�山����

Based on the applicable legal framework, the Administration can determine the status of eligibility of staff members in connection with dependency entitlements, which include dependent child allowance, and proceed to recover any amounts when a staff members fail to comply with their relevant obligations.

Pursuant to Annex III of ST/IC/2020/12, for a child of a staff member who is not the custodial parent or who has joint custody of the child, which is the case of the Applicant, the amount of payment to be eligible for a child dependency allowance should be at least the amount of the court-ordered child support, or the amount of the child dependency benefit received from the Organization, whichever is higher.

In the case at hand, the Applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence of child support payments in the amount legally required of him in his divorce decree. Accordingly, the Administration lawfully decided to recover the dependency allowance that the Applicant had received for the years where a shortfall in payment was identified.

In addition, the Applicant tried to claim that there was no shortfall in payments of child support because he and his former spouse agreed that the costs and expenses incurred by the Applicant when visiting the children overseas should be considered when determining his level of contribution to child support. Consequently, the Applicant argues that the evidence provided in relation to such expenses should have been considered by the Administration for the purposes of the dependency review exercise.

However, according to para. 12 and Annex III of the ST/IC/2020/12, every cost and expense incurred by the Applicant while visiting or caring for his children does not count as payment towards child support if not proven through the acceptable means described therein. Furthermore, the Applicant did not put before the Tribunal the alleged agreement between him and his former spouse on child support for examination. In any case, the Tribunal notes that said agreement would not have discharged the Applicant from his legal obligation vis-à-vis the Organization to produce evidence of child support payments.

Finally, the Applicant argues that he was unaware that he had an obligation to retain documents in support of his entitlement to child dependency benefits for a period of five years. However, as per the well-settled jurisprudence of UNAT and this Tribunal, ignorance of the law cannot be invoked as an excuse for not complying with a staff member’s obligations. It is the staff member’s responsibility to ensure that he is aware of and knows the regulations and rules applicable to them.