2016-UNAT-658

2016-UNAT-658, Kutner

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

UNAT held that the appeal concerned the interpretation of Article 35 of the UNJSPF Regulations. UNAT 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. UNAT held that Articles 35bis and 22 of the UNJSPF Regulations were clear and that it could not distinguish where the text was clear. UNAT 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. UNAT dismissed the appeal.

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

UNJSPF 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 UNJSPF 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 UNJSPF 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
Appeal dismissed on merits
Outcome Extra Text

No relief ordered; No relief ordered.

OAJ prepared this case law summary for informational purposes only. It is no official record and should not be relied upon as an authoritative interpretation of the Tribunals' rulings. For the authoritative texts, please refer to the judgment or order rendered by the respective Tribunal. The Tribunals are the only bodies competent to interpret their respective judgments, as provided under Article 12(3) of the UNDT Statute and Article 11(3) of the UNAT Statute. Any inaccuracies in the publication are the sole responsibility of OAJ, which should be contacted directly for any correction requests. To provide comments, don't hesitate to get in touch with OAJ at oaj@un.org.

The judgment summaries were generally prepared in English. They were translated into French and are being reviewed for accuracy of the translation.

Applicants/ Appellants
Kutner
Entity
Case Number(s)
Tribunal
Registry Location :
Date of Judgment
Language of Judgment
Issuance Type