2021-Ģ��ƵAT-1180

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT held that the Appellant did not fall within the exceptional category of participants who exercised their election for a deferred retirement benefit before 1 April 1997 and were therefore entitled to restore their prior contributory service, as the Appellant exercised her election in September 2009. Ģ��ƵAT held that the Appellant was not entitled to restore her prior contributory service. Ģ��ƵAT held that the Appellant��s complaint that she did not have access to the Ģ��ƵJSPF Regulations was unconvincing, given, inter alia, the availability of the Ģ��ƵJSPF Regulations and Rules on the website. Ģ��ƵAT held that there was no evidence that the Ģ��ƵJSPF had provided incorrect advice to the Appellant. Ģ��ƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the Standing Committee.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the decision of the Ģ��Ƶ Staff Pension Committee (Ģ��ƵSPC) to reject her request for restoration of her prior period of contributory service under the Regulations of the Ģ��ƵJSPF. The Standing Committee of the Ģ��ƵJSPF affirmed the decision and held that restoration was precluded by Article 24 of the Ģ��ƵJSPF Regulations because the Applicant, after leaving the service of the Organisation in 2006, had in 2009 selected a deferred retirement benefit pursuant to Article 30 of the Ģ��ƵJSPF Regulations.

Legal Principle(s)

While the Ģ��ƵJSPF has a duty to disclose information in good faith, it does not carry an obligation to educate participants individually about the precise nature and content of the provisions governing benefits. If uncertain, participants should seek advice not only from the staff of the Ģ��ƵJSPF but from independent advisers. Ignorance of the rules cannot be invoked as an excuse for a failure to comply with them. Ģ��ƵJSPF has no discretion to grant a benefit for which the Ģ��ƵJSPF Regulations do not provide.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed on merits

Outcome Extra Text

N/A

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

Thanaa Kamil Al-Shalchi

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement