2022-Ģ��ƵAT-1201

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

Ģ��ƵAT held that the decision of Ģ��ƵDT that the application in relation to the non-renewal decision was moot because the non-renewal decision never materialised was correct. Ģ��ƵAT held that the non-renewal decision was overtaken by the Appellant��s separation for health reasons and that the Appellant had not challenged the actual decision that ultimately resulted in the termination of her employment. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT had no obligation to consider the merits of the superseded decision once it correctly found that the application was moot. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT did not err in finding that the decision to separate the Appellant due to incapacitation superseded the non-renewal decision and that the application was moot. Ģ��ƵAT held that Ģ��ƵDT correctly concluded that it could not order compensation. Ģ��ƵAT held that the Appellant had failed to show any error on the part of Ģ��ƵDT. Ģ��ƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ģ��ƵDT Judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Appellant contested the decision not to renew her fixed term appointment. Ģ��ƵDT dismissed her application.

Legal Principle(s)

An application to Ģ��ƵDT will be moot where the impugned administrative decision did not take effect because it was rescinded or superseded by subsequent actions of the Administration; in such cases, the Ģ��ƵDT will lack subject-matter jurisdiction to examine the merits of the case. Compensation cannot be awarded when no illegality has been established.

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 Ģ��ƵDT Statute and Article 11(3) of the Ģ��ƵAT 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

Annette Guetgemann

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement