Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Held or Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Pronouncements
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the decision to terminate Mr. Crotty due to abolition of post was never implemented because he obtained another position with the Organisation and that this rendered moot the Administration¡¯s decision to terminate him. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the administrative decision was no longer a live issue and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was not competent to pass judgment on the application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT made an error of law when it found Mr. Crotty¡¯s application receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that in light of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s error in receiving the application, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s findings on the merits of the staff member¡¯s claims and the award of damages to the staff member were ultra vires and could not stand. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT granted the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal and vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
Mr. Crotty contested the decision to abolish his post and terminate his permanent appointment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the application was receivable and that the Organisation committed material irregularities and failed to act fully in compliance with the legal framework by subjecting Mr. Crotty to the requirement of competing for available posts against others, non-permanent staff members. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT awarded Mr. Crotty compensation for emotional distress.
Legal Principle(s)
Applying the doctrine of mootness is consistent with the purpose behind the establishment of the two-tier system of administration of justice, which was to adjudicate existing disputes, not to interpret the law when there is no live dispute before it.