Competition (294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299, 300, 301, 302, 303, 304,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Competition
Total judgments found: 163
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 | next >
Judgment 4772
137th Session, 2024
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to appoint another candidate to the position of Director, Investment Centre Division following a competitive selection process.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
appointment; competition; complaint allowed; conflict of interest; selection board;
Judgment 4625
135th Session, 2023
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant disputes the lawfulness and outcome of a competition procedure in which she participated.
Consideration 3
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal recalls its settled case law under which, in matters of appointment, the choice of the candidate to be appointed lies within the discretion of the authority competent to make the appointment within the organisation concerned. Such a decision is therefore subject to only limited review and may be set aside only if it was taken without authority or in breach of a rule of form or of procedure, or if it was based on a mistake of fact or of law, or if some material fact was overlooked, or if there was abuse of authority, or if a clearly wrong conclusion was drawn from the evidence (see, in particular, Judgments 3652, consideration 7, and 3372, consideration 12). As a result, a person who has applied for a post that an organisation has decided to fill by a competition and whose application is ultimately unsuccessful must prove that the selection procedure was tainted by a serious defect (see, in particular, Judgments 4001, consideration 4, and 1827, consideration 6).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1827, 3372, 3652, 4001
Keywords:
appointment; competition; judicial review; role of the tribunal; selection procedure;
Consideration 10
Extract:
The Tribunal considers that [the] reasoning is adequate in that it allows the complainant to understand the reasons why the successful candidate was selected, even if she does not agree with them. This is especially so since this case involves a decision relating to a competition procedure, for which the authority competent to make the appointment has a broad discretion, and it is moreover possible for the organisation to clarify the reasons for its choice at a later stage in the light of the specific grievances expressed by a candidate who considers her- or himself to have been adversely affected by the decision (see, in particular, Judgments 4467, consideration 7, 4259, consideration 6, 4081, consideration 5, 2978, consideration 4, and 2060, consideration 7(a)).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2060, 2978, 4081, 4259, 4467
Keywords:
competition; motivation;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
appointment; competition; complaint dismissed; selection procedure;
Consideration 5
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal considers that, except in special circumstances, an organisation is not required to state the reasons why it chooses to fill a post using a particular type of competition.
Keywords:
competition; motivation;
Judgment 4618
135th Session, 2023
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the outcome of two selection procedures in which she took part.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; cause of action; competition; complaint allowed; selection procedure;
Consideration 8
Extract:
In view of the Organization’s arguments in its submissions, the Tribunal considers it useful to reiterate that, under the terms of their appointment and the applicable staff rules within an international organisation, all staff members who apply for posts in competitive procedures are entitled to have their applications considered in good faith and in keeping with the basic rules of fair and open competition (see, for example, Judgment 4524, consideration 8, and the case law cited therein). The Organization is therefore wrong to contend that the complainant’s challenge to the outcome of the competitions in question is not based on the terms of her appointment or the staff rules.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4524
Keywords:
cause of action; competition; contract;
Judgment 4594
135th Session, 2023
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant seeks the cancellation of a competition in which she took part.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
competition; complaint allowed; selection procedure;
Consideration 8
Extract:
The Tribunal recalls that, in relation to competitions, it is not its role to replace the assessment made by the competent selection bodies with its own assessment.
Keywords:
competition; role of the tribunal; selection procedure;
Judgment 4584
135th Session, 2023
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant seeks the cancellation of the competition organised to fill the grade P.4 post of programme coordinator that he had held in the ITU Regional Office for Africa until his retirement.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
competition; complaint dismissed; selection procedure;
Consideration 5
Extract:
[I]t must be reiterated that, under the Tribunal’s settled case law, a staff appointment by an international organisation is a decision that lies within the discretion of its executive head and, for that reason, is subject only to limited review. It may be set aside only if it was taken without authority or in breach of a rule of form or of procedure, or if it was based on a mistake of fact or of law, or if some material fact was overlooked, or if there was abuse of authority, or if a clearly wrong conclusion was drawn from the evidence (see, in particular, Judgments 4408, consideration 2, 4153, consideration 2, 3188, consideration 8, or 2040, consideration 5). The Tribunal will not replace the organisation’s assessment with its own in this matter (see, in particular, Judgments 4100, consideration 5, 3537, consideration 10, 2833, consideration 10(b), or 2762, consideration 17). Furthermore, where an appointment is made on the basis of a selection among candidates for a post, a complainant seeking to have the appointment set aside must demonstrate that there was a serious defect in the selection process which impacted on the outcome of the competition (see, for example, Judgments 4524, consideration 8, 4208, consideration 3, 4147, consideration 9, or 4023, consideration 2). In particular, it is not enough simply to assert that one is better qualified for the post in question than the selected candidate (see, for example, Judgments 4467, consideration 2, 4001, consideration 4, 3669, consideration 4, or 1827, consideration 6).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1827, 2040, 2762, 2833, 3188, 3537, 3669, 4001, 4023, 4100, 4147, 4153, 4208, 4408, 4467, 4524
Keywords:
appointment; competition; role of the tribunal; selection procedure;
Judgment 4408
132nd Session, 2021
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant disputes the lawfulness and outcome of a competition procedure in which she participated.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
competition; complaint dismissed; selection procedure;
Consideration 2
Extract:
The Tribunal’s case law has it that a staff appointment by an international organisation is a decision that lies within the discretion of its executive head. Such a decision is subject to only limited review and may be set aside only if it was taken without authority or in breach of a rule of form or of procedure, or if it was based on a mistake of fact or of law, or if some material fact was overlooked, or if there was abuse of authority, or if a clearly wrong conclusion was drawn from the evidence (see, for example, Judgment 3537, consideration 10).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3537
Keywords:
appointment; competition; discretion; judicial review;
Judgment 4368
131st Session, 2021
International Olive Council
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the cancellation of a competition procedure in which she participated.
Consideration 4
Extract:
[T]he executive head of an international organisation may cancel a competition in the interests of the service with a view, in particular, to holding a new competition on different terms if need be (see, for example, Judgments 791, consideration 4, 1223, consideration 31, 1771, consideration 4(e), 1982, consideration 5(a), 2075, consideration 3, 3647, consideration 9, 3920, consideration 18, 4216, consideration 3, or 4283, consideration 2).
However, such a decision can never be arbitrary. The Tribunal must therefore ascertain whether the condition relating to the interests of the organisation required under the case law in question is actually met and whether the cancellation of the initial process is based on a legitimate reason (see, in particular, Judgments 3647, consideration 9, and 3920, consideration 18, cited above).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 791, 1223, 1771, 1982, 2075, 3647, 3920, 4216, 4383
Keywords:
competition; discretion;
Considerations 10-11
Extract:
The Tribunal underlines [...] that the situation [...] resulting from the fact that different qualification requirements were specified in the provisions applicable to the competition, was not only liable to introduce a regrettable ambiguity into the determination of selection procedures for candidates – as the IOC appeared to consider – but was quite simply unlawful. Indeed, the Executive Director could not lawfully decide, while allowing the qualification requirements in the job description to remain in force, to specify different requirements in the competition notice, since the statement in the memorandum of 1 December 2016 to the effect that the provisions set out in that notice would not be applied insofar as they were contrary to those specified in the job description was not capable of remedying their unlawfulness.
Since the contested competition had been opened unlawfully, the requirement that administrative decisions be taken lawfully dictated that it be cancelled, as it would otherwise have led to an appointment to the post in question which would itself inevitably have been unlawful.
This implies not only that the decision [...] was taken in the interest of the service and hence based on a legitimate reason, so that, pursuant to the [Tribunal's] case law [...], the Executive Director was entitled to adopt it, but also that, in this case, he was in fact bound to do so.
