[See also Annex II.]

(1)     At the 14th session (April 1953: CO-ORDINATION/R.142, paras. 47-50) CCAQ considered that because dependants were recognized by the organizations for a number of different administrative purposes and under varying definitions, a standard definition of dependants could not be made for all the different purposes.

(2)     At the 15th session (April 1954: CO-ORDINATION/R.162) after discussing a study by ILO, the Committee drew up standard definitions for the various conditions of employment in which there might be a dependency entitlement. It also agreed on guiding lines as regards documentary evidence of dependency. It agreed that only one benefit should be paid in respect of any single dependency case. Regarding "main and continuing support" as a criterion for determining the dependency relationship, the Committee recognized that the concept was a question of fact in each case. It must be shown that the dependant was mainly dependent upon the staff member for the ordinary necessities of life. The method of proof could not be standardized and no practical purpose would be served by attempting to create a precise definition of "main and continuing support" for use in all circumstances.

(3)     Following the action of the General Assembly on the report of the Salary Review Committee, at the special session in March 1957 (CO-ORDINATION/R.244, paras. 27-33) CCAQ greatly modified its previous definitions. It proposed definitions based on the concept of a "family unit" and agreed:

        i.     that the individuals with entitlements based on dependency were: primary family members (spouse, children) and secondary family members (para. 30);

        ii     definitions of the terms "spouse", "children" and "secondary family members", and the conditions on which family allowance is paid in each of the three cases (para. 31);

        iii     entitlements based upon dependency in the case of:

  •      post adjustment and assignment allowance;

  •      travel on recruitment, separation or change of duty station;

  •      home leave;

  •      "annual" (family visit) travel;

  •      subsistence allowance, installation grant, excess baggage,

  •      removal, insurance of baggage;

  •      repatriation grant;

  •      education grant.

        The recommendations were to apply equally to General Service staff, organizations concerned remaining free to agree on adjusted provisions for particular duty stations.

(4)     At the 19th session (March 1958: CO-ORDINATION/R.264, paras. 24 and 25) CCAQ agreed on amendments to the common definitions referred to in para. (3) above. The amended definitions and their relationship to emoluments (family allowance, dependency rate for post adjustment and assignment allowance, travel expenses on recruitment, separation, change of duty station or home leave) are set out in para. 24 of CO-ORDINATION/R.264.

        The Committee intended to carry out a further review of the revised definitions in 1959, and ICAO decided not to apply them pending the result of the review.

(5)     At the 20th session (April 1959: CO-ORDINATION/R.295, paras. 26-27) the consensus of opinion among the organizations was that the definitions did not require to be amended, no specific difficulty having been experienced in applying them. ICAO maintained its previous position and said it would report on the subject to the next session.

(6)     "Income test" for spouse. At the 20th session (1959: CO-ORDINATION/R.295, paras. 19-25) CCAQ agreed that as regards:

        i.     General Service category: in administering dependency benefits during 1960 organizations would be free to fix a figure for headquarters cities which would normally be derived from the entrance level of General Service staff, and be designed to represent income before national taxation. At overseas offices, however, any departure from the present standard of G-1, step 1, should be taken only when that standard would present a problem.

        ii.     Professional category: UNESCO and IAEA applied the same income level, for the test, for all staff at headquarters, rather than the CCAQ figure of $1,850 for Professional staff. Other organizations reported no difficulties.

        The Committee noted that FAO contemplated the adoption of a similar measure to that of UN in the interest of protecting staff members from loss of full dependency if the spouse's earned income slightly exceeded the test figure. FAO also proposed to follow UN, the Geneva-based agencies and UNESCO in applying the income test on the basis of the spouse's income in the current year.

(7)     At the first part of the 21st session (April 1960: CO-ORDINATION/R.325, Annex I) CCAQ reaffirmed that the "revised definitions" of dependency would apply to General Service staff, on the understanding that at a particular duty station the organizations concerned could agree on a modification.

