±¬ÁÏÍø

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted the staff member had not requested a review of the decision by the United Nations Staff Pension Committee or filed an appeal to the Standing Committee, but rather had filed a request for management evaluation and then had applied to the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that, as such, he had not followed proper procedure. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no authority for receiving an application by the Dispute Tribunal with regards to a pension decision. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT concluded that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had not erred when it held that it did not have jurisdiction to undertake a judicial review of the contested...

±¬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 ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF¡¯s contention that Ms. Larriera had known since 2003 that she was not recognized as a widow by ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF, interpreted as having the meaning that she should have timely filed her request for review and subsequently her appeal to ±¬ÁÏÍøAT at that time, was without merit. In the absence of an explicit decision by the Administration denying her the entitlement, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that Ms Larriera could not and ought not to be expected to presume that such a decision was taken. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that Ms. Larriera¡¯s request for review was receivable ratione materiae and that Ms. Larriera¡¯s appeal was...