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 (660,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Selection procedure
Total judgments found: 77

1, 2, 3, 4 | next >

  • Judgment 4412


    132nd Session, 2021
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions not to renew her short-term appointment beyond 31 March 2016 and not to select her for a G-3 position advertised through a vacancy announcement.

    Consideration 17

    Extract:

    The FAO’s failure to provide the complainant with a copy of the selection report, which it disclosed to the Appeals Committee, violated the adversarial principle and the principle of equality of arms, impeded her right of appeal and inhibited her ability to fully argue her case before the Appeals Committee in full knowledge of all facts of the case. It thereby tainted the internal appeal procedure, rather than the selection process as the complainant seems to suggest. This procedural irregularity is therefore not a basis for cancelling the selection process as the complainant requests. However, the impugned decision will be set aside to the extent that it rejected the Appeals Committee’s recommendation to immediately disclose a redacted copy of the selection report to the complainant and to award her adequate moral damages for the breach of procedural fairness (due process).

    Keywords:

    disclosure of evidence; due process; moral injury; selection procedure;

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    The Tribunal has consistently held that the appointment by an international organisation of a candidate to a position is a decision that lies within the discretion of its executive head. It is subject only to limited review and may be set aside only if it was taken without authority, or in breach of a rule of form or 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. This formulation is intended to highlight the need for a complainant to demonstrate that there was a serious defect in the selection process which impacted on the consideration and assessment of her or his candidature (see, for example, Judgment 4023, consideration 2).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 4023

    Keywords:

    appointment; discretion; judicial review; selection procedure;

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed; decision quashed; non-renewal of contract; selection procedure; short-term;

    Consideration 10

    Extract:

    The Tribunal has consistently stated, for example in Judgment 3652, consideration 7, that 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.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3652

    Keywords:

    selection procedure;



  • Judgment 4408


    132nd Session, 2021
    International Telecommunication Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant disputes the lawfulness and outcome of a competition procedure in which she participated.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    competition; complaint dismissed; selection procedure;

    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:

    confidentiality; evidence; selection procedure;

    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;



  • Judgment 4375


    131st Session, 2021
    European Southern Observatory
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the validity of a selection procedure in which he participated and the lawfulness of the ensuing appointment.

    Consideration 8

    Extract:

    Once that procedure had begun, ESO had an obligation to follow it properly in accordance with the rules and regulations that it had itself established and, if they do not exhaustively prescribe a procedure, in accordance with the Tribunal’s case law (see, for example, Judgments 4153, consideration 5, 4001, consideration 15, and 1646, consideration 6), which eschews amendments to the competition rules not being properly publicized (see Judgment 1549, consideration 13). In the present case, the organisation does not challenge the complainant’s assertion that the extension of the closing date for applications was not published in the same manner as the original vacancy notice, that is, on the Intranet. Therefore, the extension was unlawful and the acceptance of an application beyond the original closing date was also unlawful.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1549, 1646, 4001, 4153

    Keywords:

    patere legem; selection procedure;

    Consideration 10

    Extract:

    The disputed appointment of Mr E. to the position of Head of the Systems Engineering Department, which was taken at the end of an unlawful selection procedure, will also be set aside, but ESO must shield Mr E. from any injury that may result from the cancellation of an appointment that he accepted in good faith (see Judgments 4153, consideration 2, and 3130, consideration 10). In this respect, ESO argues that the cancellation of that appointment would be inadvisable, referring to Article VIII of the Statute of the Tribunal. According to ESO, this is so particularly in view of the potential disruption to the functioning of the Systems Engineering Department. The Tribunal observes that ESO is not prevented from assigning to Mr E. on an interim basis the duties of Head of that Department during the limited time which is necessary for that position to be filled by a lawful procedure.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3130, 4153

    Keywords:

    selection procedure;

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed; selection procedure;



  • Judgment 4357


    131st Session, 2021
    International Criminal Court
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions not to place him on the shortlist for positions for which he had applied as a priority candidate.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint dismissed; selection procedure;



  • Judgment 4356


    131st Session, 2021
    International Criminal Court
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to place him on the shortlist for a position for which he had applied as a priority candidate.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint dismissed; receivability of the complaint; selection procedure;

    Consideration 3

    Extract:

    The Tribunal has accepted that a staff member can challenge a selection process even if the position was ultimately not filled (see Judgment 4033), and that a flawed selection process can result in the loss of a valuable opportunity to be appointed (see Judgment 4098).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 4033, 4098

    Keywords:

    cause of action; loss of opportunity; selection procedure;



  • Judgment 4352


    131st Session, 2021
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the appointment of another candidate to a position for which she applied and the rejection of her requests for the reclassification of her former position, the payment of the difference in salary resulting from such reclassification, and an award of moral damages for harassment and the loss of a career opportunity.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint dismissed; selection procedure;



