ILO is a specialized agency of the United Nations
ILO-en-strap
Site Map | Contact français
> Home > Triblex: case-law database > By thesaurus keyword > appointment

Judgment No. 4023

Decision

The complaint is dismissed.

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; selection procedure; complaint dismissed

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

selection procedure

Considerations 5-8

Extract:

Preliminarily to examining the other grounds relied on by the complainant, however, the Tribunal will consider his request for the disclosure of the competition documents without any redactions. According to the case law, a staff member must, as a general rule, have access to all evidence on which the authority bases or intends to base its decision against him, and, under normal circumstances, such evidence cannot be withheld on grounds of confidentiality. It follows that a decision cannot be based on a material document that has been withheld from the concerned staff member. The Tribunal has consistently affirmed the confidentiality of the records of the discussions regarding the merits of the applicants for a post. However, this does not extend to the reports regarding the results of the selection process with appropriate redactions to ensure the confidentiality of third parties (see Judgment 3272, considerations 14 and 15, and the case law cited therein, as well as Judgment 3077, consideration 4). [...]
The IAEA did not disclose to the complainant the evaluator’s notes from the testing process and the related candidates’ identification keys. It considered that, on the basis of Judgment 3272, the discussions of the members of the selection panel concerning the relative merits of the candidates should remain confidential. The Tribunal agrees with this last contention and further determines that the other documents were not inappropriately redacted. Therefore, it will not order the disclosure of the transcripts of the interviews in these proceedings. The request for disclosure is dismissed.

Reference(s)

ILOAT Judgment(s): 3077, 3272

Keywords

confidential evidence; disclosure of evidence; selection procedure



 
Last updated: 25.05.2020 ^ top