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 (293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299, 300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 661, 660, 686,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Appointment
Total judgments found: 180

< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 | next >



  • Judgment 2978


    110th Session, 2011
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    "[A]ccording to the Tribunal's case law, when the result of a competition is announced and, more broadly when [...] the Administration chooses between candidates, the duty to state the reasons for the choice does not mean that they must be notified at the same time as the decision (see Judgments 1787, under 5, and 2035, under 4). These reasons may be disclosed at a later date, for example in the context of appeal proceedings (see Judgments 1590, under 7, and 2194, under 7)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1590, 1787, 2035, 2194

    Keywords:

    appointment; candidate; competition; date of notification; decision; discretion; duty to substantiate decision; formal requirements; grounds; same;



  • Judgment 2959


    110th Session, 2011
    Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    "[T]he expression 'so far as practicable' cannot be interpreted to mean that for certain specific posts a competitive selection process can automatically be considered as not practicable (ubi lex voluit dixit, ubi noluit tacuit)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2620

    Keywords:

    appointment; competition; interpretation; post; provision;

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    Quashing of a direct appointment to the post of Chief of Cabinet.
    "[T]he rights of employees of international organisations to impugn decisions regarding appointments do not depend on their chances of successful appointment (see Judgments 1549, under 9, and 1272, under 12)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1272, 1549

    Keywords:

    appointment; candidate; cause of action; decision; right; right of appeal; status of complainant;



  • Judgment 2865


    108th Session, 2010
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 4(b)

    Extract:

    Article 72 of the Service Regulations for Permanent Employees of the European Patent Office, the EPO's secretariat, concerns the expatriation allowance. Article 72(1) reads as follows:
    "An expatriation allowance shall be payable to permanent employees who, at the time they take up their duties or are transferred:
    a) hold the nationality of a country other than the country in which they will be serving, and
    b) were not permanently resident in the latter country for at least three years, no account being taken of previous service in the administration of the country conferring the said nationality or with international organisations."
    "The country in which the permanent employee is permanently resident, within the meaning of Article 72(1)(b) of the Service Regulations, is that in which he or she is effectively living, that is to say the country with which he or she maintains the closest objective and factual links. The closeness of these links must be such that it may reasonably be presumed that the person concerned is resident in the country in question and intends to remain there. A permanent employee interrupts his or her permanent residence in a country when he or she effectively leaves that country with the intention - which must be objectively and reasonably credible in the light of all the circumstances - to settle for some length of time in another country (see Judgment 2653, under 3)."

    Reference(s)

    Organization rules reference: Article 72(1) of the Service Regulations for Permanent Employees of the European Patent Office
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2653

    Keywords:

    amendment to the rules; appointment; condition; definition; duty station; intention of parties; member state; nationality; non-resident allowance; official; organisation; payment; period; residence; staff regulations and rules; transfer;

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    "[T]he date on which an employee takes up his or her duties depends on the number of staff the Organisation needs in order to function efficiently, which is a matter lying within its discretionary authority. Of course this does not exempt it from objectively weighing its own interests against those of the new recruit. In particular, it must not act arbitrarily or abuse its authority."

    Keywords:

    appointment; bias; date; discretion; misuse of authority; organisation's duties; organisation's interest; staff member's interest;



  • Judgment 2850


    107th Session, 2009
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    "[T]he complainant argues that his initial appointment ought to have been for an undetermined period since his duties were of a lasting nature. However, as he was recruited under a contract for a limited period his situation is in any case governed by the provisions applicable to such contracts, and even on the assumption that his post should normally have been filled by a servant appointed for an undetermined period - which, as can be seen from Judgment 1450, is not a matter which the Tribunal will review - this fact by itself could not lead to a redefinition of his appointment."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1450

    Keywords:

    amendment to the rules; appointment; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; contract; duration of appointment; judicial review; permanent appointment; provision; short-term;



  • Judgment 2848


    107th Session, 2009
    United Nations Industrial Development Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 24

    Extract:

    "Having regard to the complainant's actions and his persistent, disingenuous attempts to reformulate the contents of communications, the Tribunal finds that the complainant's assertion that he did not reject the offer of the appointment as Chief of Cabinet and Director of ODG is not credible, and that he indeed rejected that offer on 1 August 2002. In the circumstances, the Organization was under no obligation to keep the offer open for any further period. Since it was not kept open, its purported acceptance did not give rise to a binding contract."

