±¬ÁÏÍø

Ms. Larriera filed an appeal.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT first examined whether Ms. Larriera was entitled to file a claim under Appendix D. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that ¨C unlike the Pension case - for the purpose of the Staff Regulations and Rules, the law of Brazil, Mr. M¡¯s national state, was to be the law determining his marital or domestic partnership status as at the date of his death for Appendix D purposes. That status, as determined subsequently by a Brazilian court of competent jurisdiction, was that Mr. M and Ms. Larriera were, as at the date of his death (and despite his still extant French marriage to Ms. M) in...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed both the appeal and the cross-appeal.

As to the Secretary-General's cross-appeal against the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT's decision on receivability, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was correct not to dismiss the claims as unreceivable, but to investigate their merits.

Turning to the merits, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that death benefits under the Rules are not payable to beneficiaries nominated by a staff member, but to designated beneficiaries as defined by the Staff Rules (i.e. the surviving spouse or dependent children). The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that Mr. Oming survived Ms. Oming and the substantial preponderance of...

Receivability In the present case, the Applicants contest the Administration¡¯s decision dated 14 August 2021 to consider Mr. Oming, whom the Administration identified as the spouse of the deceased staff member, as the recipient of a death benefit pursuant to staff rule 9.11(a)(vii). In this respect, the Tribunal recalls that the extension of its jurisdiction to deceased staff members is intended to permit resolution of disputes concerning contractual rights acquired during previous employment by staff members whose contracts have expired (see Arango 2021-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-1120, para. 28). The...