Competition (294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299, 300, 301, 302, 303, 304,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Competition
Total judgments found: 169
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 | next >
Judgment 4903
138th Session, 2024
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the refusal to select him for a post of civil engineering technician.
Consideration 6
Extract:
[I]n 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 by the Tribunal 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 to that effect, in particular, Judgments 4625, consideration 3, 4001, consideration 4, 3669, consideration 4, and 1827, consideration 6). 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 Judgments 4594, consideration 8, 4100, consideration 5, and 1595, consideration 4).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1595, 1827, 3669, 4001, 4100, 4594, 4625
Keywords:
appointment; competition; judicial review; role of the tribunal; selection procedure;
Judgment 4866
138th Session, 2024
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to select her for the post of Senior Adviser, Human Rights and Law, following a competitive recruitment process.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
competition; complaint dismissed; internal candidate; priority;
Judgment 4865
138th Session, 2024
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to select her for the post of Senior Advisor, Gender Equality, following a competitive recruitment process.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
competition; complaint dismissed; internal candidate; priority;
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 4853
138th Session, 2024
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the direct appointment, ad interim, of Mr F. to the position of Director, Agricultural Development Economics Division.
Considerations 9-11
Extract:
It is tolerably clear that the case law establishes, in the context of the filling of a post following a competition, that a person who has not participated in the competition does not have a cause of action to challenge the competition (see, for example, in recent Judgment 4702, consideration 3). Indeed, if a person participates in the competition but was admitted to it erroneously, they have no cause of action if they were not eligible for the position (see Judgment 4087, considerations 6 and 7). One obvious rationale for this approach is that participation in the competition is a manifestation of interest in the position on the part of the complainant, with corresponding injury to that person if not appointed, who can then challenge the lawfulness of the competition and appointment. It would be an extremely curious result that a complainant who did not have an interest in a position (either immediate or longer term and thus risk of immediate or future injury) filled by appointment without competition, rather than by competition, had a significantly broader basis for challenging the appointment. The obvious question which arises is what is the credible basis for confining standing to challenge an appointment following a competition to those who participated in the competition, but not confining standing in a similar or analogous situation concerning an appointment without competition. If the latter is confined only by eligibility for appointment, the obvious question which arises is why would that not also be so of an appointment following a competition. The coherent answer lies in whether the complainant had an interest in the lawfulness of the filling of the position. That would derive from having an interest, either immediate or longer term, in the filling of the position.
The touchstone of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction is its Statute. Having regard to Article II, it concerns non-observance, in substance or in form, of the terms of appointment of officials and other provisions of the Staff Regulations. The relevant impugned decision must adversely affect the complainant’s rights or interests, or cause her or him injury, or be likely to cause injury (see, for example, Judgment 2670, consideration 5). This concerns legal rights or interests. As the Tribunal said in Judgment 4672, consideration 4:
“The Tribunal’s jurisdiction centres on whether there has been a reviewable administrative decision which, in turn, implies any act by an officer of an organisation which has a legal effect (see Judgments 4499, consideration 8, 3141, consideration 21, and 532, consideration 3).”
Plainly, if there is evidence that a staff member has manifested an interest in a position, then she or he has an interest in the preservation of the position for possible future appointment to it. That interest may be expressed, for example, by the staff member applying for the position in a competition. An interest might be inferred from all the circumstances, which might include that occupying the position would be a logical career progression or development for the staff member concerned. But, in the absence of evidence of interest, it is very difficult to discern what legal interest the staff member has in ensuring that the position, if filled, has been filled lawfully. Put slightly differently, it is difficult to discern what legal effect the appointment of another person to a position has on a staff member who has no interest in that position, even if she or he is qualified to be appointed to it.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4087, 4672, 4702
Keywords:
appointment; appointment without competition; cause of action; competition;
Consideration 12
Extract:
[T]he complainant clearly did not aspire to occupy the post of Director, ESA, in April 2017, when the vacancy notice was published. He did not apply for the position. He then had no legally enforceable interest in the steps which were, or were not taken, to fill the position. That is to say, any legal flaws in the selection process did not affect his rights or interests nor cause him injury. These facts would sustain an inference that in spring 2018, when the post was filled, his lack of interest in the position continued. It is true, and the Tribunal must recognise, that this was one year later. However, the complainant does not contend in his pleas that by spring 2018 he then had an interest in the position. Nor did the objective circumstances sustain an inference that he had. Accordingly, any procedural or other defects in the appointment of Mr F. in spring 2018 did not adversely affect his legal rights, or interests, or cause him injury.
Keywords:
appointment; appointment without competition; competition; no cause of action;
Consideration 6
Extract:
[T]he case law concerning a complainant challenging an appointment following a competition in which they did not compete and, accordingly, have no cause of action, informs the scope of the applicable principles, both when considering appointments following a competition and appointments which do not. Those principles should be coherent and consistent.
Keywords:
appointment; appointment without competition; cause of action; competition;
Judgment 4772
137th Session, 2024
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to appoint another candidate to the position of Director, Investment Centre Division following a competitive selection process.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
appointment; competition; complaint allowed; conflict of interest; selection board;
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;
Consideration 10
Extract:
The Tribunal considers that [the] reasoning is adequate in that it allows the complainant to understand the reasons why the successful candidate was selected, even if she does not agree with them. This is especially so since this case involves a decision relating to a competition procedure, for which the authority competent to make the appointment has a broad discretion, and it is moreover possible for the organisation to clarify the reasons for its choice at a later stage in the light of the specific grievances expressed by a candidate who considers her- or himself to have been adversely affected by the decision (see, in particular, Judgments 4467, consideration 7, 4259, consideration 6, 4081, consideration 5, 2978, consideration 4, and 2060, consideration 7(a)).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2060, 2978, 4081, 4259, 4467
Keywords:
competition; motivation;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
appointment; competition; complaint dismissed; selection procedure;
Consideration 5
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal considers that, except in special circumstances, an organisation is not required to state the reasons why it chooses to fill a post using a particular type of competition.
Keywords:
competition; motivation;
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 8
Extract:
In view of the Organization’s arguments in its submissions, the Tribunal considers it useful to reiterate that, under the terms of their appointment and the applicable staff rules within an international organisation, all staff members who apply for posts in competitive procedures are entitled to have their applications considered in good faith and in keeping with the basic rules of fair and open competition (see, for example, Judgment 4524, consideration 8, and the case law cited therein). The Organization is therefore wrong to contend that the complainant’s challenge to the outcome of the competitions in question is not based on the terms of her appointment or the staff rules.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4524
Keywords:
cause of action; competition; contract;
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;
Judgment 4584
135th Session, 2023
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant seeks the cancellation of the competition organised to fill the grade P.4 post of programme coordinator that he had held in the ITU Regional Office for Africa until his retirement.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
competition; complaint dismissed; selection procedure;
Consideration 5
Extract:
[I]t must be reiterated that, under the Tribunal’s settled case law, a staff appointment by an international organisation is a decision that lies within the discretion of its executive head and, for that reason, is subject only to 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 4408, consideration 2, 4153, consideration 2, 3188, consideration 8, or 2040, consideration 5). The Tribunal will not replace the organisation’s assessment with its own in this matter (see, in particular, Judgments 4100, consideration 5, 3537, consideration 10, 2833, consideration 10(b), or 2762, consideration 17). Furthermore, where an appointment is made on the basis of a selection among candidates for a post, a complainant seeking to have the appointment set aside must demonstrate that there was a serious defect in the selection process which impacted on the outcome of the competition (see, for example, Judgments 4524, consideration 8, 4208, consideration 3, 4147, consideration 9, or 4023, consideration 2). In particular, it is not enough simply to assert that one is better qualified for the post in question than the selected candidate (see, for example, Judgments 4467, consideration 2, 4001, consideration 4, 3669, consideration 4, or 1827, consideration 6).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1827, 2040, 2762, 2833, 3188, 3537, 3669, 4001, 4023, 4100, 4147, 4153, 4208, 4408, 4467, 4524
Keywords:
appointment; competition; role of the tribunal; 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 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. 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, for example, Judgment 3537, consideration 10).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3537
Keywords:
appointment; competition; discretion; judicial review;
Judgment 4368
131st Session, 2021
International Olive Council
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the cancellation of a competition procedure in which she participated.
