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

Judgment No. 4524

Decision

The complaint is dismissed.

Summary

The complainant challenges the decision to appoint, as a development reassignment, Ms V.M. to the post of Client Relationship Manager.

Judgment keywords

Keywords

selection procedure; complaint dismissed

Consideration 6

Extract:

[T]he duty to produce documents does not extend to confidential interview reports (see, for example, Judgments 3032, consideration 11, and 4023, consideration 8).

Reference(s)

ILOAT Judgment(s): 3032, 4023

Keywords

disclosure of evidence; selection procedure; confidentiality

Consideration 8

Extract:

The Tribunalís case law has it that a staff appointment by an international organisation is a decision that lies within the discretion of its executive head and is subject to only limited review. Such a decision 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. Nevertheless, anyone who applies for a post to be filled by some process of selection is entitled to have her or his application considered in good faith and in keeping with the basic rules of fair and open competition. That is a right which every applicant must enjoy, whatever her or his hope of success may be. An organisation must abide by the rules and the general precepts of the case law on selection, and, when the process proves to be flawed, the Tribunal can quash any resulting appointment, albeit on the understanding that the organisation must ensure that the successful candidate is shielded from any injury which may result from the cancellation of her or his appointment, which she or he accepted in good faith. A complainant must 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, for example, Judgments 4023, consideration 2, and 3669, consideration 4).

Reference(s)

ILOAT Judgment(s): 3669, 4023

Keywords

appointment; discretion; selection procedure; role of the tribunal

Consideration 10

Extract:

[I]t is recalled that according to the 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 Tribunalís 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 bodyís alteration, after the procedure had 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, breach of which vitiates any appointment based on a competition (see Judgment 3073, consideration 4).

Reference(s)

ILOAT Judgment(s): 3073

Keywords

patere legem; qualifications; criteria; selection procedure

Consideration 14

Extract:

These arguments [against the use of a video interview assessment tool] are unmeritorious and accordingly rejected as neither the rules or case law prohibit the use of electronic assessment tools, which, as the OIOS noted, was not a substitute for the interview but was used in the pre-screening stage (rather than for the interview) to determine whether the candidates satisfy the requirement for the post and can proceed to the interview. Moreover, all of the candidates were subjected to it.

Keywords

selection procedure

Consideration 15

Extract:

The complainant provides no persuasive evidence to prove that the decision to appoint the selected candidate was taken in bad faith or for an improper purpose (see, for example, Judgments 4261, consideration 10, and 4345, consideration 6).

Reference(s)

ILOAT Judgment(s): 4261, 4345

Keywords

selection procedure; abuse of power



 
Last updated: 22.09.2022 ^ top