|
|
 |
|
|
Competition cancelled (297,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Competition cancelled
Total judgments found: 24
1, 2 | next >
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.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
appointment without competition; competition cancelled; complaint dismissed; no cause of action;
Judgment 4301
130th Session, 2020
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions to withdraw a vacancy notice and re-advertise it, and the ad interim appointment of a colleague in the meantime.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
competition cancelled; complaint dismissed;
Judgment 4283
130th Session, 2020
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to cancel a competition in which he was a candidate.
Considerations 2-3
Extract:
According to the Tribunal’s settled case law, the executive head of an international organisation may cancel a competition in the interests of the service if, among other reasons, it becomes apparent that the competition will not enable the post concerned to be suitably filled, and the opening of such a procedure does not therefore imply that a candidate will necessarily be appointed to that post (see, for example, Judgments 791, under 4, 1771, under 4(e), 1982, under 5(a), 2075, under 3, 3647, under 9, or 3920, under 18, and 4216, under 3).
According to the same case law, the decision not to fill an advertised post – like any decision to appoint an official in the opposite case where an appointment is made – falls within the discretion of the executive head of the organisation and is therefore be subject to only limited review by the Tribunal (see, in particular, aforementioned Judgment 791, under 4, or aforementioned 1771, under 6). However, it is within the Tribunal’s purview to verify whether that decision was taken in accordance with the rules on competence, form and procedure, whether it involved an error of fact or of law, whether it failed to take account of material facts, whether it drew clearly incorrect conclusions from the evidence or whether it constituted misuse of authority (see, for example, Judgments 1689, under 3, 2060, under 4, 2457, under 6, 3537, under 10, or 3652, under 7, and [...] 4216, under 4).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 791, 1689, 1771, 1982, 2060, 2075, 2457, 3537, 3647, 3652, 3920, 4216
Keywords:
competition cancelled; discretion;
Consideration 9
Extract:
The complainant submits that the cancellation of the first competition and the subsequent organisation of the second involved a misuse of authority.
According to him, the initial competition was in fact “cancelled for reasons of partiality, with the sole purpose of appointing officials who were to the Agency’s liking”, and the selection board’s abovementioned observation concerning the candidates’ shortcomings in terms of soft skills was merely a “pretext” used by the Organisation “to prevent the candidates being appointed”.
However, as the Tribunal has repeatedly stated, misuse of authority may not be presumed, and the burden of proof is on the party that pleads it (see, for example, Judgments 2116, under 4(a), 2885, under 12, 3543, under 20, 3939, under 10, or aforementioned 4081, under 19).
It must be noted that the complainant has not produced any evidence to corroborate his allegations. The circumstance, put forward by the complainant, that he was unsuccessful in the second competition even though he had been placed on the list of suitable candidates in the first one and that the same was true of other candidates plainly cannot, in itself, constitute such evidence.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2116, 2885, 3543, 3939, 4081
Keywords:
abuse of power; competition cancelled; misuse of authority;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
competition cancelled; complaint dismissed;
Consideration 6
Extract:
The general principle that an official has the right to be heard before an individual decision that adversely affects her or him is taken plainly cannot be applied to an impersonal decision which is collective in scope, such as the cancellation of a competition.
Keywords:
administrative decision; competition cancelled; right to be heard;
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.
Considerations 3-4
Extract:
The Tribunal has consistently held that the executive head of an international organisation may cancel a competition in the interest of the organisation if, for example, it becomes apparent that the competition will not enable the post concerned to be suitably filled, and the opening of such a procedure does not therefore imply that a candidate will necessarily be appointed to that post (see, for example, Judgments 791, consideration 4, 1771, consideration 4(e), 1982, consideration 5(a), 2075, consideration 3, 3647, consideration 9, and 3920, consideration 18).
