±¬ÁÏÍø

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the participant in the Fund.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the facts suggest that the participant¡¯s withdrawal settlement funds were paid into a bank account which had not been opened by him. At the same time, there were unanswered questions as to how the participant had bank statements and cancelled cheques from this account if he had not opened it. In addition, given the mismatch between the participant¡¯s name and the name of the holder of the bank account, there was no explanation as to why the wire transfer had been allowed to proceed and had not been rejected.

The...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the Appellant was asked to present updated medical information to support her request for a review of her case and failed to do so. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that no prejudice existed against the Appellant, since she had an opportunity to present updated medical evidence within the scope of the review of her case. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Standing Committee decision.

The former staff member appealed and ±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered whether he could compel ±¬ÁÏÍøICEF to pay to the Fund its contribution without making the corresponding contribution himself. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that, as the former staff member¡¯s secondment was with the World Bank, he should have availed himself of the provisions of Article 13 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF Regulations relating to the transfer of pension rights and he failed to do so. Under these circumstances, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that if the former staff member made his own contribution to the Fund, ±¬ÁÏÍøICEF would have been duty-bound to make its corresponding contribution...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the appeal and affirmed ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF¡¯s decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF submitted credible evidence that demonstrated that the Cameroon divorce decree was invalid and that the deceased at no time commenced proceedings to dissolve his marriage to his first wife apart from the USA divorce proceedings, which were terminated by his death. In drawing this conclusion, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found it unnecessary to address the additional reliefs sought by the Appellant. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT accordingly affirmed ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF¡¯s decision to award the widow¡¯s benefit to the former staff member¡¯s first wife and denied all reliefs...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the Appellants did not refer to any article of the Regulations that provides that the full retirement benefit may be restored after a participant opts to commute a portion of the retirement benefit into a lump sum. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellants were bound by their decision to accept one-third of their pension as a lump sum and a reduced pension. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant¡¯s decision could not simply be reversed. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the argument that the Appellants had been discriminated against and that their basic fundamental rights concerning equity, fairness, and justice under...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the Appellant¡¯s appeal and affirmed the decisions of ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPB Standing Committee. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the Appellant¡¯s first ground of appeal had no merit, noting that the Appellant had prior notice of her separation and could have exercised her right to restore her participation prior to the time of her separation in accordance with Section F. 1 of the Pension Fund¡¯s Administrative Rules, which she failed to do. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF Standing Committee had no discretion to make an exception in this case and the Standing Committee¡¯s decision not to restore the Appellant¡¯s prior...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered Mr Elguindi, Ms Onogi and Ms Sheryda¡¯s separate appeals. With respect to Mr Elguindi¡¯s claim, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT did not find that the manner in which ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF apportioned his monthly pension sum to be unreasonable, capricious or an abuse of discretion. With respect to Ms Onogi¡¯s claim of procedural defects, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT was not persuaded that there were procedural flaws on the part of ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF such as to render the exercise of its discretion unreasonable or unlawful. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also did not find merit in Mr Elguindi¡¯s claim of ¡°double-dipping¡± in his opposition to Ms Onogi¡¯s claim for relief from ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF...

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 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.