¹ú²úAV

UNDT/2021/048

UNDT/2021/048, Kooshak

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

The Applicant has made it clear in his email dated 23 April 2021 that the objective of his filings is solely to protect his staff rights should the Administration fail to finalize his claim under Appendix D. The Tribunal does not see the need to maintain current legal proceedings considering that the Applicant has the right to file an independent application contesting an administrative decision regarding his Appendix D claim under art. 2.1(a) of the Tribunal’s Statute. Judicial remedy is not warranted, at this stage, in the present case. Moreover, as of the date of this Judgment, the Applicant has not filed his application pursuant to the Tribunal’s Order No. 124 (GVA/2020) or its direction of 23 April 2021, despite being warned that his case would be dismissed for want of prosecution should he fail to submit his application as instructed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, this matter stands to be dismissed for want of prosecution.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant did not contest an administrative decision.

Legal Principle(s)

The Tribunal has on several occasions pronounced itself on the principle of procedural law that the right to institute and pursue legal proceedings is predicated upon the condition that the person exercising this right has a legitimate interest in initiating and maintaining legal action, and that access to the Tribunal has to be denied to those who are no longer in need of judicial remedy, or no longer interested in the proceedings. Art. 36 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure provides that all matters that are not expressly provided for in the Rules shall be dealt with by decision of the Tribunal on the particular case, by virtue of the powers conferred on it by art. 7 of its Statute. Art. 9 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure allows it to determine, on its own initiative, that summary judgment is appropriate.

Outcome
Dismissed for want of prosecution/abandonment

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
Kooshak
Entity
Case Number(s)
Tribunal
Registry :
Date of Judgement
Judge(s)
Language of Judgment
Issuance Type
Document Topic/Theme :