    Keywords:

    acceptance; appointment; binding character; contract; law of contract; limits; notice; offer; organisation's duties; reasonable time;



  • Judgment 2834


    107th Session, 2009
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    "It is well established that an organisation has a wide discretion in relation to the appointment and promotion of staff. For this reason, these decisions are subject to limited judicial review. That is, the Tribunal will only interfere if the decision was taken without authority; if it was based on an error of law or fact, a material fact was overlooked, or a plainly wrong conclusion was drawn from the facts; if it was taken in breach of a rule of form or of procedure; or if there was an abuse of authority (see Judgments 2060, under 4, and 2457, under 6)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2060, 2457

    Keywords:

    appointment; breach; discretion; judicial review; limits; promotion;



  • Judgment 2832


    107th Session, 2009
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 7 and 8

    Extract:

    The complainant retired on 1 March 2007. Having been informed of the appointment, with effect from 1 June 2007, of a number of grade A3 examiners to appeal board member posts at grade A5, he field an internal appeal against the appointments in question. The EPO contends that the complainant, given his status as a retiree, has no cause of action.
    "It has to be acknowledged that this objection to receivability is well founded. [...] It is true that the Tribunal's case law as set forth, inter alia, in Judgments 1330, 2204 and 2583, does not make a complaint's receivability depend on proving certain injury. It is sufficient that the impugned decision should be liable to violate the rights or safeguards that international civil servants enjoy under the rules applicable to them or the terms of their employment contract. Thus, where a decision is taken, for instance, to appoint a staff member to a particular post, another staff member's interest in challenging such an act does not depend on whether he or she had a relatively good chance of being appointed to the post in question (see, for example, Judgments 1223 and 1272). However, as demonstrated by the same case law, the person concerned must be eligible to occupy the post; otherwise he or she could not be deemed to be legally affected by the disputed appointment. This condition is clearly not met in the present case, because the complainant could not, on account of his retirement, aspire to be appointed as a member of an appeal board with effect from 1 June 2007 and because the disputed decisions therefore had no impact on his own situation."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1223, 1272, 1330, 2204, 2583

    Keywords:

    appointment; case law; cause of action; complaint; condition; consequence; contract; date; decision; injury; internal appeal; official; post; provision; receivability of the complaint; retirement; right; safeguard; staff regulations and rules; status of complainant;



  • Judgment 2810


    106th Session, 2009
    European Organization for Nuclear Research
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 7(b)

    Extract:

    The complainant impugns the decision not to award him, after his three-year limited-duration contract - which had been renewed twice - expired, an indefinite contract for one of the long-term jobs offered to other candidates who had been found better qualified.
    "There is certainly no doubt that a limited-duration contract should be extended beyond a six-year period only as an exceptional measure. Indeed, depending on the circumstances, such an extension is likely to give the person concerned, if not legitimate expectations of a permanent appointment in the near future, then at least the feeling that, contrary to the legal reality, he or she has acquired rights.
    In the instant case the circumstances are not such as to engender such expectations. According to the information on file, the complainant was granted an exceptional extension of his limited duration contract owing to the particular employment situation within the Organization. [...] The complainant freely accepted this last extension in full knowledge of the facts and without expressing any reservations about his prospects of permanent appointment."

