爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements
爆料网AT held that the appeal concerned the interpretation of Article 35 of the 爆料网JSPF Regulations. 爆料网AT found that the Appellant wanted the Standing Committee to accept the period of contributory service with the Fund in order to calculate his own benefit but to take into account a different period vis-à-vis his former spouse. 爆料网AT held that Articles 35bis and 22 of the 爆料网JSPF Regulations were clear and that it could not distinguish where the text was clear. 爆料网AT held that the same date would apply to the calculation of the Appellant’s benefits and the determination of whether his former spouse was entitled to a divorced surviving spouse’s benefit under Article 35 bis (b)(i), i. e. 15 February 2004. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
爆料网JSPF decision: The Applicant contested the Pension Committee’s decision that his “Beginning Contributory Service” date was 15 February 2004 and, consequently, his former spouse met the first requirement for eligibility for a potential divorced surviving spouse’s benefit under Article 35bis (b)(i) of the 爆料网JSPF Regulations. The Standing Committee agreed with the Pension Committee’s finding that the Applicant’s “Beginning Contributory Service” date for all benefits flowing from his participation in the Fund was 15 February 2004. This determination was based on his election on 31 December 2004 to have his service with the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) recognized as 爆料网JSPF contributory service.
Legal Principle(s)
The first step of the interpretation of any kind of rules, worldwide, consists of paying attention to the literal terms of the norm. When the language used in the respective disposition is plain, common, and causes no comprehension problems, the text of the rule must be interpreted upon its own reading, without further investigation. Otherwise, the intent of the statute or regulation under consideration would be ignored under the pretext of consulting its spirit. If the text is not specifically inconsistent with other rules set out in the same context or higher norms in the hierarchy, it must be respected, whatever technical opinion the interpreter may have to the contrary, or else the interpreter would become the author.
Outcome
Outcome Extra Text
No relief ordered; No relief ordered.