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

Judgment No. 4408

Decision

The complaint is dismissed.

Summary

The complainant disputes the lawfulness and outcome of a competition procedure in which she participated.

Judgment keywords

Keywords

competition; selection procedure; complaint dismissed

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; judicial review; discretion

Consideration 4

Extract:

The Tribunal points out that respect for the adversarial principle and the right to be heard in the internal appeal procedure requires that the official concerned be afforded the opportunity to comment on all relevant issues relating to the contested decision and, in particular, on all the organisation’s arguments (see Judgment 2598, consideration 6).
In this case, the Tribunal notes that, while the members of the Appeal Board met with the acting Chief of the Human Resources Management Department on 21 July 2017, it was only so that they could understand the ITU’s recruitment procedure. The meeting was thus merely an investigative measure, the purpose of which was to enable the Board to obtain information on the recruitment of officials in general, and not an interview relating specifically to the competition procedure at issue. Therefore, contrary to what the complainant submits, it was not a hearing where she was required to be present or where the content of the discussion had to be disclosed. Consequently, the plea regarding a breach of the adversarial principle and the right to be heard in the internal appeal procedure must be dismissed.

Reference(s)

ILOAT Judgment(s): 2598

Keywords

internal appeals body; internal appeal; adversarial proceedings

Consideration 8

Extract:

The Tribunal reiterates that the report of an internal appeals body must contain a statement of reasons that allows it to be ascertained that that body considered the matters at issue in sufficient depth (see, for example, Judgment 4027, consideration 5). In this case, the Tribunal notes that, in its report, the Appeal Board expressed a view on all the objections submitted [...].

Reference(s)

ILOAT Judgment(s): 4027

Keywords

report of the internal appeals body

Consideration 13

Extract:

The fact that the table [of preselected candidates] was produced before the Tribunal in a version that did not show candidates’ names does not alter the fact that it exists.

Keywords

evidence; selection procedure; confidentiality

Consideration 21

Extract:

In Judgment 107, the Tribunal held that for the right to take part in competitions to be effective, “it must necessarily include the right to demand that the arrangements for the competition ensure the appointment of the candidate who is really the best qualified. In other words, at every stage of the competition including the arrangements made, the conduct of the tests and the evaluation of their results, every candidate must be treated on an equal footing and with full impartiality” (see also Judgment 1071, consideration 3). In this case, it has not been established that the complainant was not treated on the same terms as the other candidates and she offers no proof that the successful candidate received preferential treatment. Asserting that the successful candidate had a good relationship with the chief of the department concerned, and that it was that chief who set the tests and evaluated the papers, is not sufficient to show that there was a breach of the principle of equal treatment.

Reference(s)

ILOAT Judgment(s): 107, 1071

Keywords

equal treatment; selection procedure

Consideration 22

Extract:

With regard to the alleged favourable bias shown by the supervisor towards the successful candidate, the Tribunal recalls its case law, illustrated in particular by Judgment 3914, consideration 7, according to which it is for the complainant to prove discrimination or bias. In this case, the complainant has confined herself to mere allegations, without providing any tangible evidence in corroboration.

Reference(s)

ILOAT Judgment(s): 3914

Keywords

personal prejudice



 
Last updated: 08.07.2021 ^ top