Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellant was asked to present updated medical information to support her request for a review of her case and failed to do so. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that no prejudice existed against the Appellant, since she had an opportunity to present updated medical evidence within the scope of the review of her case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Standing Committee decision.
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPB¡¯s decision denying the staff member¡¯s request for restoration of her first participation period. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the amended Article 24 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF¡¯s Regulations only allowed for restoration of a participant¡¯s most recent period of contributory service and that the staff member had requested restoration of a participation period which was not the most recent one.
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT confirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPB¡¯s interpretation of Article 24 of the Regulations to the effect that the 2007 amendment to Article 24 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF Regulations only applies to staff members who prior to 2007 had been ineligible to restore previous contributory service. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held, therefore, that the amended Article 24 did not apply to the staff member as he had been eligible to restore previous contributory service but had failed to do so in a timely manner.
The former staff member appealed and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered whether he could compel Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF to pay to the Fund its contribution without making the corresponding contribution himself. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that, as the former staff member¡¯s secondment was with the World Bank, he should have availed himself of the provisions of Article 13 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF Regulations relating to the transfer of pension rights and he failed to do so. Under these circumstances, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that if the former staff member made his own contribution to the Fund, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF would have been duty-bound to make its corresponding contribution...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal and affirmed Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF¡¯s decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF submitted credible evidence that demonstrated that the Cameroon divorce decree was invalid and that the deceased at no time commenced proceedings to dissolve his marriage to his first wife apart from the USA divorce proceedings, which were terminated by his death. In drawing this conclusion, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found it unnecessary to address the additional reliefs sought by the Appellant. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT accordingly affirmed Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF¡¯s decision to award the widow¡¯s benefit to the former staff member¡¯s first wife and denied all reliefs...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Appellant¡¯s appeal and had to determine: whether her marriage to the late former staff member was legally valid at the time of his separation from the Organisation in 1998; and whether the Organisation created a legal expectancy of acknowledgement of benefits to the Appellant. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the former staff member¡¯s alleged divorce from his first wife was not legally valid because the authorities pronouncing it were not competent and did not apply the law under which the marriage had been concluded. It follows that his second marriage to the Appellant was not valid at the...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellants did not refer to any article of the Regulations that provides that the full retirement benefit may be restored after a participant opts to commute a portion of the retirement benefit into a lump sum. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellants were bound by their decision to accept one-third of their pension as a lump sum and a reduced pension. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s decision could not simply be reversed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the argument that the Appellants had been discriminated against and that their basic fundamental rights concerning equity, fairness, and justice under...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Appellant¡¯s appeal and affirmed the decisions of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPB Standing Committee. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Appellant¡¯s first ground of appeal had no merit, noting that the Appellant had prior notice of her separation and could have exercised her right to restore her participation prior to the time of her separation in accordance with Section F. 1 of the Pension Fund¡¯s Administrative Rules, which she failed to do. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF Standing Committee had no discretion to make an exception in this case and the Standing Committee¡¯s decision not to restore the Appellant¡¯s prior...
In considering the Appellant¡¯s appeal, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Standing Committee could not reject the request unless it disregarded the provisions of Article 33(a) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF Regulations. However, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that it was not in a position to rule on the actual possibility for the Appellant to perform the duties of her respective position and held that the Standing Committee should reconsider the Appellant¡¯s request. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rescinded the Standing Committee¡¯s decision and remanded the Appellant¡¯s request to the Standing Committee for review.
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT took into account that the Appellant only made his request some 29 months after the expiration of the deadline and that he did not submit any medical report. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and upheld the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPB decision.
