Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Held or Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Pronouncements
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed both the appeal and the cross-appeal.
As to the Secretary-General's cross-appeal against the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT's decision on receivability, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct not to dismiss the claims as unreceivable, but to investigate their merits.
Turning to the merits, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that death benefits under the Rules are not payable to beneficiaries nominated by a staff member, but to designated beneficiaries as defined by the Staff Rules (i.e. the surviving spouse or dependent children). The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Mr. Oming survived Ms. Oming and the substantial preponderance of the evidence established that their marriage still subsisted at the date of her death. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further held that the Appellants were not dependent children as defined in Staff Rule 3.6(a)(iii)a¨Cc and as such they were not entitled in law to the United Nations death benefit. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment of the Appellants' non-entitlement to such benefits and dismissed their appeal.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
Before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, the adult children of a deceased Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAMA staff member contested the decision to name Mr. Oming whom the Administration identified as the deceased staff member's spouse as the recipient of a death benefit pursuant to Staff Rule 9.11(vii).
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found the application receivable on grounds that the decision to consider Mr. Oming as the recipient of a death benefit pursuant to Staff Rule 9.11(a)(vii) produced direct legal consequences on the deceased staff member¡¯s contractual rights acquired during her previous employment. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that Staff Rule 9.11(a)(vii) fell within the scope of ¡°terms of appointment¡± under Article 2(1)(a) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute. Therefore, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT reasoned, the contested decision constituted an administrative decision within the meaning of Article 2(1)(a). The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT further found the application receivable, given that the Appellants were the children and potential recipients of a benefit triggered by the staff member¡¯s demise and were making claims in her name under Article 3(1)(c) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute.
Turning to the merits of the application, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the decision to consider Mr. Oming as the recipient of a death benefit was not unlawful. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT noted that the Administration based its decision on a review of the deceased staff member¡¯s official records, which listed her marital status as ¡°legally separated¡±, not divorced, and that in the absence of a divorce decree, Mr. Oming was the deceased staff member¡¯s legal spouse at the time of her death. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT further found that the national authorities of Uganda confirmed that the deceased staff member and Mr. Oming were still legally married at the time of her death. Further, in 2015, the deceased staff member had claimed Mr. Oming as a dependent spouse based on her status as ¡°married¡± to Mr. Oming and sought to reinstate him officially as her recognized spouse. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT rejected the Appellants¡¯ arguments that the Omings¡¯ marriage certificate was forged, given that the deceased staff member had confirmed the authenticity of the marriage certificate and submitted it to the Organization herself. Further, the Uganda Registration Services Bureau had provided the Administration with a letter verifying the authenticity of the marriage certificate. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT thus dismissed the application on its merits.
Ms. Oming's children appealed and the Secretary-General cross-appealed.
Legal Principle(s)
Death benefits under the Staff Rules are not payable to beneficiaries nominated by a staff member, but to designated beneficiaries as defined by the Staff Rules, i.e. the surviving spouse and dependent children.