Ãå±±½ûµØ

2018-UNAT-834

2018-UNAT-834, Fox

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

UNAT considered the appeal. UNAT noted that the relationship between a pension fund and its members and beneficiaries is determined principally by the Regulations of the Fund and that there is no other explicit contractual basis obliging the Fund to assume duties beyond those expressly provided for in the Regulations and Administrative Rules. However, UNAT emphasized the importance of contracts being executed in good faith. UNAT found that the Fund breached its duty of good faith because the correspondence between the Appellant and the Fund indicated that she needed assistance and further information before making her choice of benefit on separation, and the Fund was delayed in replying and failed to provide coherent information. UNAT upheld the appeal to a limited extent and held that, if the Appellant so wishes, the Fund shall afford the Appellant the opportunity to elect a deferred retirement benefit in terms of Article 30 of UNJSPF Regulations with effect from the date of her separation.

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

UNJSPF decision: The individual appealed UNSPC’s decision to deny her request to be reimbursed the pension contributions she paid on behalf of UNRWA during the two-year period of Special Leave Without Pay. The Committee upheld the decision, citing the Regulations of the United Nations Joint Staff Pension Fund.

Legal Principle(s)

A necessary and suitably tailored pension fund rule should not place an excessive or harsh burden on individual participants that is disproportionate in relation to the collective interest. The principle of good faith and the concomitant duty of care demand due consideration of the interests of individual participants to avoid causing them disproportionate harm or prejudice.

Outcome
Appeal granted

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.