Selection procedure (660,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Selection procedure
Total judgments found: 119
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 | next >
Judgment 4904
138th Session, 2024
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: Le requérant conteste la décision de ne pas reconnaître qu’il est atteint d’une invalidité.
Considerations 10 and 15
Extract:
Le requérant fait valoir que l’établissement de la liste restreinte aurait été opéré sur la base d’un examen incomplet de sa candidature, qu’il n’aurait pas été tenu compte, lors de cet examen, de certaines de ses compétences essentielles et que les examinateurs n’auraient pas pris en considération l’ensemble des critères de compétence et d’expérience professionnelle énumérés dans la vacance d’emploi.
[…]
Contrairement à ce que semble également faire valoir le requérant, les examinateurs [au stade de l’établissement de la liste restreinte] n’avaient pas à examiner l’ensemble des critères, de compétences et d’expérience professionnelle énumérés dans l’avis de vacance d’emploi, dès lors qu’ils estimaient que certains critères essentiels au regard de la spécificité du poste à pourvoir n’étaient pas remplis.
Keywords:
criteria; selection procedure;
Consideration 16
Extract:
[L]a circonstance que le requérant a été victime d’un accident de travail dans l’exercice de ses fonctions de pompier au sein du CERN, pour évidemment malheureux que soit cet accident, ne peut entrer en ligne de compte dans le cadre d’une procédure d’ouverture de poste par la voie d’un concours en vue de l’obtention d’un contrat de travail de durée indéterminée. Admettre le contraire serait enfreindre les dispositions réglementaires applicables en la matière et pourrait être légitimement considéré par les autres candidats comme constitutif d’une violation du principe d’égalité à leur égard.
Keywords:
professional accident; selection procedure;
Judgment 4903
138th Session, 2024
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: Le requérant conteste le refus de le sélectionner pour un poste de technicien en génie civil.
Consideration 7
Extract:
[I]l ressort de [l]a jurisprudence que l’obligation de motiver n’implique pas que les motifs du rejet d’une candidature dans le cadre d’une procédure de sélection soient communiqués en même temps que la décision elle-même. Ces motifs peuvent en effet être communiqués ultérieurement au fonctionnaire concerné, notamment dans le cadre d’une procédure de recours interne (voir, notamment, les jugements 4683, au considérant 12, 4467, au considérant 7, et 2978, au considérant 4). Or, en l’espèce, ces motifs ont bien été communiqués au requérant dans le cadre de la procédure de recours interne, ainsi que le reconnaît d’ailleurs l’intéressé.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2978, 4467, 4683
Keywords:
motivation; selection procedure;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
appointment; complaint dismissed; selection procedure;
Consideration 6
Extract:
[E]n matière de nomination, le choix du candidat nommé relève du pouvoir d’appréciation de l’autorité compétente pour procéder à la nomination au sein de l’organisation concernée. Une telle décision ne peut ainsi faire l’objet que d’un contrôle restreint par le Tribunal et ne sera censurée que si elle émane d’un organe incompétent, est entachée d’un vice de forme ou de procédure, repose sur une erreur de droit ou de fait, omet de tenir compte de faits essentiels, est entachée de détournement de pouvoir ou tire du dossier des conclusions manifestement erronées (voir, notamment, les jugements 3652, au considérant 7, et 3372, au considérant 12). En conséquence, une personne qui s’est portée candidate à un poste qu’une organisation a décidé de pourvoir par voie de concours, et dont la candidature n’a finalement pas été retenue, se doit de démontrer que la procédure de sélection a été entachée d’un vice substantiel, en d’autres termes, que cette procédure a présenté de graves imperfections (voir en ce sens, notamment, les jugements 4625, au considérant 3, 4001, au considérant 4, 3669, au considérant 4, et 1827, au considérant 6). Il est également entendu qu’en matière de concours il n’appartient pas au Tribunal de substituer son appréciation à celle des organes de sélection compétents (voir les jugements 4594, au considérant 8, 4100, au considérant 5, et 1595, au considérant 4).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1595, 1827, 3669, 4001, 4100, 4594, 4625
Keywords:
appointment; competition; judicial review; role of the tribunal; selection procedure;
Considerations 10 and 15
Extract:
Le requérant fait valoir que l’établissement de la liste restreinte aurait été opéré sur la base d’un examen incomplet de sa candidature, qu’il n’aurait pas été tenu compte, lors de cet examen, de certaines de ses compétences essentielles et que les examinateurs n’auraient pas pris en considération l’ensemble des critères de compétence et d’expérience professionnelle énumérés dans la vacance d’emploi.