Keywords:
administrative decision; competition; lawfulness of a measure;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
competition; complaint allowed;
Judgment 4332
131st Session, 2021
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the lawfulness of a selection procedure in which he participated and the resulting appointment.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
competition; complaint dismissed; selection procedure;
Judgment 4317
130th Session, 2020
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, in his capacity as a member of the Selection Board, challenges the decision not to allow a staff member holding a fixed-term contract to compete for a permanent post.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
cause of action; competition; complaint dismissed;
Judgment 4251
129th Session, 2020
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the lawfulness of a selection procedure in which she participated and the appointment made at the end of that procedure.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
competition; complaint dismissed; selection procedure;
Judgment 4216
129th Session, 2020
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the lawfulness of the decision to cancel a competition procedure in which he took part.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
competition; complaint allowed; decision quashed;
Consideration 11
Extract:
At this stage in its findings, the Tribunal would normally remit the case to the Organisation for the Director General to take a new decision concerning the disputed competition procedure, this time basing his assessment on a consideration of the exact substance of the findings of the selection board.
However, the response to the Tribunal’s request for further information shows that the complainant retired on 1 January 2019. Since the issue of his possible appointment to the post in question has become moot, it is not advisable to remit the case to Eurocontrol, but the Tribunal will award the complainant compensation for the various injuries caused to him by the contested decisions, as foreseen by Article VIII of the Statute of the Tribunal in cases of this type.
Keywords:
compensation; competition; competition cancelled;
Judgment 4100
127th Session, 2019
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to select him for a position for which he had applied.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
competition; complaint allowed; selection procedure;
Judgment 4098
127th Session, 2019
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to select him for a position for which he had applied.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
competition; complaint allowed; selection procedure;
Judgment 4070
127th Session, 2019
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to select her for a position for which she had applied.
Consideration 4
Extract:
The Tribunal holds that the complainant’s admission that she did not meet the requirements for the subject post means that she has no cause of action to challenge the shortlisting of the selected candidate or his final selection to fill the contested post. The complaint is therefore unfounded and will be dismissed.
Keywords:
cause of action; competition; selection procedure;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
appointment; competition; complaint dismissed; selection procedure;
Judgment 4061
127th Session, 2019
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions not to cancel the appointment of an external candidate following a recruitment procedure and not to organise a new procedure open to internal candidates only.
Consideration 5
Extract:
The Tribunal has consistently held that a staff member’s right to challenge the appointment of another staff member to a particular post is not contingent on whether she or he had a relatively good chance of being the successful candidate (see Judgment 2832, under 8, and the cited cases). However, the same case law also establishes that the individual concerned must be eligible to occupy the post, otherwise it could not be said that the individual was legally affected by the disputed appointment. As the complainant was not eligible to apply for appointment to the post at the relevant time, his complaint does not disclose a cause of action and must be dismissed.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2832
Keywords:
appointment; competition; no cause of action;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
competition; complaint dismissed; selection procedure;
Judgment 4023
126th Session, 2018
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the validity of a competition procedure in which he participated and the lawfulness of the ensuing appointment.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
appointment; competition; complaint dismissed; selection procedure;
Consideration 2
Extract:
The Tribunal has stated the basic principles which guide it, where a decision such as this is challenged, [...] in Judgment 3652, consideration 7. [...]
A complainant is required to demonstrate that there was a serious defect in the selection process which impacted on the consideration and assessment of her or his candidature. It is not enough simply to assert that one is better qualified than the selected candidate (see Judgment 3669, consideration 4).
However, when an organization conducts a competition to fill a post, the process must accord with the relevant rules and the case law (see Judgment 1549, considerations 11 and 13, and the case law cited therein).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1549, 3652, 3669
Keywords:
appointment; competition; discretion; judicial review; selection procedure;
Judgment 4008
126th Session, 2018
Energy Charter Conference
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: In her first complaint, the complainant challenges the decision not to extend her fixed-term contract following the abolition of her post, but to give her a Project Staff contract. In her second complaint, she challenges three vacancy notices concerning C category posts and in her third complaint, she challenges the rejection of her application for two of these posts.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
abolition of post; competition; complaint allowed; decision quashed; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract;
Judgment 3920
125th Session, 2018
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate her fixed-term appointment pursuant to the abolition of her post.
