UNDT/2014/112

UNDT/2014/112, Couquet

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

The Tribunal rescinded the decision finding that, in accordance with the plain meaning of ST/AI/2007/3, service with the United Nations Organization does not need to be continuous for a staff member to be eligible to receive ASHI. Staff Rule 4.17 is not applicable to the question of ASHI.

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

The Applicant contests the decision to find her ineligible for after-service health insurance (ASHI) on the grounds that although she had 7.2 years of service with the Organization, her service was not continuous. The Tribunal rescinded the decision finding that, in accordance with the plain meaning of ST/AI/2007/3, service with the United Nations Organization does not need to be continuous for a staff member to be eligible to receive ASHI.

Legal Principle(s)

Literal or plain meaning rule of construction: A provision must be interpreted in accordance with its plain meaning unless such meaning is specifically inconsistent with other rules set out in the same context or higher norms in hierarchy, in which case the spirit of the provision may be consulted.The plain meaning of a provision is to be established in the context of the document as a whole, and only in the face of ambiguity should the Tribunal have recourse to other documents or external sources as an aid to interpretation. Lex Specialis: A law governing the specific subject matter overrides one which governs general matters. Where there is any conflict in the application of a staff rule and an administrative issuance, preference must be given to the lex specialis. Contra proferentem: Any ambiguity in a term of contract or clause, should be interpreted so as to give rise to the least injustice, and is to be construed against the interests of the party which proposed or drafted the contract.

Outcome

Judgment entered for Applicant in full or in part

Outcome Extra Text

No compensation ordered (but judgment for Applicant)

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.

Full Judgment

Applicants/ Appellants

Couquet

Entity

UNAKRT

Case Number(s)

UNDT/NY/2014/15

Tribunal

UNDT

Registry Location :

New York