Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

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...

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...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant was fully apprised of the options available to him in relation to his pension benefits when his first contract with the Organisation ended in 1985. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s election to transfer his actuarial value to the Social Security Fund of the USSR terminated his contractual relationship with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the right to restore past contributory service was only available to participants in terms of Article 24 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF Regulations, who had less than five years¡¯ previous contributory service and whose only available benefit was a...

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...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF¡¯s contention that Ms. Larriera had known since 2003 that she was not recognized as a widow by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF, interpreted as having the meaning that she should have timely filed her request for review and subsequently her appeal to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT at that time, was without merit. In the absence of an explicit decision by the Administration denying her the entitlement, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ms Larriera could not and ought not to be expected to presume that such a decision was taken. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ms. Larriera¡¯s request for review was receivable ratione materiae and that Ms. Larriera¡¯s appeal was...