Ãå±±½ûµØ

2020-UNAT-1007

2020-UNAT-1007, Pise

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

UNAT noted that the deceased staff member, Mr Pise, could have been under no illusion when he signed the payment instruction forms that he had opted to receive, in addition to a deferred pension, his own contributions plus interest as an immediate withdrawal benefit rather than a prospective survivor’s benefit. UNAT noted that he was informed of that interpretation twice subsequent to his separation and did not challenge those determinations. UNAT held that there was no doubt that Mr Pise received the benefits payable to him in terms of the Fund’s Regulations and there was no basis thereunder to afford Mrs Pise a survivor’s benefit. UNAT held that the Fund discharged its duty to inform Mr Pise of the implications of his choice at the time of his separation in its use of plain language in the payment instruction form, which unambiguously elucidated the available options. UNAT held that there was no basis for Mrs Pise’s claim for moral damages or costs. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the Standing Committee.

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

The Applicant, Mrs Pise, contested the decision to deny her a widow’s benefit following the death of her husband. Her request was denied on the basis that her husband had elected to take a reduced deferred retirement benefit with a lump sum, under which the UNJSPF Regulations in effect at the time of his separation had precluded payment of a survivor’s benefit.

Legal Principle(s)

Once rights have been vested, they are not altered by subsequent amendments to UNJSPF Regulations. No UNJSPF provision shall be construed as applying retroactively prior to the date of its entry into force unless expressly stated therein or specified by the Ãå±±½ûµØGeneral Assembly. UNJSPF has no discretion to vary benefits on a discretionary basis. There is nothing that permits restricting the general provision that a widow’s benefit would not be payable where there has been commutation only if it was of the full value of the benefit.

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
Pise
Entity
Case Number(s)
Tribunal
Registry Location :
Date of Judgment
Judge(s)
Language of Judgment
Issuance Type