(8)     At the first part of the 22nd session (January and March 1961: CO-ORDINATION/R.351, para. 59) UN, FAO and ICAO reported that they applied the "income test" on a graduated basis, offsetting against the dependency payments any amount by which the income exceeded the test figure in marginal cases. UNESCO reported that it intended to change the qualifying figure, which would be fixed on the basis of CCAQ criteria and the new General Service salary scales in Paris.

        The Committee decided to re-examine the "income test" aspect of dependency allowances.

(9)     At the 23rd session (March 1962: CO-ORDINATION/R.391, para. 110) CCAQ agreed that the maximum earnings of the spouse of a Professional official, for purpose of exclusion under the dependency allowance rule, should be raised from $1,850 to $2,000 (net) except where the salary rate for G-1, step 1, was higher.

(10)     At the 24th session (March 1963: CO-ORDINATION/R.430, paras. 88-90) CCAQ agreed that the income limit for a dependent spouse of an official in the Professional category should in principle be the Geneva G-1, step 1 rate in force on 1 January of the year concerned unless the local G-1, step 1 rate was a higher amount. The figure should therefore be $2,300 net p.a. in 1963 and $2,500 for 1964, WHO and UNESCO making a reservation since the former had already used the $2,000 limit for 1963 agreed at the 23rd session (1962) and the latter had not changed its former system. As regards the limit for the General Service category, CCAQ examined a proposal that this should be set not by reference to G-1, step 1, at the particular duty station, but by reference to the entry step for a particular type of function (e.g. junior typist or junior clerk). It concluded that on balance and in the absence of more information there would be more disadvantage than advantage in changing the existing CCAQ formula. It noted that some organizations expressed this in terms of "the lowest entry level of the General Service category", whereas the rules of others specified "G-1, step 1". This difference in terminology appeared to have led to differences between organizations, and Staff Office should therefore make a study of existing practices. The Committee agreed that the intent was that the limit should be related to the lowest entry grade for office workers, this being a matter of some importance in areas where the category might include manual workers.

(11)     At the same session (CO-ORDINATION/R.430, para. 94) CCAQ examined a summary (CC/SO/43) of the practices of organizations and of the JSPF with regard to the kind of documents they accepted as proof of birth or marriage. The Committee agreed that it would not be possible rigidly to limit "acceptable evidence" to documents which might be specified in a CCAQ country-by-country listing; it was therefore not worth attempting to compile such a list.

(12)     At its 25th session (April 1964: CO-ORDINATION/R.451, paras. 37-43) CCAQ re-examined the income limit for dependent spouses. It agreed that the limit should be related to occupational earnings, not income from all sources. The majority agreed that for General Service staff the limit should be the amount of G-l step 1 in the locality concerned, but noted that because of what they considered to be special circumstances at New York and Montreal, UNHQ and ICAO felt unable to change their limit of G-2 step 1; IAEA intended to retain a limit of 26,000 AS in Vienna. A majority also agreed that there should be a second condition that the spouse should not be regarded as dependent if his or her earnings were greater than those of the staff member.

        As regards staff in the Professional category or above, the limit should be the amount of G-1 step 1 at Geneva, except in those places where the local limit for General Service staff was higher. UNESCO however intended to apply the same limit to both Professional and General Service staff at its headquarters.

        In all cases the limit was the amount of the relevant grade and step on the 1 January of the year to which the occupational earnings related. Organizations could either take the gross amount for that grade and step and compare it with gross (before tax) earnings, or, if easier, compare the net amount with the net after-tax earnings.

       Views differed as to whether the limit should be applied on a graduated basis, whereby any excess earnings over the limit would be deducted from the amount of allowance payable.

