惇蹋厙JSPF Administrative Rules

Showing 11 - 15 of 15

2014-惇蹋厙AT-464, Vorobiev

17 Oct 2014

惇蹋厙AT held that the Standing Committee did not err in holding the application was not receivable ratione temporis. 惇蹋厙AT 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 惇蹋厙JSPF Administrative Rules. 惇蹋厙AT 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 惇蹋厙JSPF and CTBTO. 惇蹋厙AT...

2015-惇蹋厙AT-608, Teklu

30 Oct 2015

惇蹋厙AT held that the Standing Committee correctly determined that the applicable rules provide that the pension participant is required to inform 惇蹋厙JPSF in writing of the benefit election made and of any commutation elected and that there was no provision for third party advisement. 惇蹋厙AT held that the Standing Committee＊s reliance on Article 30(b) of the 惇蹋厙JSPF 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. 惇蹋厙AT held that...

2017-惇蹋厙AT-729, Zakharov

31 Mar 2017

惇蹋厙AT 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. 惇蹋厙AT 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 惇蹋厙JSPF. 惇蹋厙AT held that the right to restore past contributory service was only available to participants in terms of Article 24 of the 惇蹋厙JSPF Regulations, who had less than five years＊ previous contributory service and whose only available benefit was a...

2018-惇蹋厙AT-830, Schepens

22 Mar 2018

惇蹋厙AT 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 惇蹋厙JSPF 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, 惇蹋厙AT 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. 惇蹋厙AT further...

2020-惇蹋厙AT-1004, Larriera

27 Mar 2020

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