Judgment No. 1245
1. THE DECISION OF 17 FEBRUARY 1992 IS QUASHED.
2. THE COMPLAINANT IS ENTITLED TO RESTITUTIO IN INTEGRUM.
3. THE AGENCY SHALL APPLY FOR THE COMPLAINANT'S READMISSION TO THE UNITED NATIONS JOINT STAFF PENSION FUND IN ACCORDANCE WITH CONSIDERATION 30.
4. IF IT PROVES IMPOSSIBLE TO READMIT HER AND SECURE HER FULL ENTITLEMENTS, THE AGENCY SHALL PAY HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH CONSIDERATION 31, THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HER BENEFITS FROM THE AUSTRIAN PENSION INSURANCE SCHEME AND THE BENEFITS TO WHICH SHE WOULD HAVE BEEN ENTITLED FROM THE FUND HAD SHE BEEN READMITTED TO IT AT THE EARLIEST AVAILABLE OPPORTUNITY.
5. THE AGENCY SHALL PAY HER THE SUM OF 1,800 UNITED STATES DOLLARS IN COSTS.
"The Tribunal is not competent to interpret the [United Nations Joint Staff Pension] Fund Regulations. It is for the Fund, and ultimately the United Nations Administrative Tribunal on Appeal, to determine whether the complainant is entitled to participate in the Fund under those regulations and, if so, as from what date."
complaint allowed; competence of tribunal; decision quashed; unat; written rule; interpretation; unjspf
Considerations 28 and 29
"A duty does lie on the Agency to ensure that a staff member who qualifies should be made a participant in the [United Nations Joint Staff Pension] Fund, and the decision the Agency took [...] to exclude the complainant from participation in the Fund was based on several mistakes of fact and law [...]. Because the Agency committed those mistakes and failed in its duty to have the complainant readmitted in the fund [...] she is entitled to be put as far as possible in the position that she would be in now had she been readmitted to the Fund at the earliest available opportunity."
complaint allowed; complainant; decision quashed; organisation's duties; unjspf; participation; judicial review; mistake of fact; condition
The Agency alleges that it informed her by a personnel notice that she had been excluded from the United Nations Joint Staff Pension Fund. The Tribunal holds that the notice "was wholly inadequate to alert her to the purpose and substance of the administrative decision that had been taken. Since she may not be deemed in the circumstances to have received proper 'notification' as prescribed in Rule 12.01.1 (d) (1), the time limit did not then run. Her present complaint is therefore receivable."
Organization rules reference: IAEA PROVISIONAL STAFF RULE 12.01.1 (D) (1)
complaint; decision; receivability of the complaint; internal appeals body; internal appeal; start of time limit; time bar; staff regulations and rules