51ÁÔÆæ

UNAT considered the Appellant¡¯s appeal and affirmed the decisions of UNJSPB Standing Committee. UNAT 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. UNAT held that UNJSPF 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...

UNAT noted that: the Sidells were negligent in not reporting their marriage before their separation from service; Mr Sidell notified UNJSPF in October 2003 of his marriage to Mrs Sidell and UNJSPF requested him to provide his original marriage certificate, which he did; and UNJSPF did not follow up with Mr Sidell about the matter. UNAT held that UNJSPF, by remaining silent, created a reasonable expectation on the part of the Sidells that Mr Sidell¡¯s pension record was corrected and that his marriage to Mr Sidell was recognised by UNJSPF. UNAT held that, in the circumstances, it was...

UNAT held that the Standing Committee did not err in holding the application was not receivable ratione temporis. UNAT noted that, in refusing to receive the application, the Standing Committee also implicitly refused to find ¡°good cause¡± to waive the sixty days¡¯ time limit for review set forth in Section K of the UNJSPF Administrative Rules. UNAT also found no error in this implicit determination and held that a waiver of five years for review by the Standing Committee would be unreasonable, especially in light of the time limits in the Transfer Agreement between UNJSPF and CTBTO. UNAT...

UNAT held that the Standing Committee correctly determined that the applicable rules provide that the pension participant is required to inform UNJPSF in writing of the benefit election made and of any commutation elected and that there was no provision for third party advisement. UNAT held that the Standing Committee¡¯s reliance on Article 30(b) of the UNJSPF Regulations as a rationale for its finding that a deferred retirement benefit became payable to Ms. Assebe upon her separation from service was flawed on the basis that she did not elect for a deferred retirement benefit. UNAT held that...

UNAT held that the Appellant was fully apprised of the options available to him in relation to his pension benefits when his first contract with the Organisation ended in 1985. UNAT held that the Appellant¡¯s election to transfer his actuarial value to the Social Security Fund of the USSR terminated his contractual relationship with the UNJSPF. UNAT held that the right to restore past contributory service was only available to participants in terms of Article 24 of the UNJSPF Regulations, who had less than five years¡¯ previous contributory service and whose only available benefit was a...

UNAT 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 UNJSPF 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, UNAT 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. UNAT further...

UNAT held that UNJSPF¡¯s contention that Ms. Larriera had known since 2003 that she was not recognized as a widow by UNJSPF, interpreted as having the meaning that she should have timely filed her request for review and subsequently her appeal to UNAT at that time, was without merit. In the absence of an explicit decision by the Administration denying her the entitlement, UNAT held that Ms Larriera could not and ought not to be expected to presume that such a decision was taken. UNAT held that Ms. Larriera¡¯s request for review was receivable ratione materiae and that Ms. Larriera¡¯s appeal was...