50
  • Article 50(b)
  • Article 53
  • Article 54
  • Article 6
  • Article 6(a)
  • Former Regulation 31
  • Former Regulation 35
  • Regulation 1(n)
  • Regulation 30(a)
  • Section H.5
  • Section K
  • Section K.1
  • Section K.5
  • Section K.8(a)
  • Section K.8(b)
    • Showing 1 - 5 of 5
    2023-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1321, Diana Kenoly, Carolyne Alany Rumah, Felix Kwame and Nicholas Kariuki Kinyanjui in respect of Roselyne Kayeke Oming (deceased)

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed both the appeal and the cross-appeal.

    As to the Secretary-General's cross-appeal against the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT's decision on receivability, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct not to dismiss the claims as unreceivable, but to investigate their merits.

    Turning to the merits, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that death benefits under the Rules are not payable to beneficiaries nominated by a staff member, but to designated beneficiaries as defined by the Staff Rules (i.e. the surviving spouse or dependent children). The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Mr. Oming survived Ms. Oming and the substantial preponderance of...

    2015-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-608, Teklu

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Standing Committee correctly determined that the applicable rules provide that the pension participant is required to inform Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJPSF in writing of the benefit election made and of any commutation elected and that there was no provision for third party advisement. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Standing Committee¡¯s reliance on Article 30(b) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF Regulations as a rationale for its finding that a deferred retirement benefit became payable to Ms. Assebe upon her separation from service was flawed on the basis that she did not elect for a deferred retirement benefit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that...

    2017-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-736, Williams

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Applicant was not entitled to a widow¡¯s benefit under Article 34 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJPSF Regulations as she married Mr Williams, her deceased husband, after his separation from service. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that, under Article 35ter of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF Regulations, the survivor¡¯s benefit had to be purchased by a retiree who marries after separation from service as an annuity within a prescribed one-year deadline after the date of the marriage. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that Mr Williams had elected not to do so. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no obligation for Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF to inform Mr Williams of the option. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that...

    2018-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-834, Fox

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the relationship between a pension fund and its members and beneficiaries is determined principally by the Regulations of the Fund and that there is no other explicit contractual basis obliging the Fund to assume duties beyond those expressly provided for in the Regulations and Administrative Rules. However, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT emphasized the importance of contracts being executed in good faith. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Fund breached its duty of good faith because the correspondence between the Appellant and the Fund indicated that she needed assistance and further...

    2018-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-830, Schepens

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held, considering that the Appellant had elected to take a deferred retirement benefit after 1 April 2007 and not taken a withdrawal settlement, that the Fund had no discretion to make an exception under Article 24(a) of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF Regulations. Regarding the submission that the Fund was in breach of a duty of good faith by not adequately informing the Appellant of the amendment and its implications, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it cannot be expected of the Fund to provide information in relation to every conceivable contingency or possibility that might or might not eventuate in the future. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further...