Judgment No. 3669
The complaint is dismissed.
The complainant challenges the decision not to select him for a post of Director.
selection procedure; complaint dismissed
The only decision impugned in the internal appeal was that appointment [...]. Thus the complainant’s complaint to this Tribunal concerns that decision. That is not to say evidence of events in his career cannot, in an evidentiary sense, be relied on in support of allegations of bias or prejudice in relation to the consideration of his candidacy for the position [...]. If the evidence is of substance, it can be relied upon.
evidence; selection procedure
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.”
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1827, 2712, 3209
appointment; competition; judicial review; discretion; selection procedure