Consideration 18
Extract:
The Tribunal observed in Judgment 3647, consideration 9, that: “[t]he Tribunal’s case law recognises that the executive head of an international organisation may cancel a competition in the interest of the organisation if, among other reasons, it becomes apparent that the competition will not enable the post concerned to be filled, and that she or he may, if need be, decide to hold a new competition on different terms (see, for example, Judgments 1223, under 31, 1771, under 4(e), 1982, under 5(a), and 2075, under 3). However, the condition relating to the interests of the organisation must actually be met, so that the cancellation of the initial process is based on a legitimate reason. In this matter as in any other, arbitrary decision-making is unacceptable.”
[...] In most of the rules of the international organizations which have accepted the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, competitions are a fundamental mechanism of the selection of international civil servants for positions within international organizations and their integrity must be protected. However, in the present case, the complainant had not been shortlisted because she did not have the requisite years of experience. Thus, she suffered no detriment as a result of the cancellation of the competition.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1223, 1771, 1982, 2075, 3647
Keywords:
competition; competition cancelled; organisation's interest;
Judgment 3669
122nd Session, 2016
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to select him for a post of Director.
Consideration 4
Extract:
It is convenient, at the outset, to describe the general legal framework in which the complaint is to be considered. Firstly and fundamentally, the Tribunal accepts that the appointment by an international organisation of a candidate to a position is a decision that lies within the discretion of its executive head. It is subject only to limited review and may be set aside only if it was taken without authority or in breach of rule of form or procedure, or if it was based on a mistake of fact or of law, or if some material fact was overlooked, or if there was abuse of authority, or if a clearly wrong conclusion was drawn from the evidence. This formulation is found in many judgments of the Tribunal including, for example, Judgment 3209, consideration 11, and is intended to highlight the need for a complainant to establish some fundamental defect in the selection process. Those defects can include the appointment of a candidate who did not meet one of the conditions stipulated in the vacancy announcement (see, for example, Judgment 2712, consideration 8). However, as the Tribunal observed in Judgment 1827, consideration 6: “The selection of candidates for promotion is necessarily based on merit and requires a high degree of judgment on the part of those involved in the selection process. Those who would have the Tribunal interfere must demonstrate a serious defect in it; it is not enough simply to assert that one is better qualified than the selected candidate.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1827, 2712, 3209
Keywords:
appointment; competition; discretion; judicial review; selection procedure;
Judgment 3652
122nd Session, 2016
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns two appointment decisions by the Director-General.
Consideration 7
Extract:
The Tribunal’s case law has it that a staff appointment by an international organisation is a decision that lies within the discretion of its executive head. Such a decision is subject to only limited review and may be set aside only if it was taken without authority or in breach of a rule of form or of procedure, or if it was based on a mistake of fact or of law, or if some material fact was overlooked, or if there was abuse of authority, or if a clearly wrong conclusion was drawn from the evidence (see Judgment 3537, under 10). Nevertheless, anyone who applies for a post to be filled by some process of selection is entitled to have her or his application considered in good faith and in keeping with the basic rules of fair and open competition. That is a right which every applicant must enjoy, whatever her or his hope of success may be (see, inter alia, Judgment 2163, under 1, and the case law cited therein, and Judgment 3209, under 11). It was also stated that an organisation must abide by the rules on selection and, when the process proves to be flawed, the Tribunal can quash any resulting appointment, albeit on the understanding that the organisation must ensure that the successful candidate is shielded from any injury which may result from the cancellation of her or his appointment, which she or he accepted in good faith (see, for example, Judgment 3130, under 10 and 11).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2163, 3130, 3209, 3537
Keywords:
appointment; competition; organisation's duties; selection procedure;
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 | next >
|
