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

Candidate (295, 296,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Candidate
Total judgments found: 105

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 | next >

  • Judgment 3774


    123rd Session, 2017
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the fact that he has not been offered further contracts with the ILO.

    Consideration 1

    Extract:

    To the extent that the present complaint is intended to challenge the complainant’s non-selection for another short-term contract with the ILO, it will be dismissed as irreceivable as the Tribunal has no competence to hear it. The Tribunal considers that the complainant has no standing to challenge his non-selection for a post by virtue of Article II of the Tribunal’s Statute because he was no more than an outside applicant and could not claim the non-observance of the terms and conditions of an appointment which he did not have. The rationale for this decision is well explained, for example, in Judgment 3653, consideration 4 [...].

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article II of the Statute
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3653

    Keywords:

    candidate; external candidate;



  • Judgment 3653


    122nd Session, 2016
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions not to appoint him to a post, not to renew his contract, not to compensate him for “extra-contractual” work and not to compensate him on account of defamation by his former supervisor and for exposure to asbestos.

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    There is [...] no provision under which the Tribunal is competent to hear the claim concerning the complainant’s non-selection for the post [...]. As he was not selected for the post, he did not become a WFP staff member from that application and therefore obtained no right to lodge an internal appeal under Staff Regulation 301.11.1 to challenge the non-selection. Because of his non-selection, he had not entered into a contractual relationship with the WFP. Accordingly, by virtue of Article II, paragraph 5, of the Tribunal’s Statute, he has no standing to bring a claim before the Tribunal alleging the non-observance of the terms and conditions of an appointment which he did not have. This position was explained in Judgment 1509, consideration 16 [...].

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT reference: Article II, paragraph 5, of the Statute
    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1509

    Keywords:

    candidate; external candidate; locus standi; non official; ratione personae; status of complainant;



  • Judgment 3549


    120th Session, 2015
    International Criminal Court
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: As the complaint is clearly irreceivable, it is summarily dismissed.

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    "Pursuant to Article II, paragraph 5, of its Statute, “[t]he Tribunal shall […] be competent to hear complaints alleging non-observance, in substance or in form, of the terms of appointment of officials”. At no point in time did the complainant have the status of an official of the ICC. As the Tribunal has often recalled in its case law, external candidates for employment and persons who have not concluded a contract of employment with an organisation that has recognised the jurisdiction of the Tribunal are not within the latter’s jurisdiction (see, for example, Judgments 803, under 3, 1554, under 10, 1964, under 4, and 3382, under 4)."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 803, 1554, 1964, 3382

    Keywords:

    candidate; external candidate; non official; ratione personae;



  • Judgment 3542


    120th Session, 2015
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: As the Tribunal cannot hear complaints relating to recruitment procedures for external candidates, the complaint is dismissed.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    appointment; candidate; competition; complaint dismissed;

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    "A steady line of precedent has it that the Tribunal may not hear complaints challenging a decision to reject the candidature of an external applicant for a post in an international organisation that has recognised the Tribunal’s jurisdiction (see Judgment 2657, under 3). This case law must apply here by analogy, since the complaint concerns the circumstances surrounding recruitment procedures within two administrative entities which are clearly identified as being separate, though they belong to the same international organisation."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2657

    Keywords:

    candidate; external candidate; non official; ratione personae; receivability of the complaint;



  • Judgment 3536


    120th Session, 2015
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the final selection decision taken by the President of the Office on a competition.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    appointment; candidate; competition; complaint dismissed;



  • Judgment 3494


    120th Session, 2015
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the rejection of her candidature for a position in Eurocontrol.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    appointment; candidate; competence; complaint allowed; decision quashed; delegated authority;



  • Judgment 3449


    119th Session, 2015
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The Tribunal cancelled the disputed competitions because the ILO rendered the recruitments unlawful.

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    "Any employee of an international organisation who is eligible for a post may challenge an appointment to that post, regardless of his or her chances of successful appointment to it (see Judgment 2959, under 3). In order to be entitled to take such action, however, he or she must have applied for the post or, failing that, must have been prevented from doing so through no fault of his or her own."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2959

    Keywords:

    candidate; competition;



  • Judgment 3382


    118th Session, 2014
    European Organization for Nuclear Research
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complaint filed by an unsuccessful external candidate for employment was summarily dismissed as being not within the scope of the Tribunal’s competence.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    candidate; complaint dismissed; external candidate; non official; official; ratione personae; receivability of the complaint; status of complainant; summary procedure;



  • Judgment 3372


    118th Session, 2014
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The Tribunal dismissed the complaint seeking the cancellation of a competition and the appointment resulting from it.