[…]
Contrairement à ce que semble également faire valoir le requérant, les examinateurs [au stade de l’établissement de la liste restreinte] n’avaient pas à examiner l’ensemble des critères, de compétences et d’expérience professionnelle énumérés dans l’avis de vacance d’emploi, dès lors qu’ils estimaient que certains critères essentiels au regard de la spécificité du poste à pourvoir n’étaient pas remplis.
Keywords:
criteria; selection procedure;
Consideration 16
Extract:
[L]a circonstance que le requérant a été victime d’un accident de travail dans l’exercice de ses fonctions de pompier au sein du CERN, pour évidemment malheureux que soit cet accident, ne peut entrer en ligne de compte dans le cadre d’une procédure d’ouverture de poste par la voie d’un concours en vue de l’obtention d’un contrat de travail de durée indéterminée. Admettre le contraire serait enfreindre les dispositions réglementaires applicables en la matière et pourrait être légitimement considéré par les autres candidats comme constitutif d’une violation du principe d’égalité à leur égard.
Keywords:
professional accident; selection procedure;
Judgment 4855
138th Session, 2024
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the appointment of another official to the position of Deputy Director, Investment Centre Division, following a competition.
Consideration 18
Extract:
Insofar as the complainant alleges that his non-selection was motivated by bad faith, prejudice and discrimination, this has not been proven and cannot be presumed (see Judgment 4352, consideration 17, and the case law cited therein). It is to be recalled that the ultimate decision to appoint Mr P. was based on the recommendation of the Interview Panel and it would be necessary for the complainant to have established, in these proceedings, that its consideration and recommendation was infected by bias, prejudice or discrimination of the type alleged against the Organization more generally.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4352
Keywords:
bad faith; bias; burden of proof; competition; discrimination; prejudice; recommendation; selection board; selection procedure;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
appointment; breach; competition; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; duty of care; duty to substantiate decision; moral damages; moral injury; selection procedure;
Judgment 4854
138th Session, 2024
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the appointment of another official to the position of Director, Office of Strategy, Planning and Resources Management, following a competitive selection process.
Consideration 18
Extract:
Insofar as the complainant alleges that his non-selection was motivated by bad faith, prejudice and discrimination, this has not been proven and cannot be presumed (see Judgment 4352, consideration 17, and the case law cited therein). It is to be recalled that the ultimate decision to appoint Ms C. was based on the recommendation of the Interview Panel and it would be necessary for the complainant to have established, in these proceedings, that its consideration and recommendation was infected by bias, prejudice or discrimination of the type alleged against the Organization more generally.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4352
Keywords:
bad faith; burden of proof; competition; discrimination; prejudice; recommendation; selection board; selection procedure;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
appointment; breach; competition; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; duty of care; duty to substantiate decision; moral damages; moral injury; selection procedure;
Judgment 4836
138th Session, 2024
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his non-selection for several positions.
Consideration 12
Extract:
[B]y changing the composition of the assessment panel in the manner in which it did, which resulted in a differently constituted panel assessing the first and second tests, the Federation breached the principle of equal treatment.
Keywords:
equal treatment; selection board; selection procedure;
Consideration 12
Extract:
[N]o steps were apparently taken to cancel the first selection process to which the complainant had applied, the complainant took his written test after the position had been readvertised and, as the complainant states, he was not so informed and was not informed that he was not selected. It also seems apparent, that the Federation thereby also breached its duty of care to the complainant.
Keywords:
duty of care; selection procedure;
Consideration 17
Extract:
As it cannot be said with certainty that the complainant would have been the successful candidate had the selection processes for the subject positions not been flawed, he is not entitled to an award of material damages for the loss of one year’s salary or for loss of opportunity he seeks.
