Judgment No. 4676
Decision
The complaint is dismissed.
Summary
The complainant challenges EMBL’s refusal to guarantee that the survivor’s pension to which his wife will be entitled at the time of his death will be at least 35 per cent of his last salary; to award him a children’s allowance for each of his wife’s three children from her previous marriages; and to verify that his current pension was properly calculated.
Judgment keywords
Keywords
pension; child's benefit; survivor's benefit; complaint dismissed
Consideration 5
Extract:
With respect to the […] claim for relief concerning a “guarantee of survivor[’s] pension for [his] wife”, Ms H.-R., the complainant misunderstands and misconceives the role of the Tribunal. This might be thought to be a request to now declare the rights of his spouse. But according to established case law, it is not for the Tribunal to make declarations of the nature sought (see, for example, Judgment 4602, consideration 5), nor to provide complainants with guarantees such as the one claimed here.
Furthermore, given that the complainant is still alive, the relief sought in this regard is premature. As correctly indicated by EMBL, the amount of any entitlement to the survivor’s pension in case of the complainant’s death has not been decided and cannot be decided at this juncture. A definite amount will only be set when the date of a potential entitlement of the complainant’s survivor is known. Before then, there is simply no decision that has an effect on the complainant’s rights and obligations or on the rights and obligations of anyone holding or deriving rights through him under Article II, paragraph 6(b), of the Statute of the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgment 1203, consideration 2).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1203, 4602
Keywords
competence of tribunal; survivor's benefit
Consideration 6
Extract:
The principles of statutory interpretation that the Tribunal follows are also well settled in the case law. The primary rule is that words are to be given their obvious and ordinary meaning (see, for example, Judgments 4393, consideration 4, 4178, consideration 10, 3310, consideration 7, and 2276, consideration 4).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2276, 3310, 4178, 4393
Keywords
interpretation
Consideration 10
Extract:
The Tribunal has often stated that time limits are binding and an objective matter of fact, and that it should not entertain a complaint filed out of time, since any other conclusion, even if founded on considerations of equity, would impair the necessary stability of the parties’ legal relations that is the very justification for a time bar (see Judgment 3482, consideration 4). And pursuant to Article VII, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal, a complaint before the latter shall not be receivable unless the person concerned has exhausted the means of redress that are open to her or him under the applicable staff regulations.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3482
Keywords
time limit; late appeal; internal remedies not exhausted
|