    Consideration 12

    Extract:

    "According to the case law of the Tribunal, the selection of a successful applicant in a competition is a discretionary decision of the executive head of the organisation (see Judgment 2584, under 15). Such a decision is subject to only limited review. The Tribunal will interfere with such a decision only if it was taken without authority, or in breach of a rule of form or of procedure, or if it rested on an error of fact or of law, or if some essential fact was overlooked, or if there was abuse of authority, or if clearly mistaken conclusions have been drawn from the evidence. Moreover, the Tribunal will exercise its power of review with special caution in such cases, and will not replace the organisation’s assessment of the candidates with its own. (See, for example, Judgments 2362, 2365 and 2392, under 10.)"

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2362, 2365, 2392, 2584

    Keywords:

    candidate; competition; discretion; judicial review;



  • Judgment 3262


    116th Session, 2014
    International Organization for Migration
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant, who applied for the position of Legal Advisor, was offered the post, but at a grade lower than that at which it was advertised.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    acceptance; appointment; candidate; compensation; contract; grade; moral injury; offer; offer withdrawn; post; respect for dignity;



  • Judgment 3157


    114th Session, 2013
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant successfully challenges the lawfulness of the selection process for a post for which he had unsuccessfully applied.

    Considerations 9 and 11

    Extract:

    "[H]aving regard to the submissions [...], the Tribunal notes that the complainant was excluded from the technical evaluation on the grounds that he did not possess all the required qualifications, but that the [three] candidates shortlisted [...] did not possess them either. [...] [T]he complainant received unequal treatment when the shortlist was established. As the selection process is tainted with a flaw, the impugned decision must be set aside and the disputed appointment must be cancelled [...]. The Organization must shield the successful candidate from any injury that might result from the cancellation of his appointment, which he accepted in good faith."

    Keywords:

    appointment; breach; candidate; competition; competition cancelled; consequence; criteria; degree; equal treatment; good faith; grounds; internal competition; lack of injury; organisation's duties; procedural flaw;



  • Judgment 3073


    112th Session, 2012
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 4

    Extract:

    "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 Tribunal's censure on two counts. Firstly, it violates the principle of 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 body's 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 Judgments 1158, 1646, 2584 and 2712.)"

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1158, 1646, 2584, 2712

    Keywords:

    amendment to the rules; appointment; breach; candidate; competition; condition; criteria; equal treatment; equity; flaw; grounds; organisation's duties; patere legem; safeguard; vacancy notice; working relations; written rule;



  • Judgment 3032


    111th Session, 2011
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 11

    Extract:

    "According to the Tribunal's case law, as reflected, inter alia, in Judgments 556, under 4(b), and 2142 under 16 and 17, a candidate is not entitled to consult any record there may be of a discussion by the selection board or to know the identity of all the candidates who were eliminated."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 556, 2142

    Keywords:

    candidate; communication to third party; competition; right; selection board;

    Considerations 17- 18

    Extract:

    The complainants take the defendant to task for having unlawfully doubled the number of posts to be filled. According to them, any ex post facto change in the legal framework for the competition established by the vacancy notice breaches the principle of transparency of administrative procedures. [...]
    According to the Tribunal's case law, when a vacancy is to be filled, staff members must be given sufficient information to enable them to exercise their rights without facing any unnecessary hindrance. A competition aimed at filling a vacant post must be held under satisfactory conditions of objectivity and transparency, which guarantee that the candidates will receive equal treatment (see, for example, Judgment 2210, under 5, and the case law cited therein).
    In this case, the question is whether the failure to state explicitly in the vacancy notice that there were two senior translator/reviser posts to be filled might have dissuaded some people from submitting applications or prevented the competition from being conducted under satisfactory conditions of objectivity and transparency which guaranteed that the candidates received equal treatment.
    The Tribunal, like the defendant, considers that, given that the qualifications and experience required were exactly the same for the two posts, it cannot reasonably be argued that some people would have applied if they had known that there were two posts instead of just one to be filled. Furthermore, the complainants, who entered the competition anyway, were not adversely affected by that circumstance.
    It follows that, since the error committed in the vacancy notice did not taint the competition with any procedural flaw, the plea must be rejected.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2210