(13)     At its 26th session (March l965: CO-ORDINATION/R.488, paras. 22-25) CCAQ agreed to place on the agenda of the 27th session a comprehensive review of definitions of dependants "in order that any interpretations of Pension Fund definitions of dependants with which the Standing Committee of the Joint Staff Pension Board is concerned could be considered by the organizations". CCAQ also recorded that the agreement it had reached in l957 (see para. (3) above) on the definition of a dependent child had not been intended to permit payment of the allowance to children who were not in fact dependent on the staff member. (Secretariat's note: The CCAQ report is obscure. It appears to mean that the l957 agreement had meant only that it would not normally be necessary to make administrative enquiries to verify the fact of dependency). Administrative enquiry might be necessary in cases of separation and divorce, and the test of residence might be applied in the case of adopted children and step-children.

(14)     It was also ascertained at the 26th session that no organization set off tax reliefs against the amount of children's allowance. All except one organization, however, deducted from the allowance the amount of any State children's allowance received by the staff member in respect of the same child.

(15)     At its 28th session (March l967: CO-ORDINATION/R.604, paras. 46-47) CCAQ reviewed a Staff Office study (CC/SO/184) on the definition of dependency, arising out of a JSPB report. Owing to its complexity, the subject could not be adequately dealt with at the session. Organizations were therefore asked to send their considered views to Staff Office by 30 September l967. Staff Office, in consultation with the JSPB secretariat, should then endeavour to work out a generally acceptable set of definitions for all forms of dependency for both JSPF and Staff Regulations purposes.

(16)     At its 29th session (March 1968: CO-ORDINATION/R.669, paras. 52-56) CCAQ agreed that a child should be considered to be dependent on a staff member, under the staff rules if it was

     (a)     unmarried; and

     (b)     under the age of 21, except that if the child was certified by a medical officer to be incapacitated for work, owing to physical or mental impairment of a permanent or long-term nature, no age limit would be applied. The certificate must show that the incapacity began before the child reached the age limit; and

     (c)     the staff member certified that he or she provided the main and continuing support for the child.

(17)     At the same session CCAQ agreed also, with respect to a child's allowance that:

     (a)     where the child was between the age of l8 and 21 it would be considered dependent only if in full-time attendance at an educational institution, and the staff member certifies accordingly (except of course in cases of incapacity);

     (b)     the practice of deducting from the UN allowance any allowances received by the staff member or his spouse from other sources for the same child should be continued; the staff member must declare the amount of such allowances.

     (c)     in a case where the child was a step-child or an adopted child, or where the parents were divorced or separated, or where the child did not reside with the staff member, the staff member may be required to produce evidence to support his certification of dependency.

(18)     With respect to the definition of a spouse, CCAQ agreed at the 29th session (March 1968: CO-ORDINATION/R.669, paras. 57-58) that:

     (a)     a spouse should be considered to be dependent on a staff member under the staff rules, if the occupational earnings of the spouse did not exceed a specified limit fixed by agreement in CCAQ;

     (b)     if the income from occupational earnings exceeded the specified limit by a sum which is less than the amount of the spouse allowance plus the difference between married and single post adjustment, the staff member should certify the actual income of the spouse, and the excess over the limit should be deducted first from the allowance and then from the post adjustment, unless the staff member had other dependants who justified continuation of the married rate of post adjustment.

(19)     CCAQ also agreed that further study was required of the conditions concerning the entitlement of dependants to certain benefits such as repatriation travel. It might be legitimate in some cases to grant such entitlement to a spouse or child who was not technically dependent under the above definitions. The ILO raised a number of other points (see Annex B, CO-ORD/CC.29/R.l9) concerning the administration of dependency allowances. These were referred to a Working Party to meet in October l968. This Working Party was also asked to deal with the definition of secondary dependants.

(20)     At its 30th session (March l969: CO-ORDINATION/R.733, Annex E, para. l3) CCAQ considered the definition of secondary dependant. It agreed that the existing CCAQ definition, para. (3)(ii) above, referring to para. 3l (c) of the report of the special session in l957 (CO-ORDINATION/R.244), remained satisfactory.

