¹ú²úAV

UNDT/2010/074, Monagas

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

The applicant was ordered to show cause why this matter should not be dismissed for want of prosecution by a prescribed time, and failed to do so. There being a failure of prosecution, the matter must be dismissed, as the applicant shows not interest in maintaining proceedings.Outcome: The application was dismissed in its entirety for want of prosecution.

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

The applicant, a former UNICEF staff member, was charged with misconduct and summarily dismissed in September 2008. He appealed the Secretary-General’s decision not to accept the findings of the Joint Disciplinary Committee, which recommended that he be separated rather than summarily dismissed. After a number of delays resulting primarily from difficulty in contacting the applicant, at a directions hearing Counsel for the applicant informed the Tribunal that that she had been instructed by her client that he wished to withdraw his case and intended to commence proceedings against the Organisation in the national courts of Venezuela. Counsel for the applicant informed the Tribunal that she had legally advised the applicant of the risks inherent in adopting the proposed course of action (bearing in mind the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations 1946), as well as the fact that, once withdrawn, the application before the Dispute Tribunal was unlikely to be able to be reinstated. In the interests of finality of this dispute, the Judge proposed to both Counsel that she was minded to issue a rule nisi stating that if the Tribunal did not receive notification from the applicant that he intended to pursue his case within a certain period, the case would be deemed to be abandoned and would thereafter be dismissed on the grounds of lack of prosecution. Counsel consented to this course of action.

Legal Principle(s)

N/A

Outcome
Dismissed on merits

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
Monagas
Entity
Case Number(s)
Tribunal
Registry Location :
Date of Judgment
Language of Judgment
Issuance Type
Document Topic/Theme :