Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal and affirmed Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF¡¯s decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF submitted credible evidence that demonstrated that the Cameroon divorce decree was invalid and that the deceased at no time commenced proceedings to dissolve his marriage to his first wife apart from the USA divorce proceedings, which were terminated by his death. In drawing this conclusion, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found it unnecessary to address the additional reliefs sought by the Appellant. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT accordingly affirmed Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF¡¯s decision to award the widow¡¯s benefit to the former staff member¡¯s first wife and denied all reliefs...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Appellant¡¯s appeal and had to determine: whether her marriage to the late former staff member was legally valid at the time of his separation from the Organisation in 1998; and whether the Organisation created a legal expectancy of acknowledgement of benefits to the Appellant. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the former staff member¡¯s alleged divorce from his first wife was not legally valid because the authorities pronouncing it were not competent and did not apply the law under which the marriage had been concluded. It follows that his second marriage to the Appellant was not valid at the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellants did not refer to any article of the Regulations that provides that the full retirement benefit may be restored after a participant opts to commute a portion of the retirement benefit into a lump sum. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellants were bound by their decision to accept one-third of their pension as a lump sum and a reduced pension. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s decision could not simply be reversed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the argument that the Appellants had been discriminated against and that their basic fundamental rights concerning equity, fairness, and justice under...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Appellant¡¯s appeal and affirmed the decisions of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPB Standing Committee. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Appellant¡¯s first ground of appeal had no merit, noting that the Appellant had prior notice of her separation and could have exercised her right to restore her participation prior to the time of her separation in accordance with Section F. 1 of the Pension Fund¡¯s Administrative Rules, which she failed to do. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF Standing Committee had no discretion to make an exception in this case and the Standing Committee¡¯s decision not to restore the Appellant¡¯s prior...

In considering the Appellant¡¯s appeal, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Standing Committee could not reject the request unless it disregarded the provisions of Article 33(a) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF Regulations. However, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that it was not in a position to rule on the actual possibility for the Appellant to perform the duties of her respective position and held that the Standing Committee should reconsider the Appellant¡¯s request. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rescinded the Standing Committee¡¯s decision and remanded the Appellant¡¯s request to the Standing Committee for review.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant was essentially seeking an amendment to the Regulations of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJPSF in such a way as to enable her benefit to be paid retroactively to the date of the death in service of her husband, which was prior to 1 April 1999. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the criteria proposed by the Appellant to pay the benefit were not in force to be applied to her case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF correctly applied the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF Regulations. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the impugned decision.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the record reflected that: Michael and Jacqueline married in 1986; they had lived as husband and wife, and Jacqueline was Michael¡¯s wife on the date of his separation from service in 1998 and on the date of his death in 2008. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Michael¡¯s first wife was unable to produce a marriage certificate and the divorce decree she produced was not proof of marriage, despite the date of marriage having been mentioned therein. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the divorce decree could not be the sole basis of declaring Jacqueline¡¯s marriage to Michael invalid. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Jacqueline was entitled...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, since the Appellant was not a staff member of IOM at the time of the Agreement between the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF and IOM of 6 March 2006, the terms of the Agreement were not applicable to him as, by its terms, the Agreement only covered staff members who were current at the time of the Agreement. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the different treatment of IOM staff members was created by the General Assembly. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that restoration is an exceptional benefit that cannot be extended by analogy. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s claim of inconsistency, unequal treatment, and arbitrariness by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPB was...

The former staff members filed an application for revision of judgment 2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-034. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that none of the facts presented fulfilled the requirements of Article 11(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute and Article 24 of the Rules of Procedure. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application for revision was an attempt to relitigate the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the application for revision.

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...