Selection procedure (660,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Selection procedure
Total judgments found: 113
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 | next >
Judgment 4521
134th Session, 2022
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the short-term appointment of a staff member.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
appointment without competition; complaint dismissed; selection procedure;
Judgment 4520
134th Session, 2022
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the appointment of a staff member.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
cause of action; complaint dismissed; selection procedure;
Consideration 6
Extract:
The Tribunal has stated, in consideration 2 of Judgment 3449, for example, that “[a]ny 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) [, but that i]n 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”. As the complainant, who did not apply for the subject vacant post, provides no evidence that he was prevented from doing so through no fault of his own, he does not have a cause of action.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2959, 3449
Keywords:
cause of action; selection procedure;
Judgment 4518
134th Session, 2022
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his non-appointment to a fixed-term position and the non-renewal of his short-term contract, as well as the organisation’s refusal to conduct an investigation into the allegations of harassment made against him which, according to him, form the basis of the non-appointment and non-renewal decisions.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; harassment; non-renewal of contract; selection procedure; short-term;
Consideration 7
Extract:
It is recalled that according to the Tribunal’s case law, stated in consideration 2 of Judgment 4153, for example, the decision of an international organization to make an appointment is within the discretion of its executive head and that such a decision is subject to only limited review. However, such a decision may be set aside 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 law or fact, or if some material fact was overlooked, or if there was an abuse of authority, or if a clearly wrong conclusion was drawn from the evidence. 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 that every applicant must enjoy, whatever her or his hopes of success may be.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4153
Keywords:
selection procedure;
Judgment 4485
133rd Session, 2022
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: Acting in his capacity as a staff representative, the complainant challenges the decision to assign different duties and responsibilities to a Principal Director without a competitive selection process.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; selection procedure; staff representative;
Judgment 4472
133rd Session, 2022
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to appoint an official to his former post.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
appointment; complaint dismissed; selection procedure; transfer;
Judgment 4467
133rd Session, 2022
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the lawfulness of the recruitment process and the resulting appointment for the post of Client Relationship Manager, for which he had applied.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; selection procedure;
Consideration 2
Extract:
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 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 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. However, as the selection of candidates is necessarily based on merit and requires a high degree of judgement on the part of those involved in the selection process, 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 4001, consideration 4).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4001, 4023
Keywords:
discretion; role of the tribunal; selection procedure;
Consideration 8
Extract:
The complainant alleges that his right to a fair internal appeal procedure was violated as the IAEA did not provide him with proof of the successful candidate’s qualifications. He argues that, contrary to the Tribunal’s case law that such information cannot be withheld on grounds of confidentiality, he did not have all of the evidence on which the contested decision was based. He submits that in the absence of the disclosure there is no evidence that when the successful candidate submitted her application she possessed the required qualifications to fill the contested post. The allegation is unfounded. In the first place, the case law states that a staff member must, as a general rule, have access to all evidence on which the authority bases or intends to base its decision against him, and, under normal circumstances, such evidence cannot be withheld on grounds of confidentiality. The decision to appoint the successful candidate, which the complainant centrally contests, was not a decision which was made against the complainant. Moreover, perhaps as the case was sent directly to the Tribunal, the complainant only requested the disclosure of documents during the course of these proceedings with no evidence that the decision which he contests was based on some of the requested documents.
Keywords:
disclosure of evidence; selection procedure;
Consideration 7
Extract:
The case law states, in consideration 5 of Judgment 4081, for example, that the reasons for a decision must be sufficiently explicit to enable the person concerned to take an informed decision accordingly; they must also enable the competent review bodies to determine whether the decision is lawful and, in particular, the Tribunal to exercise its power of review. However, the Tribunal has also stated, in consideration 4 of Judgment 2978, that 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. These reasons may be disclosed at a later date, for example in the context of a procedure arising from a challenge to the selection process […].
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2978, 4081
Keywords:
motivation; motivation of final decision; selection procedure;
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:
good faith; 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:
discrimination; 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; motivation of final decision; 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;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 | next >
|