According to the same case law, the decision not to fill a post for which a competition procedure is opened – like any decision to appoint an official in the opposite case that an appointment is made – is a matter for the discretion of the organisation’s executive head and is therefore subject to only limited review by the Tribunal (see, in particular, aforementioned Judgments 791, consideration 4, or 1771, consideration 6). The Tribunal must, however, ascertain whether that decision was taken in breach of applicable rules on competence, form or procedure, if it was based on a mistake of fact or of law, if an essential fact was overlooked, if a clearly mistaken conclusion was drawn from the facts, or if there was abuse of authority (see, for example, Judgments 1689, consideration 3, 2060, consideration 4, 2457, consideration 6, 3537, consideration 10, and 3652, consideration 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 791, 1689, 1771, 1982, 2060, 2075, 2457, 3537, 3647, 3652, 3920
Keywords:
competition cancelled; discretion; organisation's interest;
Consideration 10
Extract:
Contrary to what the complainant submits, the setting aside of those decisions [to cancel the competition and to reject an appeal against that decision] does not in itself imply that the Director General was obliged to appoint him to the [...] post [in question] following the competition procedure. Under the case law [of the Tribunal], the Director General had a discretion to decide, in the interest of the organisation, not to act on the proposals of the selection board. The complainant’s claims for an order to appoint him retroactively to the post in question [...], with all the legal consequences that this entails, must therefore be dismissed.
Keywords:
appointment; competition cancelled;
Consideration 12
Extract:
The complainant, who [...] was ranked first on the list of suitable candidates drawn up by the selection board for the competition, was deprived, by the flaws in the decisions in question, of a valuable opportunity to be appointed to the advertised post, the loss of which constitutes material injury. That appointment would have entailed his promotion to a higher grade and thus a pay rise from December 2015 or January 2016 until his retirement, a period of around three years.
Keywords:
competition cancelled; loss of opportunity; material injury;
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 3920
125th Session, 2018
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate her fixed-term appointment pursuant to the abolition of her post.
Consideration 18
Extract:
The Tribunal observed in Judgment 3647, consideration 9, that: “[t]he Tribunal’s case law recognises that the executive head of an international organisation may cancel a competition in the interest of the organisation if, among other reasons, it becomes apparent that the competition will not enable the post concerned to be filled, and that she or he may, if need be, decide to hold a new competition on different terms (see, for example, Judgments 1223, under 31, 1771, under 4(e), 1982, under 5(a), and 2075, under 3). However, the condition relating to the interests of the organisation must actually be met, so that the cancellation of the initial process is based on a legitimate reason. In this matter as in any other, arbitrary decision-making is unacceptable.”
[...] In most of the rules of the international organizations which have accepted the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, competitions are a fundamental mechanism of the selection of international civil servants for positions within international organizations and their integrity must be protected. However, in the present case, the complainant had not been shortlisted because she did not have the requisite years of experience. Thus, she suffered no detriment as a result of the cancellation of the competition.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1223, 1771, 1982, 2075, 3647
Keywords:
competition; competition cancelled; organisation's interest;
Judgment 3263
116th Session, 2014
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The application for execution of Judgment 3032 was dismissed by the Tribunal.
Judgment keywords
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3032
Keywords:
application for execution; competition cancelled; complaint dismissed; counterclaim; refusal;
Judgment 3255
116th Session, 2014
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The Tribunal allowed the complaint and ordered the cancellation of the competition in which the complainant had applied.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
competition cancelled; complaint allowed; decision quashed; patere legem;
Judgment 3157
114th Session, 2013
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant successfully challenges the lawfulness of the selection process for a post for which he had unsuccessfully applied.
Considerations 9 and 11
Extract:
"[H]aving regard to the submissions [...], the Tribunal notes that the complainant was excluded from the technical evaluation on the grounds that he did not possess all the required qualifications, but that the [three] candidates shortlisted [...] did not possess them either. [...] [T]he complainant received unequal treatment when the shortlist was established. As the selection process is tainted with a flaw, the impugned decision must be set aside and the disputed appointment must be cancelled [...]. The Organization must shield the successful candidate from any injury that might result from the cancellation of his appointment, which he accepted in good faith."
