2025-Ģ��ƵAT-1534-Corr.1

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

The Ģ��ƵAT noted that months after the death of the participant in the Fund, the Appellant had produced Pens.A/2 forms purporting to change the designation of the beneficiary of the residual settlement, executed by a thumbprint and not the participant��s signature. The Ģ��ƵAT also noted the medical evidence of signs of the participant��s dementia.

The Ģ��ƵAT found that the Appellant had provided no evidence to support the contention that the participant��s mental capacity had improved by the time of thumbprinting the later forms. The Ģ��ƵAT held that the Fund had not erred when it found those forms unreliable.

The Ģ��ƵAT further held that there had been no error in the Fund��s finding that the later forms had not complied with the requirement of being signed. The Ģ��ƵAT found that the thumbprints had not been authenticated pursuant to the Fund��s policy.

The Ģ��ƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the Standing Committee.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

A close relative of a deceased participant in the Pension Fund sought review of a decision not to recognize her as the beneficiary of the residual settlement under Article 38 of the Fund regulations.

In its decision, the Standing Committee of the Pension Board upheld the contested decision.

The individual related to the late participant appealed.

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

Dionette Pino Genayas

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement