Judgment 3191
114th Session, 2013
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants successfully challenge a recruitment procedure which they considered as flawed.
Consideration 8
Extract:
"The EPO’s position grounded on a distinction between an appointment and a promotion is fundamentally flawed. An appointment is simply the assignment of an individual to a particular position or post. A promotion is the assignment of an individual to a higher position or rank. The fact that a so called appointment process is used to make a selection or that the assignment is called an appointment does not exclude the fact that it may also be a promotion by virtue of the fact that it also involves the attainment of a higher position or rank or, in this context, grade."
Keywords:
appointment; competition; executive head; flaw; promotion; promotion board; selection board; vacancy; vacancy notice;
Judgment 2906
108th Session, 2010
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 12
Extract:
"Although in theory the President of the Office may grant promotions at his or her discretion, the Tribunal's case law has it that, in view of the crucial role assigned to the Promotion Board in the procedure laid down in Article 49 of the Service Regulations and various subsequent guidelines, the President may promote someone only on the Board's recommendation (see Judgments 1600, under 10, and 1968, under 16 and 17). Thus, even if it is assumed that the President of the Office had the authority to appoint an official to grade A5, not by the usual procedures but in the context of the annual promotion exercise, such a promotion would have been lawful only if it rested on a prior recommendation to that effect from the Board."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Article 49 of the Service Regulations for Permanent Employees of the European Patent Office
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1600, 1968
Keywords:
condition; decision; individual decision; promotion; promotion board; recommendation;
Judgment 1968
89th Session, 2000
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 17-18
Extract:
"In the present case, the President sought, but failed to obtain, the Promotion Board's approval for his proposal to promote Mr C. While the President clearly has a residual discretion not to make promotions which the Board recommends, he may only make promotions in accordance with the Board's recommendations. Since the Board declined to recommend Mr C. for promotion, his promotion was irregular. [...] Furthermore, as the appointing authority, it was clearly inappropriate for the President, having urged the Promotion Board to treat Mr C. as a special case, to then disregard the Board's refusal to recommend the promotion. The decision cannot stand."
Keywords:
advisory opinion; discretion; exception; executive head; flaw; promotion; promotion board; refusal;
Judgment 1600
82nd Session, 1997
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
"If a decision to promote is taken against the Board's advice and on the basis of considerations other than ability and the record of performance, as prescribed in Article 49(7) of the Service Regulations, then fairness and impartiality can no longer be ensured. The reasons given for the impugned decisions are inappropriate for the promotion procedure established by Article 49 and amount to denial of the equal treatment the complainants were entitled to."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ARTICLE 49(7) OF THE EPO SERVICE REGULATIONS
Keywords:
criteria; equal treatment; performance report; personal file; promotion; promotion board; qualifications; safeguard; staff member's interest; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 1565
82nd Session, 1997
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
"The complainant argues that since it was unlawful to have no staff representative on the Selection Committee its recommendation too was unlawful. [...] But since the provisions on the membership of the Committee are not binding, and if no staff representative chooses to attend, that cannot have the effect of invalidating its recommendations."
Keywords:
advisory body; composition of the internal appeals body; flaw; promotion; promotion board; recommendation; staff representative;
Judgment 1522
81st Session, 1996
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
The organization has "discharged its duty to take an express decision duly giving its reasons for not reinstating him. Its decision [not to reinstate him] takes seriatim all the posts he might have been appointed to. It explains the reasons of fact or law why it came to the view that his training, experience or grasp of languages or the need for special skills disqualified him for some posts. The reasons why he was not appointed to others had to do with the budget, some posts being 'frozen'. Or else the reasons were administrative: for example the Appointment and Promotion Board was not in favour, or the organization gave priority to a permanent employee."
Keywords:
advisory opinion; application for execution; budgetary reasons; due process; duration of appointment; duty to substantiate decision; judgment of the tribunal; judicial review; knowledge of languages; organisation's duties; permanent appointment; priority; professional experience; promotion board; qualifications; refusal; reinstatement; selection board; training;
Judgment 1436
79th Session, 1995
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"However regrettable it may be that there are too few women in senior posts at the ITU - and for that matter in most international organisations - the Tribunal is satisfied that the complainant was not discriminated against. There was no breach of the General Assembly Resolution of 23 December 1992 [on women's contributions to the work of international organisations]: the Secretary-General could not have used his authority to get her name put on the short list."
Keywords:
applicable law; equal treatment; general assembly resolution; international civil service principles; promotion board; selection board; sex discrimination;
Judgment 1422
79th Session, 1995
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
The Tribunal has ruled in Judgment 988 "that Regulation 4.9 allows the Secretary-General to promote someone even against the Appointment and Promotion Board's advice and is intended as a safeguard to ensure compliance with the rules on appointment and promotion. The intent is not to enable the Secretary-General to prefer a weaker candidate on compassionate or indeed any other grounds."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ITU STAFF REGULATION 4.9
ILOAT Judgment(s): 988
Keywords:
advisory body; advisory opinion; appointment; case law; discretion; due process; enforcement; executive head; interpretation; promotion; promotion board; safeguard; selection board; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 1355
77th Session, 1994
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"According to the case law - especially Judgment 1235 [...] - the Director-General is not bound by the appointment and Promotion Committee's recommendations and in particular need not appoint the candidate the Committee has put first. In the exercise of discretion, he must ensure that his choice is not tainted with any mistake of law or fact and, to allow the tribunal to exercise its power of review, he must state the reasons for his decision."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1235
Keywords:
advisory body; advisory opinion; appointment; candidate; case law; competition; discretion; duty to substantiate decision; executive head; judicial review; limits; mistake of fact; promotion board;
Consideration 10
Extract:
The Tribunal rejects his plea "that the Director-General erred in law by assuming that he was empowered to disregard the Appointment and Promotion Committee's 'decisions'. What the Committee does is advise, not decide, and the Director-General simply exercised his discretion in choosing between the candidates on its short-list. Although [...] he must exercise such discretion lawfully he is not bound by the Committee's ranking of candidates."