Keywords:
appointment; breach; candidate; competition; competition cancelled; consequence; criteria; degree; equal treatment; good faith; grounds; internal competition; lack of injury; organisation's duties; procedural flaw;
Judgment 2884
108th Session, 2010
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 19
Extract:
"As the Internal Appeals Committee erred in law in finding that it was not necessary to include the use of an assessment centre in the vacancy notice, it follows that the President's decision endorsing this view involves an error of law. This error would ordinarily result in the impugned decision and the underlying selection procedure being set aside. However, having regard to the circumstances and the complainant's failure to demonstrate any link between the breach of the Service Regulations and the outcome of the process, the decision and the process will not be set aside. This should not be construed in any way as condoning the conduct of the EPO. In accordance with its power under Article VIII of the Statute, the Tribunal decides that the complainant is entitled to moral damages in the amount of 10,000 euros for the breach of the Service Regulations of the Office."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VIII of the Statute
Keywords:
breach; competition; competition cancelled; discretion; flaw; moral injury; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 2712
104th Session, 2008
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
The Organization appointed a candidate who did not meet one of the conditions stipulated in the vacancy announcement. "[I]t must be observed that the other applicants [...] were [...] eliminated improperly and that other potential candidates might have been dissuaded from applying because they did not meet the condition of having 15 years of experience as stipulated in the vacancy notice, though this was ultimately not applied to the successful candidate. Thus, the whole competition became a sham." The appointment of the successful candidate must therefore be set aside.
Keywords:
appointment; candidate; competition; competition cancelled; criteria; flaw; post; professional experience; refusal; vacancy notice;
Judgment 2116
92nd Session, 2002
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"The [organization] was cavalier in the way in which it informed [the complainant] of what was to become of the selection process. For the complainant it was particularly important that she be informed promptly whether she could expect to be appointed, so that she could start to look for another job if need be. She contends, and the [organization] does not demur, that she had the more reason to be optimistic as she had been told unofficially that of all the applicants, she stood the best chance of being appointed. In these circumstances, the [organization] ought to have [informed] her [...] that reclassification was a serious possibility for the post in question. But it did not [...] thereafter, when a decision was taken [...] to withdraw the vacancy announcement, the organization should have informed the candidates immediately. [...] The complainant was so informed in writing [...] nearly four months later. Even if [...] she was informed by telephone [...] written notification was nonetheless an obligation. The complainant's personal interests have undoubtedly been harmed and some redress for the material and moral injury she suffered is warranted [...]."
Keywords:
appointment; assignment; candidate; competition; competition cancelled; date of notification; delay; duty to inform; material damages; material injury; moral injury; organisation's duties; post; post classification; procedure before the tribunal; staff member's interest; time limit; vacancy notice;
Judgment 2060
91st Session, 2001
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"Candidates who apply for a post to be filled by competition, whatever their hopes of success may be, are entitled to have their applications considered in good faith and in keeping with the basic rules of fair competition. An organisation must be careful to abide by the rules on selection and when the process proves flawed, the Tribunal will quash any resulting appointment, albeit on the understanding that the organisation must 'shield' the successful candidate from any injury (see for example Judgments 1990 and 2020 and the others cited therein)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1990, 2020
Keywords:
appointment; candidate; case law; competition; competition cancelled; condition; due process; equal treatment; general principle; good faith; injury; international civil service principles; post; qualifications;
Judgment 1982
89th Session, 2000
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5(A)
Extract:
"Precedent has it that, in the interests of the organisation, a chief executive may interrupt a competition, even in order to change the requirements of the post (see Judgment 1771, [...] under 4(e), and the judgments cited therein). He may even decide not to proceed to any appointment or promotion if he concludes that none of the candidates meets the specified requirements (see Judgment 1771, under4(c))."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1771
Keywords:
appointment; candidate; case law; competition; competition cancelled; discontinuance; organisation's interest;
Judgment 1787
86th Session, 1999
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 10-11
Extract:
"The qualifications expected may be just 'desirable', not requirements binding in law. But the appointing authority is not free on that account [...] to disregard the fact that some do qualify and to plump for the very one who does not, even one who in other respects has the right experience and skills. [...] Here the Organization picked someone wanting in listed qualifications which, though said to be only 'desirable', were in fact essential. It thereby fell short of the standards of objectiveness and openness that must govern appointment to a senior post in an international organisation. The process of selection cannot stand [...]" (See Judgment 1595, under 10.)
