Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that in his application, the staff member had clearly identified the contested decision as the Pension Fund¡¯s email which informed him that his pension benefits had already been paid and there were no further entitlements.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that he had not requested a review of the decision or filed an appeal to the Standing Committee of the Pension Board but rather had filed a request for management evaluation and then appealed to the Dispute Tribunal. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, as such, he had not followed proper procedure under the rules of the Pension Fund.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that the...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ms. George submitted her request to revert to the US dollar track system on 4 August 2015 and the Administration rejected it on 10 November 2015.Despite that clear communication, the former staff member continued to exchange correspondence with the Administration seeking reconsideration of the decision for almost nine years.She waited until 9 April 2024 before submitting her request for review to the Standing Committee.As it was filed beyond the statutory time limit of ninety days of receipt of notification of the contested decision, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that her request was...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Standing Committee of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPB had appropriately found Ms. Briel ineligible to receive a widow¡¯s benefit.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ms. Briel should have submitted her appeal to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT using the prescribed form, accompanied by a brief explaining her grounds for appeal, particularly given that she had received clear instructions from the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Registry. Nonetheless, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT reviewed the merits of her appeal.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that, at the time of the late participant¡¯s death, he had not reported Ms. Briel as his spouse or common-law spouse. Moreover, there was no evidence to...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Standing Committee did not err in holding the application was not receivable ratione temporis. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that, in refusing to receive the application, the Standing Committee also implicitly refused to find ¡°good cause¡± to waive the sixty days¡¯ time limit for review set forth in Section K of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF Administrative Rules. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also found no error in this implicit determination and held that a waiver of five years for review by the Standing Committee would be unreasonable, especially in light of the time limits in the Transfer Agreement between Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF and CTBTO. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...