¹ú²úAV

UNAT held that there was no merit to the Respondent’s argument that the existence of official CPI data for Argentina of itself rendered the Standing Committee impotent as far as a consideration of the Appellant’s request. UNAT held that the matters could be raised by UNJSPF of its own volition or where a concerned beneficiary applied for the application of paragraph 26. UNAT held that the Respondent’s arguments that the Appellant’s complaint had been dealt with by historical benefits that accrued to him were unpersuasive. UNAT held that the impugned decision was, in effect, a failure by the Standing Committee to exercise its jurisdiction to consider the Appellant’s appeal of the CEO’s decision. UNAT held that, in declining to render a decision in the erroneous belief that the very existence of official CPI figures for Argentina precluded them from doing so, the Standing Committee erred in law and fact with regard to the powers vested in UNJPSF under paragraph 26 of the PAS. On alleged errors in procedure, UNAT held that the Appellant did not experience any inordinate delay in the hearing of his appeal and UNAT was not convinced that the Standing Committee meeting annually at the same time as the Board was in any way an abuse of discretion or dereliction of delegated authority. UNAT held that the Appellant did not establish that the decision by UNJPSF not to convene a special meeting to hear his appeal was the result of any legal error or abuse of authority; rather, such a decision was consistent with the practice of the Standing Committee. UNAT held that there were no grounds for granting the orders sought by the Appellant preventing the Standing Committee from regularly scheduling meetings when the full Board is in session or from scheduling fixed meeting times. UNAT set aside the decision of the Standing Committee and remanded the case back to the Standing Committee for reconsideration.