�山����

UNAT considered the appeal. UNAT noted that the fundamental right in Article 16.1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights consists of the freedom to marry or not to marry, in a religious ceremony or in a non-religious ceremony. However, UNAT also noted that a staff member cannot assert that a marriage concluded through any means or in any place must lead to the award of entitlements by the Organization and, if it does not, that such a decision violates his or her freedom to marry. UNAT found that the Appellant had choices with respect to his marital status and that it was not the United Nations that prevented him from being entitled to the entitlements that he claimed. UNAT accordingly held that the administrative decision to deny the Appellant the payment of dependency benefits was based on a correct application of the provisions of ST/SGB/2004/13 and did not cause or otherwise result in an alleged breach of the fundamental freedom to marry. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed UNDT’s judgment. UNAT Dissenting Opinion: Judge Chapman disagreed with the majority’s rejection of the Appellant’s claim and found that the decision to apply ST/SGB/2004/13 to him was unreasonable and unlawful in that it violated his human rights to marriage. Judge Chapman found that the Administration unreasonably, unfairly and unlawfully failed to accord “equal rights”- as required by Article 16.1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights -to the Appellant’s marriage over a six-year period, by applying ST/SGB/2004/13 to deny recognition of his marriage by the Organization.