ÉñÂíÎçÒ¹¸£ÀûÍø

The UNAT held that the Standing Committee of UNJSPB had appropriately found Ms. Briel ineligible to receive a widow¡¯s benefit.

The UNAT found that Ms. Briel should have submitted her appeal to the UNAT using the prescribed form, accompanied by a brief explaining her grounds for appeal, particularly given that she had received clear instructions from the UNAT Registry. Nonetheless, the UNAT reviewed the merits of her appeal.

The UNAT found that, at the time of the late participant¡¯s death, he had not reported Ms. Briel as his spouse or common-law spouse. Moreover, there was no evidence to...

The UNAT noted that the applicant had filed the application for revision some three months after she became aware of the decisive facts as identified in the application. The UNAT held that the application had been filed beyond the 30-day time limit and was, therefore, not receivable.

The UNAT found that, in any event, one of the documents had not been in existence at the time of the UNAT Judgment. The UNAT also noted that the document had not been decisive in reaching a decision in the appeal and, for this reason, the application was an attempt to re-litigate the appeal. The UNAT concluded...

Ms. Larriera sought revision of the UNAT judgment on the grounds that new decisive facts had emerged from the French government regarding her relationship with the deceased participant of the UNJSPF, Mr. M. Specifically, she maintains that the French government has endorsed the findings of a Brazilian court that she was in a ¡°stable union¡± with Mr. M., and that this has also been annotated on the death certificate of Mr. M.

UNAT observed that Ms. Larriera¡¯s application for revision was untimely. In addition, UNAT concluded that these allegedly decisive facts occurred in 2021, well after the...

The UNAT considered an appeal by Ms. Mukomah.

The UNAT held that Ms. Mukomah¡¯s submission that she was the spouse of the late participant at the time of his death and is therefore entitled on that basis to a widow¡¯s benefit under Article 34 of the Fund¡¯s Regulations, was not sustainable based on the evidence before the UNAT.

The UNAT found that there was insufficient evidence proving that the late participant and Ms. Mukomah lawfully entered a (second) union legally recognized by the competent authority of Kenya conferring similar legal effects as a marriage in relation to pension rights...

The UNAT denied Ms. Banyanga¡¯s appeal and affirmed the decision of the Standing Committee. The UNAT found that Ms. Banyanga had not adequately explained the inconsistencies between her own personal information and the information submitted by Mr. Mbirange regarding his reported spouse (including that the name ¡°Banyanga¡± did not appear in the documentation that Mr. Mbirange provided about his spouse).

The UNAT also rejected Ms. Banyanga¡¯s reliance on the marriage certificate that she submitted, which showed a purported date of marriage in 1997. The UNAT observed that Mr. Mbirange entered...

UNAT considered the Appellant¡¯s appeal and had to determine: whether her marriage to the late former staff member was legally valid at the time of his separation from the Organisation in 1998; and whether the Organisation created a legal expectancy of acknowledgement of benefits to the Appellant. UNAT found that the former staff member¡¯s alleged divorce from his first wife was not legally valid because the authorities pronouncing it were not competent and did not apply the law under which the marriage had been concluded. It follows that his second marriage to the Appellant was not valid at the...

UNAT held that the record reflected that: Michael and Jacqueline married in 1986; they had lived as husband and wife, and Jacqueline was Michael¡¯s wife on the date of his separation from service in 1998 and on the date of his death in 2008. UNAT held that Michael¡¯s first wife was unable to produce a marriage certificate and the divorce decree she produced was not proof of marriage, despite the date of marriage having been mentioned therein. UNAT held that the divorce decree could not be the sole basis of declaring Jacqueline¡¯s marriage to Michael invalid. UNAT held that Jacqueline was entitled...

UNAT noted that: the Sidells were negligent in not reporting their marriage before their separation from service; Mr Sidell notified UNJSPF in October 2003 of his marriage to Mrs Sidell and UNJSPF requested him to provide his original marriage certificate, which he did; and UNJSPF did not follow up with Mr Sidell about the matter. UNAT held that UNJSPF, by remaining silent, created a reasonable expectation on the part of the Sidells that Mr Sidell¡¯s pension record was corrected and that his marriage to Mr Sidell was recognised by UNJSPF. UNAT held that, in the circumstances, it was...

UNAT held that the Applicant was not entitled to a widow¡¯s benefit under Article 34 of the UNJPSF Regulations as she married Mr Williams, her deceased husband, after his separation from service. UNAT noted that, under Article 35ter of the UNJSPF Regulations, the survivor¡¯s benefit had to be purchased by a retiree who marries after separation from service as an annuity within a prescribed one-year deadline after the date of the marriage. UNAT noted that Mr Williams had elected not to do so. UNAT held that there was no obligation for UNJSPF to inform Mr Williams of the option. UNAT held that...

UNAT found that at the time of his separation from service, the former staff member was not married to his husband; their same-sex relationship did not enjoy similar status to marriage under the law of the US; the Regulations did not afford retrospective recognition of their marriage in 2018; and the Regulations specifically regulated the situation of the former staff member by providing for an annuity under Article 35ter. Therefore, UNAT concluded that under the express terms of Articles 34 and 35, the former staff member¡¯s spouse was not entitled to a survivor¡¯s benefit. Nonetheless, UNAT...