Judgment No. 3032
1. The decisions of 26 May 2009 as well as the decisions resulting from the competition are set aside.
2. The competition process shall be resumed as indicated under 25.
3. The ILO shall pay each complainant 5,000 Swiss francs in compensation for the moral injury caused to her.
4. It shall also pay each of them 5,000 francs in costs.
5. All other claims are dismissed.
"According to the Tribunal's case law, as reflected, inter alia, in Judgments 556, under 4(b), and 2142 under 16 and 17, a candidate is not entitled to consult any record there may be of a discussion by the selection board or to know the identity of all the candidates who were eliminated."
ILOAT Judgment(s): 556, 2142
communication to third party; disclosure of evidence; competition; candidate; selection board; right; selection procedure
Considerations 17- 18
The complainants take the defendant to task for having unlawfully doubled the number of posts to be filled. According to them, any ex post facto change in the legal framework for the competition established by the vacancy notice breaches the principle of transparency of administrative procedures. [...]
According to the Tribunal's case law, when a vacancy is to be filled, staff members must be given sufficient information to enable them to exercise their rights without facing any unnecessary hindrance. A competition aimed at filling a vacant post must be held under satisfactory conditions of objectivity and transparency, which guarantee that the candidates will receive equal treatment (see, for example, Judgment 2210, under 5, and the case law cited therein).
In this case, the question is whether the failure to state explicitly in the vacancy notice that there were two senior translator/reviser posts to be filled might have dissuaded some people from submitting applications or prevented the competition from being conducted under satisfactory conditions of objectivity and transparency which guaranteed that the candidates received equal treatment.
The Tribunal, like the defendant, considers that, given that the qualifications and experience required were exactly the same for the two posts, it cannot reasonably be argued that some people would have applied if they had known that there were two posts instead of just one to be filled. Furthermore, the complainants, who entered the competition anyway, were not adversely affected by that circumstance.
It follows that, since the error committed in the vacancy notice did not taint the competition with any procedural flaw, the plea must be rejected.
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2210
procedure before the tribunal; formal requirements; right of appeal; equal treatment; organisation's duties; duty to inform; vacancy; appointment; competition; candidate; safeguard; selection procedure; official
"[W]hen an international organisation wants to fill a post by competition, it must comply with the material rules and the general precepts of the case law (see, for example, Judgment 2163 [...], under 3)."
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2163
decision; case law; general principle; due process; organisation's duties; written rule; staff regulations and rules; provision; appointment; competition; consequence