    Keywords:

    candidate; competition; duty to inform; equal treatment; formal requirements; official; organisation's duties; procedure before the tribunal; right of appeal; safeguard; vacancy;



  • Judgment 3006


    111th Session, 2011
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 13

    Extract:

    "The principle of equality requires that all candidates in a given year be assessed by reference to staff reports for the same period. It is clear from Judgment 2221 that the principle also requires that if the 'merits' of a candidate for promotion are subsequently upgraded, the question of promotion must be considered on the basis of what would have happened if the upgraded marking had been considered previously."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2221

    Keywords:

    candidate; equal treatment; performance report; promotion; rating; work appraisal;



  • Judgment 2980


    110th Session, 2011
    Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 11

    Extract:

    "To add candidates to a shortlist after the evaluation process has begun does not comply with the mandatory fairness and transparency of the recruitment process, and could have a prejudicial effect on the outcome of the process as every evaluation is conditioned by the quantity and quality of candidates to be evaluated. It could also have the effect of appearing to have been done to satisfy improper interests, regardless of whether or not one of the candidates added at a later date eventually succeeds."

    Keywords:

    candidate; competition; equal treatment; formal flaw; procedural flaw;



  • 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;

    Consideration 6

    Extract:

    "[T]he mere fact that one of the candidates in a competition is temporarily holding the post to be filled does not render the procedure unlawful."

    Keywords:

    candidate; competition; procedural flaw; provisional measures;



  • Judgment 2959


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

    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 2935


    109th Session, 2010
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    "[I]t is in the common interest of candidates and international organisations that appointment procedures be conducted with dispatch [...]. [In the present instance, the] extraordinarily long period of time [- four years] was not justified by any particular circumstances."

    Keywords:

    candidate; competition; delay; organisation's duties;



  • Judgment 2903


    108th Session, 2010
    United Nations Industrial Development Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 9 to 11

    Extract:

    The complainant submits that the rejection of his second appeal on receivability grounds was incorrect. He argues that the breach of the Organisation's duty of care could only become apparent in the months or years that followed his separation from service and he considers that it had taken a decision against him, i. e. the decision to exclude him from a competition for a post, though it did not convey that decision to him.
    "The Tribunal finds that the complaint is irreceivable. Staff Rule 212.02 provides that a former staff member may bring an internal appeal against administrative decisions in accordance with Staff Regulation 12.1. That latter provision limits the internal appeal procedure to appeals of administrative decisions in relation to the non-observance of the terms of appointment, including all pertinent regulations and rules."
    "In the present case, the complaint arises from circumstances occurring after the complainant's separation from UNIDO and, therefore, is excluded by the Staff Regulations and Rules."
    "Further, although former officials may file complaints with the Tribunal, the Statute limits the Tribunal's jurisdiction to complaints alleging the non-observance of an official's terms of appointment and such provisions of the relevant Staff Regulations applicable to the case."

    Keywords:

    candidate; competence of tribunal; competition; internal appeal; non official; ratione personae; receivability of the complaint; right of appeal; separation from service; status of complainant; time bar;



  • Judgment 2868


    108th Session, 2010
    South Centre
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

    Considerations 35-36

    Extract:

    "At the material time, the Centre had not formally adopted a procedure for the selection of candidates for vacant posts; however, it had developed a set of Guidelines."
    "Although the Guidelines do not have the force of formally adopted regulations or rules, they are intended to foster a transparent selection procedure in which candidates are fairly evaluated against selection criteria. The process in the present case [...] undermines the credibility of the procedure and is an affront to the dignity of the complainant, who submitted his candidature in good faith and with the expectation that it would be considered in accordance with the procedure found in the Guidelines."

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1077, 2393

    Keywords:

    candidate; competition; criteria; difference; procedure before the tribunal; respect for dignity;

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 | next >


 
Last updated: 15.09.2021 ^ top