91�鶹����

With reference to the relevant legal framework, no matter what status is given to the Applicant’s previous and/or current employment with the IOM in the context of the ASHI scheme, at the relevant time of applying for ASHI, the Applicant was not within a time period of 31 days before or after separation when an application for ASHI must be submitted.

Accordingly, even if the terms of the contested decision were misleading, the Applicant had no right to be enrolled in the ASHI scheme when he applied for it.

There is indeed uncertainty and possibly also disagreement regarding various material facts of the case. Accordingly, the case may not be adjudicated on the basis of a summary judgment.  

The part of the present case concerning IOM is not receivable under the legal doctrine of lis pendens.

With regard to the HLIS decision, the Applicant refers to his request for management evaluation of 4 November 2022. As the application in the present case is filed after this date, this part of the application is therefore, from this perspective, now receivable under staff rule 11.2

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.

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that UNDT erred in concluding that the staff member’s eligibility for ASHI should be determined based on the date of her recruitment to the ICTY in October 2006 instead of her appointment to UNAKRT in October 2009. UNAT noted that, under Staff Rule 4. 17, the date of recruitment that is relevant for determining the terms of appointment of a former staff member who receives a new appointment after separating from the Organisation is the date of the new appointment. In the staff member’s case, her new appointment with UNAKRT was a re...

UNAT considered the Secretary-General’s appeal and Ms Kortes’ cross-appeal. UNAT held that the issue was whether UNDT erred in concluding that the Administration was estopped from correcting its mistake by finding that Ms Kortes was not eligible for ASHI, having advised her in 2011 that she could not avail herself of the buy-in option. Noting that the Administration’s error was to inform Ms Kortes that she could buy-in to ASHI, based on a misunderstanding of the date she joined the Organisation, UNAT held that UNDT committed an error of law in coming to its conclusion that five years was...

UNAT dismissed the Appellant’s motion to file additional pleadings on the basis that there were no exceptional circumstances to justify the filing. On the merits, UNAT held that the UNDT calculation of the three-time periods of participation in the contributory health insurance plan was not correct. However, UNAT held that even the correct calculation did not result in the required 10 years of participation, but only 9 years, 10 months, and 14 days. Turning to consider the period of 11 May to 30 June 2009, UNAT held that a staff member who had expressly conceded in her application that a...