    Keywords:

    appointment; contract; duration of appointment; extension of contract; fixed-term; promise;



  • Judgment 2809


    106th Session, 2009
    European Organization for Nuclear Research
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    The complainant impugns the decision not to award him an indefinite contract for one of the long-term jobs offered to other candidates who had been found better qualified.
    "The Tribunal has consistently held that a good performance record does not in itself justify selecting one candidate rather than another for a promotion or for the award of a post. The opinion of the author of an annual appraisal cannot be substituted for the conclusions of a selection board which, in this case, comprised representatives of the department head concerned, two human resources coordinators and two experts from another department, and which was responsible for selecting the candidates who had to be ranked as the best for the award of an indefinite contract [...]."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2040

    Keywords:

    appointment; competition; decision; performance report; promotion; qualifications; rating; selection board;

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    The complainant impugns the decision not to award him an indefinite contract for one of the long-term jobs offered to other candidates who had been found better qualified.
    "In accordance with its case law, the Tribunal will not assess the candidates on merit or rule on the Organization's choice [...]."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1497

    Keywords:

    appointment; candidate; competition; judicial review;



  • Judgment 2769


    106th Session, 2009
    International Atomic Energy Agency
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    "As it cannot be confirmed but for the flaw in the selection process that the complainant would have been appointed to the post of Section Head, this aspect of the claim for material damages is rejected. The complainant, however, lost a valuable opportunity to be properly considered for the said post."

    Keywords:

    appointment; competition; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; due process; injury; material damages; material injury; procedure before the tribunal;



  • Judgment 2762


    105th Session, 2008
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 26 and 27

    Extract:

    The complainant challenges the EPO's decision to recruit the spouse of the former President of the Office. "The Organisation is correct in stating that the Service Regulations do not preclude the recruitment of the spouses of staff members. Nor does there appear to be any regulatory bar to the recruitment of the spouses, friends, or close associates of the highest ranking officials in the Organisation. Whether this type of recruitment ought to be permitted is not for the Tribunal to decide but is a question of policy for each organisation to answer.
    However, where an organisation permits such recruitment, then it is imperative that special procedures be put in place to ensure the integrity and transparency of the selection process. Where such procedures have not been put in place, the presumptions of regularity and bona fides will not apply. In the absence of the operation of these presumptions, it will take very little to establish improper motive or bad faith."

    Keywords:

    appointment; competence of tribunal; competition; executive head; family relationship; good faith; presumption; procedure before the tribunal; selection procedure;



  • Judgment 2755


    105th Session, 2008
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    The complainant challenges an appointment on the grounds that it was made without a competition, or even a call for candidatures. She filed her complaint both as an ILO official and in her capacity as Chairperson of the Staff Union Committee. The defendant contends that the complaint is irreceivable insofar as it has been filed on behalf of the Staff Union Committee. "The Tribunal considers that the debate concerning the receivability of the complaint, insofar as it was filed by the complainant in her capacity as Chairperson of the Office's Staff Union Committee, has no bearing on the outcome of proceedings, since the complaint is receivable having been filed by an official with locus standi."

    Keywords:

    appointment; competition; locus standi; receivability of the complaint; staff representative; staff union;



  • Judgment 2712


    104th Session, 2008
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    The Organization appointed a candidate who did not meet one of the conditions stipulated in the vacancy announcement. "[I]t must be observed that the other applicants [...] were [...] eliminated improperly and that other potential candidates might have been dissuaded from applying because they did not meet the condition of having 15 years of experience as stipulated in the vacancy notice, though this was ultimately not applied to the successful candidate. Thus, the whole competition became a sham." The appointment of the successful candidate must therefore be set aside.

    Keywords:

    appointment; candidate; competition; competition cancelled; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; criteria; decision quashed; flaw; post; professional experience; refusal; vacancy notice;

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    The Organization appointed a candidate who did not meet one of the conditions stipulated in the vacancy announcement. "[T]he fact that the appointment of the successful candidate, who happens to be Lebanese, conveniently enabled WIPO to achieve some of its management goals, such as that of increasing the proportion of women in senior management positions or that of the geographical distribution of its officials [...] is [...] irrelevant in this case. However legitimate these goals may be, they could not override the Organization's obligation to appoint to the post in question a candidate who possessed the required qualifications and experience initially stipulated. Geographical origin could be taken into consideration only if the opposing candidates were of equal merit."

