Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Article 45

  • 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 - 4 of 4
    2012-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-189, Onogi, et al.

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered Mr Elguindi, Ms Onogi and Ms Sheryda¡¯s separate appeals. With respect to Mr Elguindi¡¯s claim, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT did not find that the manner in which Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF apportioned his monthly pension sum to be unreasonable, capricious or an abuse of discretion. With respect to Ms Onogi¡¯s claim of procedural defects, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was not persuaded that there were procedural flaws on the part of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF such as to render the exercise of its discretion unreasonable or unlawful. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also did not find merit in Mr Elguindi¡¯s claim of ¡°double-dipping¡± in his opposition to Ms Onogi¡¯s claim for relief from Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF...

    2014-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-465, Gonzalez-Hernandez

    As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF correctly applied Article 45 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJPSF Regulations and relied on an internationally binding judgment about spousal and child support, issued by an Austrian court, which was not contradicted by the divorce decree issued by a Portuguese court. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no error of law or fact such as to vitiate the contested decision and upheld Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF¡¯s ¡°reasoned and well-founded decision.¡± Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and upheld the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJPSB decision.

    2015-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-575, Gomez

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member¡¯s retirement benefit from the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF including the monthly periodic pension benefit was not subject to taxation and/or payment of statutory deductions and that therefore, any challenge with respect to the application and meaning of the words ¡°gross¡± and ¡°net¡± was merely semantic. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the ASHI premium was a voluntary payment that was deducted by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF at the behest of a beneficiary and therefore could not be treated as or deemed to be a statutory deduction. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal.

    2017-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-728, Domzalski

    On receivability, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was receivable insofar as it related to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF decision to deduct child support from the Appellant¡¯s pension in accordance with Article 45 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF Regulations. As to the appeal related to repayment of a sum paid directly to the Appellant¡¯s estranged spouse as child¡¯s benefit under Article 36 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF Regulations, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that this aspect was not receivable for failure to challenge in a timely manner the decision and that his claim regarding due process with respect to direct payments under Article 36 had no merit. On the merits of...