����AV

UNAT considered Mr Elguindi, Ms Onogi and Ms Sheryda’s separate appeals. With respect to Mr Elguindi’s claim, UNAT did not find that the manner in which UNJSPF apportioned his monthly pension sum to be unreasonable, capricious or an abuse of discretion. With respect to Ms Onogi’s claim of procedural defects, UNAT was not persuaded that there were procedural flaws on the part of UNJSPF such as to render the exercise of its discretion unreasonable or unlawful. UNAT also did not find merit in Mr Elguindi’s claim of “double-dipping” in his opposition to Ms Onogi’s claim for relief from UNJSPF...

As a preliminary matter, UNAT denied the Appellant’s request for an oral hearing. UNAT noted that UNJSPF correctly applied Article 45 of the UNJPSF Regulations and relied on an internationally binding judgment about spousal and child support, issued by an Austrian court, which was not contradicted by the divorce decree issued by a Portuguese court. UNAT found no error of law or fact such as to vitiate the contested decision and upheld UNJSPF’s “reasoned and well-founded decision.” UNAT dismissed the appeal and upheld the UNJPSB decision.

UNAT held that the staff member’s retirement benefit from the UNJSPF including the monthly periodic pension benefit was not subject to taxation and/or payment of statutory deductions and that therefore, any challenge with respect to the application and meaning of the words “gross” and “net” was merely semantic. UNAT held that the ASHI premium was a voluntary payment that was deducted by the UNJSPF at the behest of a beneficiary and therefore could not be treated as or deemed to be a statutory deduction. UNAT dismissed the appeal.

On receivability, UNAT held that the appeal was receivable insofar as it related to the UNJSPF decision to deduct child support from the Appellant’s pension in accordance with Article 45 of the UNJSPF Regulations. As to the appeal related to repayment of a sum paid directly to the Appellant’s estranged spouse as child’s benefit under Article 36 of the UNJSPF Regulations, UNAT held that this aspect was not receivable for failure to challenge in a timely manner the decision and that his claim regarding due process with respect to direct payments under Article 36 had no merit. On the merits of...