2016-��AT-709

��AT Held or ��DT Pronouncements

��AT held that the impugned Order ceased to have any legal effect when the respective management evaluation was issued. ��AT held that the issuance of the management evaluation had rendered the Order under appeal moot. ��AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ��DT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant filed an application seeking suspension, pending management evaluation, of the selection decision for a post. On the same day, the Applicant filed a motion for production of evidence, seeking an extensive disclosure of records in relation to his claims. ��DT issued Order No. 147 (NY/2016), suspending the selection decision pending management evaluation after finding that the cumulative tests of Article 2. 2 of the ��DT Statute had been met. The Secretary-General appealed. On 30 August 2016, the Management Evaluation Unit (MEU) informed the Applicant that the contested decision had been rescinded. The Secretary-General filed a ��Motion for Consideration��, requesting ��AT to consider and pronounce itself on the merits of the appeal even though the issuance of the management evaluation rendered the Order under appeal moot.

Legal Principle(s)

��AT has consistently held that in the United Nations system of administration of justice, the ��AT was established to pass judgment on existing disputes, but not to give interpretations of the law where there are no disputes before it.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed on receivability

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 ��DT Statute and Article 11(3) of the ��AT 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

Wilson

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement