Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Held or Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Pronouncements
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted the staff member had not requested a review of the decision by the United Nations Staff Pension Committee or filed an appeal to the Standing Committee, but rather had filed a request for management evaluation and then had applied to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that, as such, he had not followed proper procedure. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no authority for receiving an application by the Dispute Tribunal with regards to a pension decision. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not erred when it held that it did not have jurisdiction to undertake a judicial review of the contested decision and that the application had not been receivable.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further stated as the decision had not been subject to internal review or appeal to the Standing Committee, it could not consider the staff member¡¯s underlying claims.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed, however, that the staff member could have misinterpreted a statement in the impugned Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment that he should have filed with the Appeals Tribunal directly, rather than following the internal review process of the Pension Committee and then turning to the Appeals Tribunal. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT suggested that the Pension Committee, on his request, consider whether there was good cause to accept his request for review beyond the deadline or, if the Pension Committee had already taken a decision upon review, that he consider initiating an appeal of the Pension Committee¡¯s decision to the Standing Committee to allow the Standing Committee to consider whether there was good cause to accept the appeal beyond the deadline.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
A staff member contested the decision of the United Nations Staff Pension Committee that had determined that he was incapacitated for further service and was entitled to a disability benefit.
In Judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2023/057, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT determined that the application was not receivable as the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had no jurisdiction to undertake a judicial review of a decision of the Pension Committee.
The staff member appealed.
Legal Principle(s)
As the Secretary-General does not have authority over the management of the Pension Fund, the procedures involving management evaluation by the Administration and adjudication of the application before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT do not apply to decisions of the Pension Fund or the Board.
Generally, the first step to challenging a decision of the Pension Fund is to request a review of the decision by the United Nations Staff Pension Committee. This review is similar to management evaluation and the request is a mandatory first step in the appeal process.
The Standing Committee plays a role similar to that of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, as first instance to the case.
The Appeals Tribunal is not ordinarily allowed to intervene in matters that have not previously been subject to internal reassessment by the Pension Fund. Its jurisdiction over individual staff pension matters is restricted to reviewing the decisions of the Standing Committee.