(21)     At its 31st session (March 1970: CO-ORDINATION/R.798, para. 65) CCAQ discussed whether a pension payment from the UN Joint Staff Pension Fund should be regarded as occupational earnings for purposes of determining if the earnings exceeded the income limit for a dependent spouse. It was agreed however that there was a need to review the whole question of earnings to be taken into account in determining the dependency status of a spouse, and that pension was only one form of earnings which should be considered in the course of any such review. CCAQ agreed that the matter should be included in the review of the dependency allowance system in the l970-l97l work programme.

(22)     At its sessions in l974 CCAQ decided, in the interest of removing from the rules distinctions based on sex, that for the following benefits spouses be recognized irrespective of their dependency status:

  •      travel and related expenses

  •      death grant

  •      repatriation grant

(See CO-ORDINATION/R.l03l, paras. 52-56 and Corr.2, and CCAQ/SEC/336(PER), para. l3).

(23)     At its 51st session (August l979: ACC/l979/R.55, para. 22) CCAQ decided that the issues of policy involved in the definition of dependants went beyond alignment of organizations' practices and decided to revert to the question at the next session.

(24)     At its 52nd session (Part I, January l980: ACC/l980/4, paras. l8-22) CCAQ agreed that comparisons between a spouse's earnings and the relevant General Service salary scale should be on gross salary levels.

(25)     At its 53rd session (July l980: ACC/l980/l7, paras. 70-7l) CCAQ agreed on comprehensive definitions of dependants effective 1 January l981 (see Annex II).

(26)     At its 59th session (July l983: ACC/l983/l8, paras. 35-39) CCAQ agreed to recommend to ICSC that the eligibility criteria for receipt of a secondary dependant's allowance should remain as agreed in l980, and continue to be the same for both Professional and General Service staff. ICSC accepted this recommendation pending the collection of further information which might permit eligibility for staff in the General Service category to be determined in accordance with local practice (9th (l983) annual report, A/38/30, paras. 9l-92).

(27)     At its 62nd session (March 1985), CCAQ discussed a position which had been presented earlier by UNESCO (Special Session, October 1984: ACC/1984/22, paras. 20-21) concerning the administrative implications of situations where staff members had different spouses. The Committee agreed that staff with more than one dependent spouse would be eligible for entitlements in respect of all spouses, provided the total cost did not exceed the cost that would be incurred in respect of a single spouse. Entitlements would be determined according to local practice in the case of General Service staff.

(28)     On the basis of an initiative by ITU, CCAQ at its 74th session (March 1991: ACC/1991/5, paras. 66, 67) asked its secretariat to collect further information on recognition in the common system and at national level, for dependency purposes, of "common law" or contractual marriages. At its 75th session (July-August 1991: ACC/1991/17, para. 109) the Committee took note of information from organizations on this subject and asked its secretariat to study it further.

(29)     At its 77th session (July 1992: ACC/1992/23, paras. 86-87) CCAQ considered a note by its secretariat on non-formal "marriage", in the context of granting dependency status in situations other than a marriage formally recognized under the relevant national practice and was not in a position to reach a positive conclusion in the matter. It considered it might be useful to elaborate criteria that might be used to recognize such "marriages", without pre-judging the outcome of any future review.

(30)     At its 88th session (April 1998: ACC/1998/5, paras. 24-25) CCAQ, accepting that the recognition of common law marriage for dependency purposes (if proof was provided that such marriages were recognized by the staff member's home country) was intrinsically related to the life and work issues outlined in ACC's policy statement on a Work/Family Agenda, endorsed the principle that organizations should move, to the extent possible in unison, in the direction of non-discrimination with regard to the recognition of domestic partnerships. CCAQ also agreed to initiate consultations within organizations on the basis of a common draft (ibid., annex V).

(31)     At its 89th session (July 1998: ACC/1998/9, paras. 31-32) CCAQ reviewed a note by the United Nations Medical Director on the administration of the special dependency allowance in which attention was called to a list of medical conditions drawn up by the Medical Directors of the UN system to assist in the determination of eligibility to the allowance. CCAQ decided that the list should be considered as indicative only and should be reviewed regularly, judgment and flexibility being necessary to determine any age limitations for granting or extending the allowance in individual cases.