Keywords:
material damages; selection procedure;
Consideration 10
Extract:
External advertisement of vacant positions may only be done pursuant to Staff Regulation 5.4.1(d). Under its provision, vacant positions may be advertised externally, only when the position requires technical skills, experience or professional qualifications are unlikely to be available among current Federation staff, or when a different skill set and external experience for the post or within the existing team is needed. Outside of these circumstances, the Federation’s rules do not permit external recruitment. The Federation, who is required by the case law, stated, for example, in consideration 20 of Judgment 3601, to prove that the procedure it had put in place was duly followed, has not shown that it advertised the subject positions because the requirements in Staff Regulation 5.4.1(d) existed at the material time.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3601
Keywords:
burden of proof; external candidate; internal candidate; interpretation of rules; selection procedure; vacancy notice;
Consideration 18
Extract:
Situations will arise where it is appropriate to set aside the selection process and remit the matter to the Federation for it to conduct new selection competitions for the contested positions. This will however not be done in this case as it seems that no practical purpose will be served by doing so, given, particularly, that the complainant is no longer a staff member at the Federation.
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; former official; selection procedure;
Consideration 2
Extract:
As to its role in a case where the selection of a successful candidate is challenged in a complaint, the Tribunal recalls its settled case law, stated, for example, in Judgment 4625, that in matters of appointment, the choice of the candidate to be appointed lies within the discretion of the authority competent to make the appointment within the organization concerned. Such a decision is therefore subject to only limited review. It 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, in particular, Judgments 3652, consideration 7, and 3372, consideration 12). As a result, a person who has applied for a post that an organization has decided to fill by a competition and whose application is ultimately unsuccessful must prove that the selection procedure was tainted by a serious defect.
The case law further states that, 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 (see, for example, Judgment 4412, consideration 10). That is a right which every applicant must enjoy, whatever her or his hope of success may be (see, inter alia, Judgments 3209, consideration 11, and 2163, consideration 1, and the case law cited therein). The case law also states that an organization 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 organization 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 3652, consideration 7). The Tribunal also recalls that, in relation to competitions, it is not its role to replace the assessment made by the competent selection bodies with its own assessment (see, for example, Judgment 4594, consideration 8).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2163, 3209, 3372, 3652, 4412, 4594, 4625
Keywords:
appointment; judicial review; selection procedure;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; selection procedure;
Judgment 4830
138th Session, 2024
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: Le requérant conteste la décision implicite de rejet de sa demande de régularisation de sa situation administrative, la décision ordonnant sa mutation, la décision de lui accorder une indemnité spéciale de fonction en ce que cette décision excluait une certaine période et que son montant n’était pas suffisant, et la décision prononçant sa promotion, en ce qu’elle n’était pas rétroactive et ne le classait pas à l’échelon 7 du grade G.4.
Consideration 13
Extract:
[L]a décision de promotion prise le 6 mars 2020 s’inscrit dans le cadre autonome d’une nouvelle ouverture de poste après organisation d’un concours interne auquel le requérant s’est volontairement inscrit. Il s’ensuit que l’éventuelle illégalité d’une telle promotion – ainsi que de la détermination de l’échelon de celle-ci – ne peuvent s’analyser en fonction d’éventuelles illégalités qui auraient pu entacher d’autres décisions antérieures, lesquelles n’ont par ailleurs pas été contestées en temps utile, mais seulement au regard des illégalités visant la décision de promotion elle-même ou la procédure suivie en la matière. Or, force est de constater que le requérant n’invoque aucune illégalité en ce sens.
Keywords:
late appeal; promotion; selection procedure;
Judgment 4806
137th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, acting in his capacity as staff representative at the material time, challenges the appointment of the Principal Director of Human Resources.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
appointment; complaint dismissed; selection procedure; staff representative;
Judgment 4801
137th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the appointment of the Principal Director of Human Resources.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
appointment; complaint dismissed; selection procedure;
Judgment 4777
137th Session, 2024
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the calculation of his remuneration and the determination of his step following his promotion from grade G.6 to grade P.3.
Consideration 6
Extract:
As the Tribunal has repeatedly stated, officials are expected to know the rules and regulations to which they are subject (see, for example, Judgment 4673, consideration 16, and the case law cited therein). This principle clearly includes any matters particular to their personal situation. It was the complainant’s choice to apply for the post in respect of which he was awarded the promotion in question and it was up to him to assess the advantages and disadvantages thereof beforehand.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4673
Keywords:
candidate; duty to be informed; duty to know the rules; ignorance of the rules; selection procedure;
Judgment 4735
136th Session, 2023
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, a former staff member of IOM at its Country Office in Afghanistan, asserts that a position which was readvertised after its temporary abolition should be assigned to him.
Consideration 4
Extract:
The Tribunal notes that, at the time when he filed his complaint, the complainant was a former official of IOM. Although the Tribunal is open to former officials of international organizations recognising its competence, a complaint filed by a former official must, like any other complaint, invoke non-observance, in substance or in form, of the terms of the complainant’s appointment and/or of provisions of the Staff Regulations, as required by Article II, paragraph 5, of the Tribunal’s Statute (see, for example, Judgments 4201, consideration 3, 2333, consideration 8, and 1105, consideration 2). In this case, however, the complainant relies on an alleged “right” to recruitment arising out of his former employment which does not exist in any form whatsoever. Moreover, he does not put forward any arguments deriving from a breach of his former contract (see, for a similar case, Judgment 1941, consideration 6). The Tribunal is therefore not competent, under Article II of its Statute, to hear this complaint.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1105, 1941, 2333, 4201
Keywords:
cause of action; former official; selection procedure;
Judgment 4702
136th Session, 2023
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to appoint Mr K. to a position for which the complainant did not apply.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; selection procedure;
Consideration 3
Extract:
As found by the Tribunal in another case by the same complainant, “[t]he Tribunal has stated, in consideration 2 of Judgment 3449, 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). 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.’” (see Judgment 4520, consideration 6). As the complainant, who did not apply for the contested post, provides no evidence that he was prevented from doing so through no fault of his own, he lacks a cause of action. The complaint must therefore be dismissed.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2959, 3449, 4520
Keywords:
cause of action; selection procedure;
Judgment 4688
136th Session, 2023
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to select her for a developmental assignment.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; selection procedure;
Judgment 4687
136th Session, 2023
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate her appointment after she refused two reassignments.
Consideration 8
Extract:
One legal issue presented for consideration by the pleas is whether the power to reassign an official to such a position is in any way conditioned or qualified in circumstances where a competition is on foot to fill the position. While it is not explicitly put this way by the complainant, it is the import of one of her pleas. There are a number of cases where the Tribunal has considered the direct appointment of a person to a position in circumstances where it denied the complainant “a right to compete” (see generally Judgments 4069, 3742, 3288 and 2959). By parity of reasoning, and notwithstanding the unequivocal bias just referred to, the decision to appoint the complainant, by way of reassignment, to the position in Cameroon deprived those who had entered the competition following the 27 December 2017 vacancy announcement of their right to compete and for each to have their candidature assessed on its merits. Deprivation of that right would involve a breach of WHO’s duty to act in good faith (see Judgments 4619, consideration 8, and 4618, consideration 8) to those who entered the competition. Consistent with the existence of this duty to act in good faith, the power to fill a position by reassignment, should not be interpreted as authorising reassignment
to a position when a competition is on foot to fill the very same position. There is an implied limitation on the exercise of the power to reassign. Thus, the decision of 12 January 2018 to reassign the complainant to the position in Cameroon was not lawful. Accordingly, the decision of 16 March 2018 to terminate her employment because she had refused the reassignment, was tainted by the unlawfulness of the reassignment decision and the decision to terminate should be set aside.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2959, 3288, 3742, 4069, 4618, 4619
Keywords:
appointment; appointment without competition; reassignment; selection procedure; termination of employment; transfer;
Judgment 4683
136th Session, 2023
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests her non-selection to a post.
