090 (GVA/2024)

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

The Tribunal acknowledges the Applicant’s circumstances and has no intention of jeopardizing his health in any way. At the same time, it considers the Applicant’s active participation in the proceedings essential to ensuring the fair adjudication of his case. The Tribunal concurs with the Respondent’s assertion that “the right to institute and pursue legal proceedings is contingent upon the individual exercising this right having a legitimate interest in initiating and sustaining legal action.” The Applicant voluntarily initiated these judicial proceedings and, as such, has a vested interest in their timely resolution. If the Applicant is unwilling or, as in this case, unable to proceed, the Tribunal sees no justification for keeping the matter indefinitely pending. Accordingly, the Tribunal determines that the appropriate course of action is to close the case, without prejudice to the Applicant’s right to seek its reopening once he is in a position to resume proceedings. The Applicant must either request the reopening of the case within one year from the date of this Order or, within the same period, submit a reasoned request for the continued preservation of his right to reopen the case.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contests the decision of 30 November 2022 to separate him from service, with compensation in lieu of notice and without separation indemnity.

Outcome

Other motion granted in part

Outcome Extra Text

The Applicant submitted medical reports asserting that the would only be able to resume his involvement with this case once his health drastically improves. He requested the Tribunal to postpone the proceedings until further notice, which his private physician recommended for at least one year.

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.

Samuel De Jaegere
Appealed