(32)     At its April 2002 meeting (CEB/2002/HLCM/8, para. 24) the HR Network, further to previous discussions and agreements reached by the then CCAQ/PER on this issue (see para. (30) above), noted that the ILO Governing Body (282nd Session) had given its approval for the International Labour Office (a) to extend to the domestic partners of officials, on a pilot basis, the benefit of the payment of travel costs on appointment, transfer and repatriation, on condition that the ICSC agreed to this course; (b) to consult with the ICSC and then to identify, in consultation with other organizations of the UN common system, what additional benefits or assistance might be granted on a trial basis to domestic partners; (c) to consult with the Management Committee of its Staff Health Insurance Fund on the possibility, consequences and basis on which some or all health insurance benefits granted to other recognized dependent family members could be extended to domestic partners; and (d) to approach the UN Joint Staff Pension Fund with a view to having the issue of recognition of a domestic partner as a beneficiary under a UN pension plan on the agenda of the next meeting of the UNJSPB in 2002.

(33)     The HR Network also noted that current trends were that (a) employers were increasingly offering benefits to domestic partners and that two organizations of the UN family – World Bank and IMF - had already done so and (b) increasingly it was possible to legalize relationships between partners of the same or opposite sex under national legislation which conferred the same rights and responsibilities of marriage on such arrangements. It expressed appreciation for the work of the ILO in pursuing this HRM issue, which had to be viewed in light of organizations' reform agendas, work/life policies and efforts to attract and retain a high quality, mobile workforce. While recognizing that concern was increasingly being voiced regarding the application of provisions which discriminated between staff members on the basis of their marital status or sexual preference, it also recognized that there were important legal and political dimensions which had to be considered. It decided to urge HLCM to constitute a joint task force of HR specialists and legal advisors to study the matter with a view to moving forward at the spring session of the HR Network.

(34)     At its June 2003 session (CEB/2003/3, paras. 14-25) HLCM, in the context of discussing measures to improve mobility touched on the question of spouse employment and recognition of domestic partners. The discussion is reported in section 9.7, paras. (20) to (23).

(35)     At its July 2003 meeting (CEB/2003/HLCM/20, paras. 21-23) the HR Network reviewed a note presented by FICSA which provided background on the issue of recognizing domestic partnerships and common law marriages for the purpose of determining dependency benefits and facilitating travel to, and residency at, the duty station of a staff member of the common system. The Network recalled that at its June 2003 session HLCM had recognized that one impediment to mobility was the lack of a common system policy for the recognition of domestic partners as dependents. It therefore underlined "the importance – and urgency – of moving forward with a common approach on the issue of recognizing domestic partners, and [invited] the HR Network to bring forward options thereon to HLCM's next session." The Network expressed appreciation for the note prepared by FICSA and, noting the request of HLCM, agreed to set up a working group under the leadership of the ILO to bring together interested organizations, legal advisers and staff representatives with a view to putting forward concrete proposals for the next session of HLCM. In this regard, the CEB secretariat was requested to facilitate consultation with the whole HR Network through correspondence.

(36)     At the same meeting (ibid., paras. 26-27) the HR Network reviewed a note presented by FICSA requesting that action be taken to extend the age limit of dependency status for dependent children from 21 to 25 years of age. The Network noted that while there was some merit in the FICSA proposal, it required further work. It was, moreover, an ICSC matter that should more appropriately be taken up in 2004 in the context of ICSC's review of allowances.

