麻豆APP

2026-UNAT-1628

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

The UNAT found that Ms. George submitted her request to revert to the US dollar track system on 4 August 2015 and the Administration rejected it on 10 November 2015.Despite that clear communication, the former staff member continued to exchange correspondence with the Administration seeking reconsideration of the decision for almost nine years.She waited until 9 April 2024 before submitting her request for review to the Standing Committee.As it was filed beyond the statutory time limit of ninety days of receipt of notification of the contested decision, the UNAT held that her request was not receivable ratione temporis.

The UNAT also found that the UNJSPB correctly exercised its discretion to consider belated requests in justifiable cases, “upon good cause”, when it found that there were no compelling reasons to consider the former staff member’s belated request.

Finally, the UNAT dismissed the former staff member’s various claims invoking ignorance of the applicable rules, emphasizing that ignorance of the applicable legal framework could not be invoked as an excuse.

The UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Decision of the Standing Committee.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

UNJSPB Decision: A former staff member contested the decision of the UNJSPF Chief Executive of the Pension Administration (CEPA) to reject her request for reversion of her retirement benefit from the local track in Canada (local track or two track system) to the United States dollar track (US dollar track) under the Pension Adjustment System (PAS) (CEPA decision).

In its Decision, the Standing Committee of the UNJSPB dismissed the former staff member’s request for review of the CEPA decision as not receivable ratione temporis.

Former staff member appealed.

Legal Principle(s)

Statutory time limits must be determined on objective elements that both parties can accurately determine. Repeated correspondence made to the Administration after the issuance of the contested decision does not reset the clock for the statutory time limits.And a staff member may not, by his or her conduct, subsequent to the notification of an administrative decision, unilaterally determine the date of the administrative decision by engaging in ongoing correspondence.

Strict adherence to filing deadlines assures one of the goals of the 麻豆APP system of administration of justice: the timely hearing of cases and rendering of judgments.

Staff members are presumed to know the Regulations and Rules applicable to them and ignorance cannot be invoked as an excuse.Accordingly, the Pension Fund is under no obligation to educate participants individually about the provisions governing benefits, requests for review, time limits, and the like. It is the responsibility of each staff member to be informed of the regulations and rules in force, or to seek legal assistance when in doubt.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed on merits

Outcome Extra Text

OAJ prepared this case law summary for informational purposes only. It is no official record and should not be relied upon as an authoritative interpretation of the Tribunals' rulings. For the authoritative texts, please refer to the judgment or order rendered by the respective Tribunal. The Tribunals are the only bodies competent to interpret their respective judgments, as provided under Article 12(3) of the UNDT Statute and Article 11(3) of the UNAT Statute. Any inaccuracies in the publication are the sole responsibility of OAJ, which should be contacted directly for any correction requests. To provide comments, don't hesitate to get in touch with OAJ at oaj@un.org.

The judgment summaries were generally prepared in English. They were translated into French and are being reviewed for accuracy of the translation.

Applicants/Appellants
Elizabeth George
Entity
Case Number(s)
Tribunal
Registry
Date of Judgement
President Judge
Language of Judgment
Issuance Type