2017-Ģ��ƵAT-729

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT 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. Ģ��ƵAT 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 Ģ��ƵJSPF. Ģ��ƵAT held that the right to restore past contributory service was only available to participants in terms of Article 24 of the Ģ��ƵJSPF Regulations, who had less than five years�� previous contributory service and whose only available benefit was a withdrawal settlement consisting of their own contributions to the Pension Fund. The Appellant did not fall into that category. Ģ��ƵAT held that the Standing Committed did not err in holding the complaint was time-barred and for that reason alone, the appeal had to be dismissed. Ģ��ƵAT held that the Appellant��s unsubstantiated allegations of fraudulent collusion between Ģ��ƵJSPF and the Government of the USSR were beyond the scope of Ģ��ƵAT��s jurisdiction. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵJSPF acted strictly in compliance with the Ģ��ƵJSPF Regulations. Ģ��ƵAT dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision of the Standing Committee of the Ģ��ƵJSPB.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

Ģ��ƵJSPB decision: The Applicant contested the decision to reject his request for restoration of his prior contributory service in order to receive a deferred retirement benefit. The Applicant��s pension rights had been transferred to the Social Security Fund of the USSR under a transfer agreement and there was no provision in the transfer agreement to return them. The Standing Committee of the Ģ��ƵJSPB upheld the decision of the Ģ��ƵJPSF to reject his request.

Legal Principle(s)

The Standing Committee of the Ģ��ƵJSPB has wide discretion in determining whether good cause exists to extend the prescribed period in which a request for review of a decision may be accepted; a party called upon to show good cause must provide a reasonable explanation for the Appellant��s delay on the record as well as prospects of success on the merits.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed on merits

OAJ prepared this case law summary for informational purposes only. It is no official record and should not be relied upon as an authoritative interpretation of the Tribunals' rulings. For the authoritative texts, please refer to the judgment or order rendered by the respective Tribunal. The Tribunals are the only bodies competent to interpret their respective judgments, as provided under Article 12(3) of the Ģ��ƵDT Statute and Article 11(3) of the Ģ��ƵAT Statute. Any inaccuracies in the publication are the sole responsibility of OAJ, which should be contacted directly for any correction requests. To provide comments, don't hesitate to get in touch with OAJ at oaj@un.org.

The judgment summaries were generally prepared in English. They were translated into French and are being reviewed for accuracy of the translation.

Applicants/Appellants

Zakharov

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement