Judgment No. 4370
Decision
The complaint is dismissed.
Summary
The complainant impugns the decision to retire him at the end of the month in which he reached the age of 62, even though he had not completed the five years of contributions required for the payment of a retirement pension by the United Nations Joint Staff Pension Fund.
Judgment keywords
Keywords
retirement age; complaint dismissed
Consideration 8
Extract:
[I]t should be borne in mind that the Tribunal has consistently held that a decision to retain an official beyond the normal retirement age is an exceptional measure over which the executive head of the organisation exercises wide discretion and which is subject to only limited review by the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgment 3884, consideration 2).
Reference(s)
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 3884
Keywords
discretion; executive head; extension beyond retirement age
Consideration 10
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal notes that, “[a]lthough the [executive head of an organisation] is empowered to extend a staff member’s appointment [beyond the mandatory retirement age], he is in no case bound to do so. He may exercise that authority to allow an exception only in the interests of [the service], not in the exclusive interests of the staff member. In deciding on the complainant’s case he [has] to bear in mind the possibility that the complainant might obtain a pension, but that [is] only one fact to be taken into account among others” (see Judgment 358). The Tribunal further clarified in Judgment 4037, consideration 11, that “an international organisation’s duty of care towards its officials does not compel it to extend an official’s appointment for the sole purpose of enabling her or him to draw a pension from the UNJSPF”. An organisation is therefore not required to depart from the Staff Regulations in the sole interest of the complainant.
Reference(s)
Jugement(s) TAOIT: 358, 4037
Keywords
unjspf; retirement age
Consideration 12
Extract:
[I]nsofar as the impugned decision merely applies the normal rule of mandatory retirement for staff members who have reached the age limit, it cannot be considered that such a decision involves a misuse of authority or that it constitutes a measure which discriminates against the complainant.
Keywords
misuse of authority; discrimination; retirement age; abuse of power
| 
