±¬ÁÏÍø

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Standing Committee of ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPB had appropriately found Ms. Briel ineligible to receive a widow¡¯s benefit.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that Ms. Briel should have submitted her appeal to the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT using the prescribed form, accompanied by a brief explaining her grounds for appeal, particularly given that she had received clear instructions from the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Registry. Nonetheless, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT reviewed the merits of her appeal.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that, at the time of the late participant¡¯s death, he had not reported Ms. Briel as his spouse or common-law spouse. Moreover, there was no evidence to...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the applicant had filed the application for revision some three months after she became aware of the decisive facts as identified in the application. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the application had been filed beyond the 30-day time limit and was, therefore, not receivable.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that, in any event, one of the documents had not been in existence at the time of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Judgment. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also noted that the document had not been decisive in reaching a decision in the appeal and, for this reason, the application was an attempt to re-litigate the appeal. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT concluded...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that Mr. Kankwenda, a late participant in the ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF, married another individual, Ms. M.T., in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) in 1971. This fact, which Ms. Isasi herself did not contest, was supported by a marriage certificate and was consistent with the information regarding the dates of birth of Mr. Kankwenda¡¯s children and the identities of their mothers. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT highlighted that Ms. Isasi admitted that the two marriage certificates she submitted after Mr. Kankwenda¡¯s death, purportedly showing their marriage on 17 January 1971, were falsified, undermining her...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPB decision.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT recalled that at the time of Mr. Arigon¡¯s entry into participation in 2002, Article 24 did not allow him the option to restore his prior contributory service because that option was limited to participants whose previous period of contributory service was less than five years and who had received a withdrawal settlement; neither of which applied to him. When the 2007 amendment to Article 24 was introduced, he had a one-year window, from 1 April 2007 to 1 April 2008, during which he could elect to restore his prior period of...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT denied Ms. Banyanga¡¯s appeal and affirmed the decision of the Standing Committee. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that Ms. Banyanga had not adequately explained the inconsistencies between her own personal information and the information submitted by Mr. Mbirange regarding his reported spouse (including that the name ¡°Banyanga¡± did not appear in the documentation that Mr. Mbirange provided about his spouse).

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also rejected Ms. Banyanga¡¯s reliance on the marriage certificate that she submitted, which showed a purported date of marriage in 1997. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT observed that Mr. Mbirange entered...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that Mr. Erg¨¹den¡¯s decision when he elected to be on the local-currency track was irreversible unless the pre-conditions as set out in Paragraph 31(b) and 38(e) of the PAS were met. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that Mr. Erg¨¹den did not meet those pre-conditions and that, as the decision of the Standing Committee was in observance of these provisions, there was no basis to grant Mr. Erg¨¹den the right to revert to the USD track. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no proper basis to compel the Chief Executive of Pension Administration to suspend Turkey from the two-track system. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and...