(37)    At its 6th session (October 2003: CEB/2003/5, paras. 18-21) HLCM considered a progress report (CEB/2003/HLCM/6/CRP.5) on the work being undertaken by the working group to develop a common approach in respect of the recognition of marriage (including common law marriage) on a non-discriminatory basis and of domestic partnerships. The Committee noted that the issue was of increasing concern to all organizations and that many of them were being asked to respond to individual requests for recognition of partnerships. It expressed satisfaction with the general spirit and direction of the work of the Working Group, which sought to arrive at a common policy in respect of: (a) same sex marriages legally recognised by the staff member's home country; (b) domestic partnerships given formal recognition by the staff member's home country; and (c) domestic partnerships of staff members that did not enjoy any form of legal recognition in their home country. HLCM reiterated the importance it attached to completing this work as soon as possible and requested that the HR Network submit proposals to its next session on strong UN common system policies on (a) and (b) above. It also requested that the Network develop a process for determining the treatment of under (c) above. It further requested that the Working Group and the Network ensure the collaboration of legal advisors in the next phase of the work, as well as to identify potential obstacles to implementation once policies were approved (e.g. countries that might not grant residence permits to domestic partners). Finally it noted that implementation within each organization could vary depending upon the need for approval by its legislative body.

(37)    At its 6th Session (October 2003: CEB/2003/5, paras. 18-21) HLCM, considered a progress report (CEB/2003/HLCM/6/CRP.5) on the work being undertaken by a working group under the leadership of ILO to bring together interested organizations, legal advisers and staff representatives to develop a common approach in respect of the recognition of marriage (including common law marriage) on a non-discriminatory basis and of domestic partnerships. The Committee: (a) noted that the issue was of increasing concern to all organizations and that many of them were being asked to respond to individual requests for recognition of partnerships; (b) expressed satisfaction with the general spirit and direction of the work of the Working Group, which sought to arrive at a common policy in respect of: (i) Same sex marriages legally recognized by the staff member's home country; (ii) Domestic partnerships given formal recognition by the staff member's home country; (iii) Domestic partnerships of staff members that did not enjoy any form of legal recognition in their home country; (c) reiterated the importance it attached to completing this work as soon as possible, and requested that the HR Network submit to it at its spring 2004 session proposals on strong UN common system policies on same sex marriages legally recognized by the staff member's home country and on domestic partnerships given formal recognition by the staff member's home country; (d) also requested that the HR Network develop a process for determining the treatment of domestic partnerships that did not enjoy any form of legal recognition as described in sub-paragraph (b) (iii) above; (e) further requested that the Working Group and the HR Network ensure the collaboration of legal advisers in the next phase of the work, as well as identify potential obstacles to implementation once policies were approved (e.g. countries that might not grant residence permits to domestic partners); and (f) noted that implementation within each organization could vary depending upon the need for approval by its legislative body.

(38)    At its 7th session (March 2004: CEB/2004/3, paras. 28-30) HLCM was presented with a document which contained proposals, requested by the Committee, from the HR Network on policies on (a) same-sex marriages legally recognized by the staff member's home country and (b) domestic partnerships legally recognized by the staff member's home country. In addition, the Committee was informed that, the HR Network would continue its work to develop a process for determining the treatment of domestic partnerships that did not enjoy any form of legal recognition in the staff member's country of nationality. The Committee was also informed that, following the publication of the UN Secretary-General's bulletin ST/SGB/2004/4 establishing a policy for determining family status for purposes of UN entitlements, the UN Secretariat had received nine requests from UN staff members for the recognition of a domestic partnership or same-sex marriage. UNIDO had reported to the Committee that it had been able, via a gender-neutral application of its staff rules, to recognize domestic partnerships successfully. However, some organizations would need to refer the matter to their respective executive head and/or governing body, for approval, prior to possible implementation. ITU had expressed its concern that the text of the policy stated that marriages were only recognized for benefits in reference to the laws of the country of the nationality of the staff member, whereas ITU had always recognized legal marriages enacted in third countries. In taking account of the views expressed, the Committee:

     (a)     reached general agreement (FAO, UPU and ITU reserved their positions and UNESCO had not yet come to a decision on the matter) on the following principles for consideration by CEB at its next session:

Policy on Domestic Partnerships

"Recognition of family status for dependants of United Nations staff members is an increasingly important concern particularly with regard to issues of the recruitment, retention, mobility and security of United Nations system staff. It is also an issue of equity.

