2020-Ģ��ƵAT-1010

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT held that the Appellant had failed to follow the procedural requirements for an appeal. Ģ��ƵAT noted that the Appellant contested a decision of the Pension Board, which had not been subject to review or appeal, neither by the Staff Pension Committee nor by the Standing Committee, acting on behalf of the Pension Board. Ģ��ƵAT held that it was not allowed to intervene in matters that had not previously been subject to internal reassessment by the Pension Fund. Ģ��ƵAT dismissed the appeal as not receivable.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

Ģ��ƵJSPF Decision: The Applicant contested his suspension for allegedly violating confidentiality requirements. The Applicant filed a request for review and reconsideration asking the Pension Board to withdraw its decision. The Pension Board indicated that it would consider the request at the next session (67th) in 2020. On 23 October 2009, the Applicant filed an appeal to Ģ��ƵAT.

Legal Principle(s)

When a challengeable decision is issued, as a first step, an individual must submit a request for review of that decision to the Ģ��ƵJSPF Staff Pension Committee. If the outcome of the review by the Ģ��ƵJSPF Staff Pension Committee does not satisfy the individual, as a second step, he or she can ordinarily appeal to the Ģ��ƵJSPF Standing Committee. It is the decision of the Ģ��ƵJSPF Standing Committee which is appealable to Ģ��ƵAT.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed on receivability

Outcome Extra Text

No relief ordered; No relief ordered.

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

Richards

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement