±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬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...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in concluding that the staff member¡¯s eligibility for ASHI should be determined based on the date of her recruitment to the ICTY in October 2006 instead of her appointment to ±¬ÁÏÍøAKRT in October 2009. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that, under Staff Rule 4. 17, the date of recruitment that is relevant for determining the terms of appointment of a former staff member who receives a new appointment after separating from the Organisation is the date of the new appointment. In the staff member¡¯s case, her new appointment with ±¬ÁÏÍøAKRT was a re...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was nothing arbitrary about the impugned decision of the Chief Executive Officer (CEO), ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF, as it was based on reports by the Executive Board of the International Monetary Fund between July 2011 and February 2013. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that good reason had been established for the CEO to decide on 31 July 2011 as the proper date for the suspension of the two-track system in Argentina, notwithstanding that there were previous statements regarding the reliability of the consumer price index (CPI) data in Argentina. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was satisfied that such a decision was a proper...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no reason to depart from its prior analysis that the ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF was not part of the Secretariat and neither the Secretary-General nor the executive head of any other member organisation, has authority over the management of ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF or the independence of the Chief Executive Officer of ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF in the administration of its staff. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Secretary-General had no power to interfere or intervene in the election of members to the ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF¡¯s staff pension committees; those elections were governed exclusively by ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF Regulations. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no error in ±¬ÁÏÍøDT...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal concerned the interpretation of Article 35 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF Regulations. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT 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-¨¤-vis his former spouse. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that Articles 35bis and 22 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF Regulations were clear and that it could not distinguish where the text was clear. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the same date would apply to the calculation of the Appellant¡¯s benefits and the determination of whether his former spouse...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed that Article 24(a) ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF Regulations does not provide a right to restore prior contributory service to participants who, on or after 1 April 2007, had elected to receive a deferred retirement benefit. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant fell into this category. The appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the Standing Committee was affirmed.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered that at the time of the elections, there was no law that prevented the staff members from being elected to the ±¬ÁÏÍøSPC once they met the prerequisites for election, which they did. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that both staff members were duly elected members of the ±¬ÁÏÍøSPC and that as a direct consequence of their election, they had the same rights and privileges as other elected members, and which could not be restricted or denied. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT granted the appeals and ordered that the staff members be given access to all relevant Pension Board documents and be allowed to participate and function as elected...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal as not receivable, as the Appellant had failed to request a review of the ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF decision before appealing to ±¬ÁÏÍøAT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT remanded the matter for a hearing before the Standing Committee, treating the appeal as if correctly and timely filed as a request for decision review.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Applicant was not entitled to a widow¡¯s benefit under Article 34 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøJPSF Regulations as she married Mr Williams, her deceased husband, after his separation from service. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that, under Article 35ter of the ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF Regulations, the survivor¡¯s benefit had to be purchased by a retiree who marries after separation from service as an annuity within a prescribed one-year deadline after the date of the marriage. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that Mr Williams had elected not to do so. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no obligation for ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF to inform Mr Williams of the option. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant was fully apprised of the options available to him in relation to his pension benefits when his first contract with the Organisation ended in 1985. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant¡¯s election to transfer his actuarial value to the Social Security Fund of the USSR terminated his contractual relationship with the ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the right to restore past contributory service was only available to participants in terms of Article 24 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF Regulations, who had less than five years¡¯ previous contributory service and whose only available benefit was a...