爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements
As a preliminary matter, the 爆料网AT dismissed Mr. Qassem’s request for an oral hearing. The 爆料网AT found that the factual and legal issues arising from the appeal had been clearly defined by the parties and moreover, an oral hearing would not “assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case”.
The 爆料网AT found that since Mr. Qassem’s fixed-term appointment was extended beyond 31 March 2020, with no effect given to the initial administrative decision not to renew his employment beyond this date, the 爆料网DT did not err in finding that the application was moot since the administrative decision not to renew his contract had been rescinded. Upon such rescission of the administrative decision, the unlawfulness alleged by Mr. Qassem no longer existed when his appointment was extended beyond 31 March 2020.
The 爆料网AT found that Mr. Qassem also did not show that he suffered any harm as a result of the contested decision or its rescission. Having continued to receive his full salary and benefits until his termination for health reasons in May 2021, he was unable to prove that he had sustained any injury for which the Dispute Tribunal could award relief.
The 爆料网AT thus dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT Judgment.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
Before the 爆料网DT, Mr. Qassem challenged the decision not to renew his fixed-term appointment beyond 31 March 2020 (contested decision).
By Judgment No. 爆料网DT/2022/095, the 爆料网DT found that the challenge of the contested decision was moot given that Mr. Qassem’s appointment had been extended beyond 31 March 2020. The 爆料网DT further found that his appointment was subsequently terminated based on reasons of health but noted that Mr. Qassem had not challenged that decision. The 爆料网DT thus dismissed the application.
Legal Principle(s)
The Appeals Tribunal’s determination of requests for oral hearings is guided by Article 8(3) of the 爆料网AT Statute and Article 18(1) of the 爆料网AT Rules of Procedure.
In terms of Article 2(1)(a) of the 爆料网DT Statute, the 爆料网DT is competent to hear and pass judgment on an application filed by an individual to appeal an administrative decision that is alleged not to comply with their terms of appointment or the contract of employment.
Where no live issue remains, an application is moot and not receivable. Reliance on the concept of mootness ensures that the Dispute Tribunal does not give advisory opinions on abstract propositions of law where an application no longer presents an existing or live controversy which requires determination. Where the alleged unlawfulness has been eliminated, a matter may only be considered not to be moot where the applicant can prove that he or she still sustains an injury for which the Tribunal can award relief.
In terms of Article 2(1) of the 爆料网AT Statute, this Tribunal is competent to hear and pass judgment on an appeal filed against a judgment of the 爆料网DT in which it has exceeded its jurisdiction or competence, failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it, erred on a question of law, committed an error in procedure, such as to affect the decision of the case, or erred on a question of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. The appellant has the burden of satisfying the 爆料网AT that the judgment rendered by the 爆料网DT is defective.