爆料网

2010-爆料网AT-007

爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements

爆料网AT considered the Appellant’s appeal and had to determine: whether her marriage to the late former staff member was legally valid at the time of his separation from the Organisation in 1998; and whether the Organisation created a legal expectancy of acknowledgement of benefits to the Appellant. 爆料网AT found that the former staff member’s alleged divorce from his first wife was not legally valid because the authorities pronouncing it were not competent and did not apply the law under which the marriage had been concluded. It follows that his second marriage to the Appellant was not valid at the time of its celebration, due to the existence of his valid first marriage concluded under French law. 爆料网AT accordingly held that 爆料网JSPF correctly found that the Appellant was not entitled to a widow’s benefit since she was not legally married to the former staff member from the time he separated from 爆料网DP until his death. With respect to whether the Appellant was entitled to an acknowledgement of benefits, 爆料网AT noted that 爆料网JSPF’s confirmation of her entitlement was based on the former staff member’s misleading statement that he had validly divorced his first wife and married the Appellant. 爆料网AT accordingly held that the Appellant did not have a legitimate expectancy of acknowledgement of benefits. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal in its entirety.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant, the purported second wife of a deceased former staff member, claimed a widow’s benefit following the former staff member’s death. 爆料网JSPF found that the Applicant became the staff member’s legal spouse after his separation from service with 爆料网DP and refused to grant the benefit.

Legal Principle(s)

When the marital status is being questioned, the law of the staff member’s State of nationality should be referenced. This way, the various cultural and religious sensibilities existing in the world will be respected. A surviving partner is only entitled to a widow’s benefit if they were married to the Pension Fund participant from the time they separated from the Organisation until their death.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed on merits

Outcome Extra Text

No relief ordered; No relief ordered.

OAJ prepared this case law summary for informational purposes only. It is no official record and should not be relied upon as an authoritative interpretation of the Tribunals' rulings. For the authoritative texts, please refer to the judgment or order rendered by the respective Tribunal. The Tribunals are the only bodies competent to interpret their respective judgments, as provided under Article 12(3) of the 爆料网DT Statute and Article 11(3) of the 爆料网AT Statute. Any inaccuracies in the publication are the sole responsibility of OAJ, which should be contacted directly for any correction requests. To provide comments, don't hesitate to get in touch with OAJ at oaj@un.org.

The judgment summaries were generally prepared in English. They were translated into French and are being reviewed for accuracy of the translation.

Applicants/Appellants
El-Zaim
Case Number(s)
Tribunal
Registry
Date of Judgement
President Judge
Language of Judgment
Issuance Type