  • Judgment 4342


    131st Session, 2021
    International Fund for Agricultural Development
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to select him for the position of Deputy General Counsel.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    case sent back to organisation; complaint allowed; decision quashed; selection procedure;

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    [T]he fact that the complainant did not raise issues or objections during the process is of no legal consequence. Steps were taken in the selection process before the decision was made not to select the complainant and ultimately the decision to appoint another person. The complainant could not directly or immediately challenge those preliminary steps legally (see, for example, Judgment 3876, consideration 5). Moreover it could scarcely be expected that the complainant should run the risk of compromising his candidature by complaining about the conduct of those engaged in the selection process or otherwise complaining about the process at the time his application was being assessed.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3876

    Keywords:

    cause of action; selection procedure;



  • Judgment 4341


    131st Session, 2021
    International Fund for Agricultural Development
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to shortlist him for the position of General Counsel.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    case sent back to organisation; complaint allowed; decision quashed; selection procedure;

    Considerations 4-6

    Extract:

    The complainant argues that the recommendation of the Board was based on grossly inadequate reasoning, referring to Judgment 3995, consideration 4. The Tribunal accepts this is correct. It is to be recalled that the Board said it would not consider the complainant’s case on the merits because he had participated willingly and without objection in the selection process along the way. This led the Board to conclude, for no discernible reason, the complainant did not have a legally protected interest in the matter. The case law of the Tribunal repeatedly establishes that a staff member who has been unsuccessful in a competition has the legal right to challenge the lawfulness of the competition (see Judgments 1832, consideration 3(b)(2), and 3449, consideration 2) and internal appeals bodies have a corresponding duty to consider the challenge (see, for example, Judgment 3590, consideration 2). [...]
    Moreover the fact that the complainant did not raise issues or objections during the process is of no legal consequence. Steps were taken in the selection process before the decision was made not to shortlist the complainant and ultimately the decision to appoint another person. The complainant could not directly or immediately challenge those steps legally (see, for example, Judgment 3876, consideration 5). Moreover it could scarcely be expected that the complainant should run the risk of compromising his candidature by complaining about the conduct of those engaged in the selection process or otherwise complaining about the process at the time his application was being assessed.
    The approach of the Board involved an error of law and its effective adoption by the President is tainted by the same error (see Judgment 3490, consideration 18). IFAD defends the President’s approach by saying firstly, he had no power to refer the matter back to the Board and secondly and in any event the President “appraised the [Board]’s Report and recommendations in light of all the documentation he had at his disposal in relation to the [c]omplainant’s appeal”. If the President did not have power to refer the matter back to the Board, he had an obligation to motivate his decision to dismiss the appeal in the face of no motivation of substance from the Board itself. The President did not do so.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1832, 3449, 3490, 3590, 3876, 3995

    Keywords:

    cause of action; internal appeals body; motivation; selection procedure;



  • Judgment 4332


    131st Session, 2021
    International Telecommunication Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the lawfulness of a selection procedure in which he participated and the resulting appointment.

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    [I]n the absence of any rule or regulation specifying such an obligation, the ITU was not required to inform candidates of how the tests in which they participated would be assessed (see Judgment 3543, under 12).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3543

    Keywords:

    selection procedure;

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    competition; complaint dismissed; selection procedure;



  • Judgment 4331


    131st Session, 2021
    Universal Postal Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to directly appoint her to posts which became vacant during the two years following the termination of her appointment owing to the abolition of her post.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint dismissed; res judicata; selection procedure;



  • Judgment 4320


    130th Session, 2020
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reject her application for a vacant post on the grounds that, as the holder of a fixed-term contract, she was not eligible to participate in the competition process.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    cause of action; complaint dismissed; selection procedure;



  • Judgment 4305


    130th Session, 2020
    World Health Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate his appointment due to the abolition of his post and the failure to reassign him to another suitable vacant position.

    Consideration 13

    Extract:

    WHO challenges the receivability of the complainant’s allegations concerning some of his applications made both during and after the expiry of the reassignment period, on the ground that the selection processes for those positions are not relevant to the impugned decision. However, the complainant is able to challenge his non-appointment as part of a challenge to the termination of his employment arising from his non-redeployment (see Judgment 4036, consideration 10).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 4036

    Keywords:

    new claim; reassignment; receivability of the complaint; selection procedure;



  • Judgment 4293


    130th Session, 2020
    United Nations Industrial Development Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to select him for a post.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint dismissed; selection procedure;

    Consideration 9

    Extract:

