±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no merit to the Respondent¡¯s argument that the existence of official CPI data for Argentina of itself rendered the Standing Committee impotent as far as a consideration of the Appellant¡¯s request. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the matters could be raised by ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF of its own volition or where a concerned beneficiary applied for the application of paragraph 26. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Respondent¡¯s arguments that the Appellant¡¯s complaint had been dealt with by historical benefits that accrued to him were unpersuasive. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the impugned decision was, in effect, a failure by the...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT determined that by refusing to review the staff member¡¯s request, the ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPB had failed to properly exercise its jurisdiction pursuant to paragraph 26 of the PAS, whose very purpose ¡°is to address the issue of whether the application of official Consumer Price Index (CPI) data results in ¡®aberrant results¡¯ or the situation where no up-to-date CPI data is available¡±. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT upheld the appeal, vacated the decision of the Standing Committee of the ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPB to reject the staff member¡¯s request that the ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF discontinue the local track in application of paragraph 26 of the PAS, and remanded the...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an application for revision of judgment No. 2011-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-158. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no new fact such as to meet the criteria set out in Article 11 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that Mr Laeijendecker sought to re-argue or reopen issues. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that insofar as Mr Laeijendecker sought interpretation of the impugned judgment, paragraphs 29, 30 and 31 were clear on their face and had to be read in conjunction with paragraphs 27 and 28, and paragraphs 32-35. On the allegation of bias, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that Mr Laeijendecker¡¯s submissions amounted to no more than completely...

As a preliminary matter, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT denied the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF correctly applied Article 45 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøJPSF Regulations and relied on an internationally binding judgment about spousal and child support, issued by an Austrian court, which was not contradicted by the divorce decree issued by a Portuguese court. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found no error of law or fact such as to vitiate the contested decision and upheld ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF¡¯s ¡°reasoned and well-founded decision.¡± ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and upheld the ±¬ÁÏÍøJPSB decision.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Standing Committee did not err in holding the application was not receivable ratione temporis. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT 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 ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF Administrative Rules. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT 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 ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF and CTBTO. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered Mrs Sidell¡¯s two Applications, one for correction and the other for interpretation of the judgment. With respect to the Application for correction, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there were no clerical or arithmetical mistakes in the relevant paragraphs and that Mrs Sidell merely disagreed with the referenced portions of the judgment. With respect to the Application for interpretation, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the referenced paragraphs were clear in meaning on the face of the record and did not need any interpretation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT denied both Applications.

The first issue ±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered was whether ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in applying ST/AI/2010/3 to the selection of staff for the G-7 post and ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in this regard. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the language of paragraph 14 of the Memorandum of Understanding With Respect to United Nations Personnel Procedures Application to the ±¬ÁÏÍø Joint Staff Pension Fund requires that ¡°[t]he General Service staff of the [Pension] Fund secretariat shall be appointed and promoted through the normal [United Nations appointment and promotion] procedures, according to the policies applicable at the duty stations in...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the decision of the ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPB not to submit the staff member¡¯s appeal to the Standing Committee contravened his rights under the ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF Regulations by depriving him of access to the appeals process and was a serious violation of his due process rights. Noting that ±¬ÁÏÍøAT¡¯s jurisdiction was limited to hearing appeals of decisions of the Standing Committee and that the staff member¡¯s case had not been reviewed by the Standing Committee, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal and remanded it to the Standing Committee.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the staff member¡¯s retirement benefit from the ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF including the monthly periodic pension benefit was not subject to taxation and/or payment of statutory deductions and that therefore, any challenge with respect to the application and meaning of the words ¡°gross¡± and ¡°net¡± was merely semantic. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ASHI premium was a voluntary payment that was deducted by the ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF at the behest of a beneficiary and therefore could not be treated as or deemed to be a statutory deduction. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Standing Committee correctly determined that the applicable rules provide that the pension participant is required to inform ±¬ÁÏÍøJPSF in writing of the benefit election made and of any commutation elected and that there was no provision for third party advisement. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Standing Committee¡¯s reliance on Article 30(b) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF 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. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that...