    Keywords:

    appointment; candidate; competition; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; criteria; geographical distribution; increase; nationality; organisation; organisation's duties; place of origin; post; professional experience; purpose; qualifications; same; vacancy notice;



  • Judgment 2657


    103rd Session, 2007
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    The complainant contests the decision not to appoint him to a post as examiner at the European Patent Office on the grounds that he did not meet the physical requirements for the post but the Tribunal considers that persons who have applied for a post in an international organisation and who have not been recruited are barred from access to the Tribunal. The complainant asks that the Organisation be ordered to waive its immunity to enable him to bring proceedings before a German court. "[T]he Tribunal [recalls that it] has no authority to order the EPO to waive its immunity (see Judgment 933, under 6). It notes, however, that the present judgment creates a legal vacuum and considers it highly desirable that the Organisation should seek a solution affording the complainant access to a court, either by waiving its immunity or by submitting the dispute to arbitration."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 933

    Keywords:

    appointment; arbitration; candidate; claim; competence of tribunal; condition; grounds; handicapped person; judgment of the tribunal; medical examination; medical fitness; municipal court; open competition; organisation; post; refusal; safeguard; waiver of immunity;

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    The complainant contests the decision not to appoint him to a post as examiner at the European Patent Office on the grounds that he did not meet the physical requirements for the post. The Organisation submits that the Tribunal is not competent to hear complaints from external applicants for a post in an organisation that has recognised its jurisdiction. "However regrettable a decision declining jurisdiction may be, in that the complainant is liable to feel that he is the victim of a denial of justice, the Tribunal has no option but to confirm the well-established case law according to which it is a court of limited jurisdiction and 'bound to apply the mandatory provisions governing its competence', as stated in Judgment 67, delivered on 26 October 1962. [...]
    It [can be inferred from Article II of the Statute of the Tribunal] that persons who are applicants for a post in an international organisation but who have not been recruited are barred from access to the Tribunal. It is only in a case where, even in the absence of a contract signed by the parties, the commitments made by the two sides are equivalent to a contract that the Tribunal can decide to retain jurisdiction (see for example Judgment 339). According to Judgment 621, there must be 'an unquestioned and unqualified concordance of will on all terms of the relationship'. That is not the case, however, in the present circumstances: while proposals regarding an appointment were unquestionably made to the complainant, the defendant was not bound by them until it had established that the conditions governing appointments laid down in the regulations were met."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article II of the Statute
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 67, 339, 621

    Keywords:

    appointment; candidate; case law; competence of tribunal; complaint; condition; consequence; contract; declaration of recognition; definition; exception; external candidate; formal requirements; grounds; handicapped person; iloat statute; intention of parties; interpretation; medical examination; medical fitness; open competition; organisation; post; proposal; provision; refusal; terms of appointment; vested competence; written rule;



  • Judgment 2647


    103rd Session, 2007
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    An external candidate was appointed to the post the complainant had applied for. The complainant contends that, contrary to the Staff Regulations, the applications of candidates already in the Organization's service were not given priority of consideration over those of external candidates. "It is convenient to recall that the Tribunal held in Judgment 107, under 1, that:
    'although the Organization is bound to have full regard to the qualifications and experience of persons already in its service, this does not mean that it must necessarily always appoint them in preference to outside applicants. If this privilege were automatically to be granted to the serving staff, the Organization might be led to take decisions contrary to its own interests, a situation which was certainly not intended by those who drafted the Staff Regulations. The position is that persons already in the service of the Organization have priority only if their qualifications appear to be at least equal to those of other candidates.'
    Those principles were duly taken into account in the selection process, which was carefully and correctly conducted by the Organization, and while the qualifications and experience of the complainant are to be noted, they do not automatically give her a right of precedence over other candidates for the advertised post."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 107

    Keywords:

    appointment; candidate; competition; condition; decision; general principle; internal candidate; organisation's duties; organisation's interest; post; priority; procedure before the tribunal; professional experience; provision; purpose; qualifications; same; staff regulations and rules;



  • Judgment 2639


    103rd Session, 2007
    World Trade Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    "Both under the UN Staff Rules and the WTO Staff Rules, the Organization recognises only one nationality for each staff member; a staff member's nationality is determined at the time of appointment and a staff member's home is deemed to be in the country of which the staff member is a national, unless there are compelling reasons to make an exception."