Keywords:
advisory body; advisory opinion; appointment; candidate; competition; condition; decision; discretion; executive head; promotion board;
Judgment 1235
74th Session, 1993
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"Although the Director-General is not of course bound to appoint the candidate the Committee puts first and has discretion in making the choice, the reasons for his decision must be stated so that the Tribunal may properly exercise its power of review."
Keywords:
appointment; candidate; competition; discretion; duty to substantiate decision; judicial review; limits; organisation's duties; promotion board; purpose;
Judgment 1177
73rd Session, 1992
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"When the Director-General's decision is not based on the results of an examination marked by an independent body, he has a wide degree of discretion in making an appointment and granting promotion. Though he is not bound by any recommendation from an advisory body, his authority does not make referral to such a body pointless. A selection body relieves him of the burden of carrying out an assessment himself. It ensures that all applications for appointment or promotion, whatever their source, shall be examined impartially and on the merits. And its report enables the Tribunal to appraise the background to the impugned decision and determine whether it shows any flaw."
Keywords:
advisory body; appointment; competition; discretion; further submissions; impartiality; interlocutory order; judicial review; promotion; promotion board; recommendation; report;
Judgment 1170
73rd Session, 1992
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
The complainant disputes the method for reckoning the output of a certain category of officials. "The method is not a matter for the Promotion Board; else it would find itself revising ratings in staff reports. In point of fact there is nothing discriminatory about the method. [...] Be that as it may, if the complainant objected to the reckoning of his own output the proper course was for him to challenge his staff report and the ratings it contained. He did not do so."
Keywords:
equal treatment; performance report; promotion; promotion board; rating; work appraisal;
Consideration 2
Extract:
The complainant objects to the refusal to grant him promotion. A circular informed the staff that a promotion board would advise the President on promotions. The Tribunal holds that "the promotion board was bound to apply the criteria laid down in the circular and had no discretion to discard any of them".
Keywords:
criteria; organisation's duties; promotion; promotion board;
Judgment 1016
69th Session, 1990
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"Under the guidelines [the President] has issued the promotion boards are free to apply other criteria such as age for the purpose of assessing fitness for promotion."
Keywords:
criteria; promotion; promotion board;
Judgment 457
46th Session, 1981
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
The complainants failed to get a promotion and addressed an appeal within the applicable time limits to the Director. He failed to take a decision on the matter within the sixty-day time, relying on the major criteria for compiling lists of officials for promotion. The final decision fell within the discretionary authority of the Director, who was free to endorse the recommendations of the Promotion Committee, although he was not bound to. There were no grounds for finding an abuse of discretionary authority. Complaint dismissed.
Keywords:
advisory opinion; binding character; discretion; executive head; promotion; promotion board; proposal;
Judgment 304
38th Session, 1977
International Patent Institute
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"It is for the [competent] committees and for the Director-General to adapt the conditions of promotion to the [organisation's] requirements. Hence those conditions may change from year to year and, since they do so, different staff members are differently treated according to the dates on which they receive promotion. Where there are administrative reasons for such difference in treatment, it is no breach of the principle of equality laid down in [the Staff Regulations]."
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; competence; criteria; equal treatment; executive head; organisation's interest; promotion; promotion board;
Judgment 303
38th Session, 1977
International Patent Institute
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 2
Extract:
The complainants contend that they were not informed of the criteria and recommendations for promotions drawn up by the Careers Committee. The requested documents have been circulated to the staff and this grievance therefore fails. "The texts were notified after the original memoranda, but before the rejoinders had been lodged: [...] the complainants were able to refer to those texts in the course of the proceedings and so their right to a hearing has not been infringed."
Keywords:
case pending; criteria; disclosure of evidence; no cause of action; promotion board; right to reply;
Consideration 3
Extract:
One of the complainants contends that the Careers Committee for promotions included the chief of the personnel service, the official who had determined his performance mark, and that the Committee's composition was therefore irregular. "But the fact that the chief of the personnel service should sit on such a committee is only normal. That official had a duty of impartiality both in marking the complainant's performance and in serving on the Careers Committee, and the two functions were therefore quite compatible."
Keywords:
bias; composition of the internal appeals body; promotion board; recusal; supervisor;
Judgment 301
38th Session, 1977
International Patent Institute
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"The function of [careers] committees is purely advisory, and the criteria they adopt have no binding force. Hence, even though those criteria are not beyond reproach, the Director-General's decisions are not tainted on that account."
Keywords:
advisory body; binding character; criteria; discretion; executive head; promotion; promotion board;
Consideration 5
Extract:
It is for the competent committees and the Director-General to adapt the conditions of promotion to the requirements of the organisation. "Hence those conditions may change from year to year and, since they do so, different staff members are differently treated according to the dates on which they receive promotion. Where there are administrative reasons for such difference in treatment, it is no breach of the principle of equality."
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; competence; criteria; date; effective date; equal treatment; executive head; organisation's interest; promotion; promotion board;
Consideration 1
Extract:
Vide Judgment 303, consideration 2.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 303
Keywords:
case pending; criteria; disclosure of evidence; no cause of action; promotion board; right to reply;
Judgment 300
38th Session, 1977
International Patent Institute
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
Vide Judgment 301, consideration 5.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 301
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; competence; criteria; date; effective date; equal treatment; executive head; organisation's interest; promotion; promotion board;
