UNDT/2017/088, Mohammed Ali Al-Kaissi
The decision to deny the Applicant’s claim for compensation can no longer be subject of a challenge before this Tribunal, because it ceased to have legal effect the moment it was rescinded by the decision-maker. Since the contested decision is no longer existing, the Tribunal cannot rule on the Applicant’s case. The outcome of MEU is not of itself an administrative decision. Consequently, this Tribunal cannot pass judgment on it. Therefore, the Applicant’s challenge against the outcome of the MEU review is not receivable. The lack of existence of a substantive matter makes any motion for interim measures moot because the purpose of an interim measure is to grant temporary relief pending the determination and outcome of the substantive proceedings. The substantive proceedings in this case have been brought to an end by virtue of the rescission of the contested decision, thus rendering the Applicant’s motion for interim measures moot.
The Applicant challenged the decision of the Secretary of the Advisory Board on Compensation Claims denying his claim for compensation or injuries on the ground that they were not recognized as serviced incurred as per Appendix D of the Staff Rules.
The decision-maker’s act of rescinding the contested decision renders the Tribunal’s assessment of the merits of the case moot. The Tribunal will not review a decision made by the Management Evaluation Unit (“MEU”). An Applicant who is dissatisfied with the outcome of MEU needs to plead his case before the Tribunal, challenging the particular administrative decision(s) which is considered to be non-compliant with his terms of appointment. Generally, administrative decisions should be appealed separately even if they pertain to the same facts, because they remain independently reviewable decisions.