    Keywords:

    appointment; date; exception; grounds; home; nationality; official; place of origin; rule of another organisation; staff regulations and rules;



  • Judgment 2569


    102nd Session, 2007
    European Organization for Nuclear Research
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    The vacancy notice of the post the complainant applied for stipulated that nationals of all Member States of CERN - including Switzerland - could apply. She was selected for the post but was dismissed after CERN discovered that in her application form she had stated that she held Swiss nationality whereas she had not yet acquired it. "[W]hile it is true that the fact that the complainant was married to a Swiss national should in principle have enabled her to obtain Swiss nationality under the 'facilitated naturalisation' procedure, it is equally true that at the time she filled out her application form she did not hold Swiss nationality and had not even applied for it. [...] By making a false declaration, the complainant was guilty of misconduct which, when it came to light after her recruitment, was sufficient to invalidate her appointment and to justify the imposition of a disciplinary sanction on the grounds that she fell short of the standards of loyalty and integrity that the Organization is entitled to expect of its staff. Although the complainant maintains that by imposing the disputed sanction the defendant breached the
    terms of her appointment and the applicable provisions of CERNís Staff Rules and Regulations, she does not
    substantiate those allegations in any way, nor does she identify any breach of the rules of procedure followed by
    the Organization. The complaint must therefore be dismissed."

    Keywords:

    appointment; candidate; competition; date; disciplinary measure; marital status; member state; misconduct; misrepresentation; nationality; organisation; post; reinstatement; safeguard; staff member's duties; termination of employment; vacancy notice;



  • Judgment 2558


    101st Session, 2006
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 3 (b)

    Extract:

    The complainant was dismissed at the end of the extension of her probationary period. She criticises the way her probation was conducted. The Tribunal considers that her criticism "is not entirely unfounded. At the time she took up her duties, her predecessor had been retired for five months and staff changes continued among officials who should have been involved in training and supervising her and who were hence responsible for assessing her performance. It is clear, therefore, that during her probationary period the complainant did not enjoy the best assistance and supervision.
    However regrettable these circumstances may be, they are not such as to invalidate either the decision to extend the complainant's probationary period beyond the end of 2002 or the decision to dismiss her at the end of the extension."

    Keywords:

    appointment; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; decision; extension of contract; flaw; organisation's duties; probationary period; retirement; supervisor; termination of employment; training; vacancy; work appraisal;



  • Judgment 2456


    99th Session, 2005
    Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 9 and 11

    Extract:

    The complainant joined the Organisation in January 1998 under a fixed-term appointment. His contract, which was extended in 2003, was due to expire on 14 June 2004; it was not renewed due to the implementation of the seven-year tenure rule. He has produced before the Tribunal a document signed by the Director-General containing data about his performance, in which his date of entry on duty was incorrectly shown as 24 May 1997. He contends that the Director-General relied on that data in deciding not to renew his contract. "Since in the implementation of its policy the Organisation was said to be applying a 'first in, first out' rule, an error of over seven months in the calculation of any employee's length of service may be of critical importance. That is especially the case where such apparent error has the effect of indicating wrongly that the employee would at the time of his separation from the Organisation have served more than seven years. The Tribunal considers the alleged errors of fact to be material. [...] The non-renewal decision must be set aside and the Organisation shall be ordered to pay to the complainant the full balance of salary and benefits to which he would have been entitled if he had received a one-year extension of his contract to 14 June 2005. The complainant must account for any earnings from other employment during that period."

    Keywords:

    allowance; appointment; complaint allowed; consequence; contract; date; decision; decision quashed; duration of appointment; enforcement; extension of contract; fixed-term; general principle; mistake of fact; non-renewal of contract; official; organisation's duties; period; reckoning; right; salary; staff member's duties; written rule;



  • Judgment 2393


    98th Session, 2005
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 12

    Extract:

    "The general principles allow that a discretionary decision with respect to an appointment may be set aside if applicants have not received equal treatment."

    Keywords:

    appointment; breach; candidate; condition; decision quashed; discretion; equal treatment; general principle; right; same;

< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 | next >


 
Last updated: 02.07.2020 ^ top