    [C]onsistent principle stated in Judgment 4001, consideration 4, for example, has it that a person who challenges the selection of a candidate for a post must demonstrate that there was a serious defect in the selection process. The selection of candidates for promotion is necessarily based on merit and requires a high degree of judgement on the part of those involved in the selection process. Those who would have the Tribunal interfere must demonstrate a serious defect in it; it is not enough simply to assert that one is better qualified than the selected candidate. However, when an organization conducts a competition to fill a post the process must comply with the relevant rules and the case law, as the purpose of competition is to let everyone who wants a post compete for it equally. Precedent therefore demands scrupulous compliance with the rules announced beforehand: tu patere legem quam ipse fecisti.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 4001

    Keywords:

    patere legem; selection procedure;

    Consideration 20

    Extract:

    [T]he complainant argues that the Administration did not pay due regard to equitable geographical representation because at the time of the interview and selection, the country of the selected candidate’s nationality was over-represented. [...] [I]n Judgment 3652, consideration 25, for example, the Tribunal recalled the principle that possession of the nationality of a country which is non-represented or under-represented in the geographic distribution of staff members is only to be taken into account when candidates are equally well qualified.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3652

    Keywords:

    geographical distribution; nationality; selection procedure;



  • Judgment 4251


    129th Session, 2020
    International Labour Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the lawfulness of a selection procedure in which she participated and the appointment made at the end of that procedure.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    competition; complaint dismissed; selection procedure;

    Consideration 12

    Extract:

    The Tribunal finds that the Organization’s long-established practice of communicating substantive information on the selection process only at its formal end, is correct, as until that time, there cannot be any certainty as to the final outcome.

    Keywords:

    duty to inform; practice; selection procedure;



  • Judgment 4214


    129th Session, 2020
    Energy Charter Conference
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant filed an application for execution of Judgment 4008.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    application for execution; cause of action; complaint dismissed; selection procedure;

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    [T]je complainant, being no longer a staff member, could not have applied in response to a new vacancy notice of the same kind [an "internal selection procedure]. Accordingly, by refraining from publishing such a notice and starting a new recruitment procedure, the organisation did not render the judgment ineffective.

    Keywords:

    cause of action; selection procedure;



  • Judgment 4208


    129th Session, 2020
    International Atomic Energy Agency
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to select him for a vacant post.

    Considerations 2-3

    Extract:

    Regarding the basic principles which guide the Tribunal where a non-selection decision is challenged, the following was stated, for example, in Judgment 3652, consideration 7:
    “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 Judgment 3537, under 10). 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 (see, inter alia, Judgment 2163, under 1, and the case law cited therein, and Judgment 3209, under 11). It was also stated that an organisation must abide by the rules 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 (see, for example, Judgment 3130, under 10 and 11).”
    To successfully challenge a non-selection decision, a complainant is required to demonstrate that there was a serious defect in the selection process. The following was accordingly stated in Judgment 3669, consideration 4:
    “[...] as the Tribunal observed in Judgment 1827, consideration 6: ‘The selection of candidates for promotion is necessarily based on merit and requires a high degree of judgment on the part of those involved in the selection process. Those who would have the Tribunal interfere must demonstrate a serious defect in it; it is not enough simply to assert that one is better qualified than the selected candidate.’”
    However, when an organization conducts a competition to fill a post the process must accord with the relevant rules and the case law. The following was accordingly relevantly stated in Judgment 1549, considerations 11 and 13:
    “11. When an organisation wants to fill a post by competition it must comply with the material rules and the general precepts of the case law.
    [...]
    13. The purpose of competition is to let everyone who wants a post compete for it equally. So precedent demands scrupulous compliance with the rules announced beforehand: patere legem quam ipse fecisti. [...]”

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1549, 1827, 2163, 3130, 3209, 3537, 3652, 3669

    Keywords:

    selection procedure;

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint allowed; selection procedure;



  • Judgment 4183


    128th Session, 2019
    International Criminal Court
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions not to select him for three positions for which he had applied as a priority candidate.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint dismissed; selection procedure;



  • Judgment 4182


    128th Session, 2019
    International Criminal Court
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to place him on the shortlist for a position for which he had applied as a priority candidate.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint dismissed; selection procedure;



  • Judgment 4180


    128th Session, 2019
    International Criminal Court
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the rejection of her appeal against the decision to abolish her post and terminate her appointment, the decision not to shortlist her for a specific position and the decisions not to select her for three other positions.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    abolition of post; complaint allowed; decision quashed; selection procedure; termination of employment;



  • Judgment 4154


    128th Session, 2019
    International Telecommunication Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the validity of a selection process in which he participated and the lawfulness of the ensuing appointment.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    complaint dismissed; selection procedure;

1, 2, 3, 4 | next >


 
Last updated: 23.09.2021 ^ top