±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant was essentially seeking an amendment to the Regulations of the ±¬ÁÏÍøJPSF in such a way as to enable her benefit to be paid retroactively to the date of the death in service of her husband, which was prior to 1 April 1999. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the criteria proposed by the Appellant to pay the benefit were not in force to be applied to her case. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF correctly applied the ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF Regulations. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the impugned decision.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the record reflected that: Michael and Jacqueline married in 1986; they had lived as husband and wife, and Jacqueline was Michael¡¯s wife on the date of his separation from service in 1998 and on the date of his death in 2008. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that Michael¡¯s first wife was unable to produce a marriage certificate and the divorce decree she produced was not proof of marriage, despite the date of marriage having been mentioned therein. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the divorce decree could not be the sole basis of declaring Jacqueline¡¯s marriage to Michael invalid. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that Jacqueline was entitled...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, since the Appellant was not a staff member of IOM at the time of the Agreement between the ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF and IOM of 6 March 2006, the terms of the Agreement were not applicable to him as, by its terms, the Agreement only covered staff members who were current at the time of the Agreement. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the different treatment of IOM staff members was created by the General Assembly. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that restoration is an exceptional benefit that cannot be extended by analogy. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant¡¯s claim of inconsistency, unequal treatment, and arbitrariness by the ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPB was...

±¬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...

±¬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...

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.

±¬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.