"Executive Heads affirm the following principles with respect to the recognition of marriage and domestic partnerships as set out below: "Family status for the purpose of entitlements is determined by reference to the law of nationality of the staff member concerned; "A marriage recognized as valid under the law of the country of nationality of a staff member will qualify that staff member to receive the entitlements provided for eligible family members; "A legally recognized domestic partnership contracted by a staff member under the laws of the country of his or her nationality will qualify the staff member to receive the entitlements provided for eligible family members.

"Each organization will endeavour to implement these principles, having regard to its own circumstances and requirements. Organizations will also share information, through the High Level Committee on Management Human Resources Network, on countries that have enacted legislation on same-sex marriages, and/or domestic partnerships, on the basis of which one or more organizations have established family entitlements."

     (b)     Took note of the further work to be carried out under the auspices of the HR Network; and (c) Requested the CEB secretariat to consult with the UNJSPF secretariat on an approach for implementation of this policy by the Fund.

(39)    At its 8th session (October 2004: CEB/2004/6, paras. 42-44) HLCM was briefed by the UN on the issue of personal status for the purpose of recognizing dependents, as detailed in the UN Secretary General's Bulletin ST/SGB/2004/13. It affirmed that the Organization determined the personal status of staff members for the purpose of entitlements under the Staff Regulations and Rules by reference to the law of nationality of the staff member concerned. Requests relating to the determination of the personal status of staff members in connection with their entitlements were submitted by the Secretariat for consultation with the Permanent Mission to the United Nations of the country of nationality of the staff member. The Committee's attention was also drawn to a recent case brought before the UN Administrative Tribunal (AT/Dec/1183) regarding a staff member of the United Nations who had lodged a successful appeal of discrimination with respect to spousal benefits and entitlements. The Committee expressed appreciation to the UN Secretariat for its leadership and the progress achieved and noted the Secretariat's intention to make available to organizations any relevant country-specific information on recognition of personal status received from a Permanent Mission that would be relevant for implementation throughout the system.

(40)    At the eighteenth session of the HR Network (CEB/2009/HLCM/HR/46/Rev.1, paras.63-64), UNAIDS introduced the issue of equality-based entitlements and status. The Network declared its openness to the streamlining of current practices for determining personal status, urging that provisions should cover both same-sex and hetero-sexual couples; Proposed that organizations check with their legal counsels and that there be an analysis of the potential effect on the Pension Fund before the recommendations are fully endorsed. It may be useful to assess the World Bank and the IMF approach and criteria on this matter for their adaptability to the modalities within the UN System. The Network requested UNAIDS to take the lead on streamlining practices and creating a template that organizations can put to their legal counsels to ensure that all were asking the same questions and also agreed to continue the discussion at the Network’s Spring 2010 meeting.

(41)    At its twentieth session (CEB/2010/HLCM/HR/35, paras.86-89), the HR Network proposed to further develop this within a ‘non-discrimination framework’ so that more organizations can move forward in the future; Recommended that discussion of the issue of Personal Status/Domestic Partners continue; Agreed to request HLCM to endorse the proposal that the organizations that were willing and ready to proceed further with this issue may move ahead in accordance with their own governance procedures; Endorsed the continuation of discussions at its meetings and the proposed solution for HLCM to endorse those organizations that can and wish to move forward on this matter.

(42)    At its twentieth session (CEB/2010/5, paras.122-130), the Committee took note of the HR Network proposal on the issue of Personal Status/Domestic Partners, and endorsed the Network’s recommendation that the organizations that are willing and ready to proceed further with this issue may move ahead in accordance with their own governance procedures.

(43)    At its videoconference of 18 November 2010 (CEB/2010/HLCM/HR/41, para.11), HLCM took note of the proposal on “Personal Status/Domestics Partners”, and endorsed the Network’s recommendation that the organizations that were willing and ready to proceed further with this issue could move ahead in accordance with their own governance procedures.