Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

On receivability, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was receivable insofar as it related to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF decision to deduct child support from the Appellant¡¯s pension in accordance with Article 45 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF Regulations. As to the appeal related to repayment of a sum paid directly to the Appellant¡¯s estranged spouse as child¡¯s benefit under Article 36 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF Regulations, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that this aspect was not receivable for failure to challenge in a timely manner the decision and that his claim regarding due process with respect to direct payments under Article 36 had no merit. On the merits of...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the relationship between a pension fund and its members and beneficiaries is determined principally by the Regulations of the Fund and that there is no other explicit contractual basis obliging the Fund to assume duties beyond those expressly provided for in the Regulations and Administrative Rules. However, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT emphasized the importance of contracts being executed in good faith. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Fund breached its duty of good faith because the correspondence between the Appellant and the Fund indicated that she needed assistance and further...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held, considering that the Appellant had elected to take a deferred retirement benefit after 1 April 2007 and not taken a withdrawal settlement, that the Fund had no discretion to make an exception under Article 24(a) of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF Regulations. Regarding the submission that the Fund was in breach of a duty of good faith by not adequately informing the Appellant of the amendment and its implications, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it cannot be expected of the Fund to provide information in relation to every conceivable contingency or possibility that might or might not eventuate in the future. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further...

As a preliminary matter, in response to the Appellant¡¯s request for interim measures, in which she requested that the Secretary-General complied with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment insofar as it had not been appealed against, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the motion on the basis that execution should have been requested before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. On the Appellant¡¯s motion to strike assertions and evidence, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellant was supplementing her appeal, and denied the motion. On the merits, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was limited to the request for further compensation, as per the Appellant¡¯s Power of Attorney document, and...

As a preliminary matter, in response to the Appellant¡¯s request for interim measures, in which she requested that the Secretary-General complied with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment insofar as it had not been appealed against, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the motion on the basis that execution should have been requested before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. On the Appellant¡¯s motion to strike assertions and evidence, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellant was supplementing her appeal, and denied the motion. On the merits, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was limited to the request for further compensation, as per the Appellant¡¯s Power of Attorney document, and...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal and Ms Kortes¡¯ cross-appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the issue was whether Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in concluding that the Administration was estopped from correcting its mistake by finding that Ms Kortes was not eligible for ASHI, having advised her in 2011 that she could not avail herself of the buy-in option. Noting that the Administration¡¯s error was to inform Ms Kortes that she could buy-in to ASHI, based on a misunderstanding of the date she joined the Organisation, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT committed an error of law in coming to its conclusion that five years was...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. On receivability, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT opined that it doubted whether the application was receivable, but due to some uncertainties and because the matter was of general interest, it would decide the case on the merits. On the merits, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law in finding that Ms Haq and Ms Kane had a fundamental right to be fully and accurately informed about their pension entitlements at the time of their appointments. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law in failing to consider that Staff Regulation 4. 1 does not oblige the Secretary-General to transmit...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that at the time of his separation from service, the former staff member was not married to his husband; their same-sex relationship did not enjoy similar status to marriage under the law of the US; the Regulations did not afford retrospective recognition of their marriage in 2018; and the Regulations specifically regulated the situation of the former staff member by providing for an annuity under Article 35ter. Therefore, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that under the express terms of Articles 34 and 35, the former staff member¡¯s spouse was not entitled to a survivor¡¯s benefit. Nonetheless, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered Article 34 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF Regulations which provides that a widow¡¯s benefit will be payable to the surviving spouse of a participant who was entitled to a retirement benefit at the date of his death if she was married to the deceased at the date of his separation from service and remained married to him until his death. In accordance with general principles of private international law, the validity of a marriage must be assessed and determined in accordance with the law of the place where the marriage was celebrated, being the law of the Philippines. The Supreme Court of the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the deceased staff member, Mr Pise, could have been under no illusion when he signed the payment instruction forms that he had opted to receive, in addition to a deferred pension, his own contributions plus interest as an immediate withdrawal benefit rather than a prospective survivor¡¯s benefit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that he was informed of that interpretation twice subsequent to his separation and did not challenge those determinations. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no doubt that Mr Pise received the benefits payable to him in terms of the Fund¡¯s Regulations and there was no basis thereunder...