Consideration 4
Extract:
[T]he executive head of an international organisation may cancel a competition in the interests of the service with a view, in particular, to holding a new competition on different terms if need be (see, for example, Judgments 791, consideration 4, 1223, consideration 31, 1771, consideration 4(e), 1982, consideration 5(a), 2075, consideration 3, 3647, consideration 9, 3920, consideration 18, 4216, consideration 3, or 4283, consideration 2).
However, such a decision can never be arbitrary. The Tribunal must therefore ascertain whether the condition relating to the interests of the organisation required under the case law in question is actually met and whether the cancellation of the initial process is based on a legitimate reason (see, in particular, Judgments 3647, consideration 9, and 3920, consideration 18, cited above).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 791, 1223, 1771, 1982, 2075, 3647, 3920, 4216, 4383
Keywords:
competition; discretion;
Considerations 10-11
Extract:
The Tribunal underlines [...] that the situation [...] resulting from the fact that different qualification requirements were specified in the provisions applicable to the competition, was not only liable to introduce a regrettable ambiguity into the determination of selection procedures for candidates – as the IOC appeared to consider – but was quite simply unlawful. Indeed, the Executive Director could not lawfully decide, while allowing the qualification requirements in the job description to remain in force, to specify different requirements in the competition notice, since the statement in the memorandum of 1 December 2016 to the effect that the provisions set out in that notice would not be applied insofar as they were contrary to those specified in the job description was not capable of remedying their unlawfulness.
Since the contested competition had been opened unlawfully, the requirement that administrative decisions be taken lawfully dictated that it be cancelled, as it would otherwise have led to an appointment to the post in question which would itself inevitably have been unlawful.
This implies not only that the decision [...] was taken in the interest of the service and hence based on a legitimate reason, so that, pursuant to the [Tribunal's] case law [...], the Executive Director was entitled to adopt it, but also that, in this case, he was in fact bound to do so.
Keywords:
administrative decision; competition; lawfulness of a measure;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
competition; complaint allowed;
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.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
competition; complaint dismissed; selection procedure;
Judgment 4317
130th Session, 2020
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, in his capacity as a member of the Selection Board, challenges the decision not to allow a staff member holding a fixed-term contract to compete for a permanent post.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
cause of action; competition; complaint dismissed;
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;
Judgment 4216
129th Session, 2020
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the lawfulness of the decision to cancel a competition procedure in which he took part.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
competition; complaint allowed; decision quashed;
Consideration 11
Extract:
At this stage in its findings, the Tribunal would normally remit the case to the Organisation for the Director General to take a new decision concerning the disputed competition procedure, this time basing his assessment on a consideration of the exact substance of the findings of the selection board.
However, the response to the Tribunal’s request for further information shows that the complainant retired on 1 January 2019. Since the issue of his possible appointment to the post in question has become moot, it is not advisable to remit the case to Eurocontrol, but the Tribunal will award the complainant compensation for the various injuries caused to him by the contested decisions, as foreseen by Article VIII of the Statute of the Tribunal in cases of this type.
Keywords:
compensation; competition; competition cancelled;
Judgment 4100
127th Session, 2019
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to select him for a position for which he had applied.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
competition; complaint allowed; selection procedure;
Judgment 4098
127th Session, 2019
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to select him for a position for which he had applied.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
competition; complaint allowed; selection procedure;
Judgment 4070
127th Session, 2019
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to select her for a position for which she had applied.
Consideration 4
Extract:
The Tribunal holds that the complainant’s admission that she did not meet the requirements for the subject post means that she has no cause of action to challenge the shortlisting of the selected candidate or his final selection to fill the contested post. The complaint is therefore unfounded and will be dismissed.
Keywords:
cause of action; competition; selection procedure;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
appointment; competition; complaint dismissed; selection procedure;
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 | next >
|
