UNDT/2023/054, Vasconcellos
The issue at stake in the case at hand is whether the Applicant has a legitimate interest in maintaining current legal proceedings. The evidence on record shows that the Respondent rescinded the contested decision on 23 March 2023. The Applicant acknowledged this in her rejoinder but considers that her grievances are not resolved because she “also requested consideration for new assignments and a reissuance of the 3 August 2022 letter”.However, the 23 March 2023 letter, which clearly rescinded the contested decision, amounts to a reissuance of the 3 August 2022 letter. It follows that the Applicant is no longer in need of judicial remedy in the present case. Accordingly, the Tribunal does not see the need to maintain current legal proceedings and the matter stands to be dismissed.
By an incomplete application filed on 30 January 2023, completed on 13 February 2023, the Applicant contests the decision to place her on Special Leave Without Pay (“SLWOP”) for any periods of non employment at the end of her temporary assignment (“TA”) until she is either regularly reassigned or at the end of her current standard assignment length (“SAL”) in Budapest, following recognition of a special constraint.
The principle of procedural law that the right to institute and pursue legal proceedings is predicated upon the condition that the person exercising it 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 (see, e.g., Bimo and Bimo UNDT/2009/061; Saab-Mekkour UNDT/2010/047; Zhang-Osmancevic UNDT/2015/034; Mukeba Wa Mukeba UNDT/2020/103). “Just as a person may not bring a case about an already resolved controversy (res judicata) so too [she/he] should not be able to continue a case when the controversy is resolved during its pendency” (see Toson 2021-UNAT-1161, para. 28).