Consideration 12
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal’s case law states that 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 appeal proceedings (see Judgments 4467, consideration 7, and 2978, consideration 4).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2978, 4467
Keywords:
motivation; selection procedure;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; selection procedure;
Consideration 6
Extract:
As regards the complainant’s reliance on acquired rights, consistent case law has it that “a staff member has no entitlement or right to be selected for a contested post. The Director-General’s decision to order a new selection process for the subject post was entirely within her discretionary authority” (see Judgment 4100, consideration 5). The complainant, regardless of the roster’s validity, had no acquired right to be directly appointed.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4100
Keywords:
acquired right; selection procedure;
Judgment 4677
136th Session, 2023
World Trade Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to select him to positions advertised internally.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; selection procedure;
Judgment 4625
135th Session, 2023
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant disputes the lawfulness and outcome of a competition procedure in which she participated.
Consideration 3
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal recalls its settled case law under which, in matters of appointment, the choice of the candidate to be appointed lies within the discretion of the authority competent to make the appointment within the organisation concerned. Such a decision is therefore 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, in particular, Judgments 3652, consideration 7, and 3372, consideration 12). As a result, a person who has applied for a post that an organisation has decided to fill by a competition and whose application is ultimately unsuccessful must prove that the selection procedure was tainted by a serious defect (see, in particular, Judgments 4001, consideration 4, and 1827, consideration 6).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1827, 3372, 3652, 4001
Keywords:
appointment; competition; judicial review; role of the tribunal; selection procedure;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
appointment; competition; complaint dismissed; selection procedure;
Judgment 4623
135th Session, 2023
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the lawfulness of a selection procedure and seeks its cancellation.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; selection procedure;
Consideration 2
Extract:
The basic principles are well settled in the Tribunal’s case law, where a decision such as this is challenged, as explained in Judgment 3652, consideration 7 […].
A complainant is required to demonstrate that there was a serious defect in the selection process which impacted on the consideration and assessment of her or his candidacy. It is not enough simply to assert that one is better qualified than the selected candidate (see Judgment 3669, consideration 4).
However, when an organisation conducts a competition to fill a post, the process must accord with the relevant rules and the case law (see Judgment 1549, considerations 11 and 13, and the case law cited therein).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1549, 3652, 3669
Keywords:
selection procedure;
Judgment 4619
135th Session, 2023
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to place her on a roster.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; complaint allowed; roster; selection procedure;
Consideration 8
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal considers it useful to reiterate that, under their terms of appointment and the applicable staff rules in an international organisation, all staff members who apply to be placed on a roster with a view to future appointment to a vacant post are entitled to have their applications considered in good faith and in keeping with the basic rules of fair and open competition (see, by analogy, Judgment 4524, consideration 8, and the case law cited therein). The Organization is therefore wrong to contend that the complainant’s challenge to the decision not to place her on a roster in compliance with the Organization’s guidelines on creating and maintaining rosters is not based on her terms of appointment or staff rules.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4524
Keywords:
cause of action; contract; roster; selection procedure;
Judgment 4618
135th Session, 2023
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the outcome of two selection procedures in which she took part.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; cause of action; competition; complaint allowed; selection procedure;
Consideration 6
Extract:
Under the Tribunal’s settled case law in this area, a decision not to appoint an official of an international organisation to a post is in fact a decision that may be challenged in an internal appeal and ultimately before the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgments 4408, consideration 2, 4293, consideration 9, 4252, consideration 4, and 1204, consideration 6).
While the Secretary General also referred in his decision to the broad discretion enjoyed by an international organisation’s executive head in a selection procedure, that issue, which relates to the review of the merits of decisions taken in this area, has no bearing on the receivability of appeals directed against those decisions.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1204, 4252, 4293, 4408
Keywords:
administrative decision; discretion; internal appeal; selection procedure;
Judgment 4594
135th Session, 2023
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant seeks the cancellation of a competition in which she took part.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
competition; complaint allowed; selection procedure;
Consideration 8
Extract:
The Tribunal recalls that, in relation to competitions, it is not its role to replace the assessment made by the competent selection bodies with its own assessment.
Keywords:
competition; role of the tribunal; selection procedure;
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 | next >
|
