Â鶹´«Ã½

Article 1

  • Annex I
  • Annex IV
  • Annex ll
  • Article 1
  • Article 1(l)
  • Article 1(q)
  • Article 1(v)
  • Article 10
  • Article 13
  • Article 2
  • Article 22
  • Article 22(b)
  • Article 22(c)
  • Article 24
  • Article 24(a)
  • Article 25
  • Article 25(b)(i)
  • Article 27
  • Article 28
  • Article 28(d)
  • Article 29
  • Article 29(e)
  • Article 30
  • Article 30(b)
  • Article 31
  • Article 31 (b) (ii)
  • Article 31(a)
  • Article 31(b)(i)
  • Article 32
  • Article 32(a)
  • Article 32(b)
  • Article 33
  • Article 33(a)
  • Article 34
  • Article 35
  • Article 35(b)(i)
  • Article 35ter
  • Article 38
  • Article 4(b)
  • Article 4(c)
  • Article 40
  • Article 44
  • Article 45
  • Article 48
  • Article 48(a)
  • Article 49(b)
  • Article 50
  • Article 50(b)
  • Article 53
  • Article 54
  • Article 6
  • Article 6(a)
  • Former Regulation 31
  • Former Regulation 35
  • Regulation 1(n)
  • Regulation 30(a)
  • Section H.5
  • Section K
  • Section K.1
  • Section K.5
  • Section K.8(a)
  • Section K.8(b)
    • Showing 1 - 2 of 2
    2010-UNAT-034, Muthuswami et al.

    UNAT noted that the Appellants did not refer to any article of the Regulations that provides that the full retirement benefit may be restored after a participant opts to commute a portion of the retirement benefit into a lump sum. UNAT held that the Appellants were bound by their decision to accept one-third of their pension as a lump sum and a reduced pension. UNAT held that the Appellant’s decision could not simply be reversed. UNAT rejected the argument that the Appellants had been discriminated against and that their basic fundamental rights concerning equity, fairness, and justice under...

    2011-UNAT-136, Ardisson

    UNAT held that, since the Appellant was not a staff member of IOM at the time of the Agreement between the UNJSPF and IOM of 6 March 2006, the terms of the Agreement were not applicable to him as, by its terms, the Agreement only covered staff members who were current at the time of the Agreement. UNAT held that the different treatment of IOM staff members was created by the General Assembly. UNAT noted that restoration is an exceptional benefit that cannot be extended by analogy. UNAT held that the Appellant’s claim of inconsistency, unequal treatment, and arbitrariness by the UNJSPB was...