Judgment No. 4625
Decision
The complaint is dismissed.
Summary
The complainant disputes the lawfulness and outcome of a competition procedure in which she participated.
Judgment keywords
Keywords
appointment; competition; selection procedure; complaint dismissed
Consideration 3
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal recalls its settled case law under which, in matters of appointment, the choice of the candidate to be appointed lies within the discretion of the authority competent to make the appointment within the organisation concerned. Such a decision is therefore 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, in particular, Judgments 3652, consideration 7, and 3372, consideration 12). As a result, a person who has applied for a post that an organisation has decided to fill by a competition and whose application is ultimately unsuccessful must prove that the selection procedure was tainted by a serious defect (see, in particular, Judgments 4001, consideration 4, and 1827, consideration 6).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1827, 3372, 3652, 4001
Keywords
appointment; competition; judicial review; selection procedure; role of the tribunal
Consideration 5
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal considers that, except in special circumstances, an organisation is not required to state the reasons why it chooses to fill a post using a particular type of competition.
Keywords
competition; motivation
Consideration 8
Extract:
It is well established by the case law that how extensive the reasons need to be will depend on the circumstances of each case (see, in particular, Judgments 4164, consideration 11, 4081, consideration 5, 4037, consideration 7, and 1817, consideration 6).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1817, 4037, 4081, 4164
Keywords
motivation
Consideration 10
Extract:
The Tribunal considers that [the] reasoning is adequate in that it allows the complainant to understand the reasons why the successful candidate was selected, even if she does not agree with them. This is especially so since this case involves a decision relating to a competition procedure, for which the authority competent to make the appointment has a broad discretion, and it is moreover possible for the organisation to clarify the reasons for its choice at a later stage in the light of the specific grievances expressed by a candidate who considers her- or himself to have been adversely affected by the decision (see, in particular, Judgments 4467, consideration 7, 4259, consideration 6, 4081, consideration 5, 2978, consideration 4, and 2060, consideration 7(a)).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2060, 2978, 4081, 4259, 4467
Keywords
competition; motivation
|
