Judgment No. 4529
Decision
The complaint is dismissed.
Summary
The complainant contests WHO’s decision to select Ms V. for the post of Proofreader (Spanish), at grade G-4, in WHO’s Headquarters’ Word Processing Centre.
Judgment keywords
Keywords
selection procedure; complaint dismissed
Consideration 4
Extract:
According to the Tribunal’s well-established case law, in matters of appointment through competition the Tribunal has limited power to review a contested selection, as explained, for instance, in Judgment 3652, consideration 7 […].
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3652
Keywords
selection procedure; role of the tribunal
Consideration 10
Extract:
[P]ersons already in the service of the Organization have priority only if their qualifications appear to be equal to those of other candidates (see, for example, Judgment 1954, consideration 7). In Judgment 3652, consideration 12, the Tribunal also recalled that:
“Similarly, it was stated in Judgment 2392, under 9:
‘It is well settled that preferences such as those mentioned [i.e. by reason of being an internal candidate and by reason of gender] must be given effect to where the choice has to be made between candidates who are evenly matched. On the other hand, they have no role to play where there is a significant and relevant difference between the candidates. [...]’”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1954, 2392, 3652
Keywords
internal candidate; criteria; selection procedure
Consideration 15
Extract:
The Tribunal’s firm case law has it that the complainant bears the burden of proving allegations of bias and prejudice. Moreover, the evidence adduced to prove the allegations must be of sufficient quality and weight to persuade the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgments 4382, consideration 11, and 2472, consideration 9).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2472, 4382
Keywords
evidence; burden of proof; bias; prejudice
| 
