Appeal Moot Due to Subsequent Grant of Benefits

This procedural rule is cited to explain the administrative authority's power to review the appealed decision, leading to the subsequent finding that the appeal became moot.

Although not explicitly cited in the dispositive, in this context, the action of striking the appeal from the rolls (stralciato dai ruoli) based on the appeal becoming moot often relates to procedural articles. However, since the dispositive only cites the order number 1 without an explicit article reference for the *stralcio*, and given the explicit citation of the procedural law (LPTCA) in the reasoning for why the matter became moot, only the cited LPTCA article (if it informed the final order) or cost articles are relevant. The text implies the *stralcio* is based on the mootness resulting from the administrative action allowed under LPTCA, but since the dispositive itself does not cite an article for order 1, we must rely strictly on the cited items in orders 2 and 3, or articles that directly justify order 1. Since order 1 lacks a citation, we look at the others.

This article (implicitly referenced via the general concept of costs/fees in Swiss procedure, although 'LTF' might be a slight mislabeling for a Cantonal court unless applying federal standards for costs/fees generally) is cited implicitly in order 2 regarding the non-perception of fees and expenses, though the text only states 'non si percepiscono né tasse né spese' without explicitly citing an article for this specific non-application.

This article (implicitly referenced for awarding costs/reimbursements, though 'LTF' is likely a placeholder for the relevant cantonal rule governing reimbursements) is cited implicitly in order 2 concerning the reimbursement of costs (ripetibili) to the appealing party.