Judgment No. 3641
The complaint is dismissed.
The complainant disputes the lawfulness and the outcome of the competition procedure in which she participated.
selection procedure; complaint dismissed
According to the Tribunal’s case law, an international organisation which decides to hold a competition in order to fill a post cannot select a candidate who does not satisfy one of the required qualifications specified in the vacancy notice. Such conduct, which is tantamount to modifying the criteria for appointment to the post during the selection process, incurs the Tribunal’s censure on two counts. Firstly, it violates the principle of tu patere legem quam ipse fecisti, which forbids the Administration to ignore the rules it has itself defined. In this respect, a modification of the applicable criteria during the selection procedure more generally undermines the requirements of mutual trust and fairness which international organisations have a duty to observe in their relations with their staff. Secondly, the appointment body’s alteration, after the procedure has begun, of the qualifications which were initially required in order to obtain the post, introduces a serious flaw into the selection process with respect to the principle of equal opportunity among candidates. Irrespective of the reasons for such action, it inevitably erodes the safeguards of objectivity and transparency which must be provided in order to comply with this essential principle, a breach of which vitiates any appointment based on a competition. (See Judgment 3073, under 4, and the case law cited therein.)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3073
patere legem; selection procedure
The mere fact that one of the candidates in a competition fills the advertised post ad interim does not render the procedure unlawful, unless the particular circumstances surrounding the competition suggest that it was no more than a paper exercise (see Judgment 2978, under 6). This may be the case where the ad interim appointment is made before the opening of the competition, provided there is also some objective indication that permanent appointment was a foregone conclusion when the competition was opened.
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2978