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1595
Keywords:
appointment; candidate; competition; competition cancelled; condition; criteria; discretion; flaw; post; post description; procedure before the tribunal; professional experience; qualifications; vacancy notice;
Judgment 1560
81st Session, 1996
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
"The complainant asks the Organization to say how often it has stopped a competition in order to change the duties of the vacant post and regrade it. There is no need for evidence on that score since the issue is not decisive: if the procedure is lawful it is immaterial how often UNESCO may have followed it before".
Keywords:
competition; competition cancelled; disclosure of evidence; evidence; post; post classification; submissions;
Judgment 1477
80th Session, 1996
International Training Centre of the International Labour Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 12
Extract:
"As to the complainant's claim to token damages for moral injury this judgment affords a remedy for any such injury."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1359
Keywords:
compensation; competition; competition cancelled; flaw; judgment of the tribunal; moral injury; procedural flaw;
Consideration 10
Extract:
"When [a selection] process proves flawed the Tribunal will quash any decisions it engendered and order resumption with due heed to the rules, albeit on the understanding that the organisation must shield the successful candidate from any injury that else may flow from the quashing of an appointment accepted in good faith."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1359
Keywords:
appointment; competition; competition cancelled; flaw; injury; procedural flaw; staff member's interest;
Consideration 10
Extract:
"As the Tribunal held in Judgment 1359 [...], an organisation must be careful to abide by the rules on selection and appointment. When the process proves flawed the Tribunal will quash any decisions it engendered and order resumption with due heed to the rules".
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1359
Keywords:
appointment; case law; competition; competition cancelled; consequence; due process; flaw; procedural flaw; subsidiary;
Consideration 9
Extract:
"By letting [a special selection] panel draw up a short list and endorsing its conclusions without even seeing the candidates on that list or looking at their records the [Selection] Committee failed to observe its terms of reference under the Staff Regulations. [...] The process of selection was therefore unlawful".
Keywords:
competition; competition cancelled; due process; flaw; procedural flaw; selection board; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 1390
78th Session, 1995
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 15
Extract:
"Even supposing that the complainant applied only for transfer, the Tribunal's ruling in Judgment 1359 means - see under 5, 6 and 7 - that if an official applies for a transfer to a post to be filled by some other procedure he still has a legitimate interest, and any breach of that interest is liable to review and sanction."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1359
Keywords:
case law; cause of action; competition cancelled; internal candidate; judicial review; official; transfer;
Consideration 16
Extract:
"As for the application for a stay of proceedings, Article 10(3) of the Rules says that 'the Tribunal [...] shall rule on an application by either party for a stay of proceedings'". The Tribunal holds that no stay of proceedings is warranted in this case. Whatever changes may be made in the procedure for filling vacant posts, the complaint must be reviewed in the light of the rules in force at the material time. Once the proceedings have begun, the Tribunal is bound to reach a decision as promptly as possible and will not stay the proceedings pending possible changes in the rules."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE 10(3) OF THE RULES
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; applicable law; closure of written proceedings; competition cancelled; iloat statute; order of suspension; procedure before the tribunal; refusal; staff regulations and rules; submissions;
Consideration 24
Extract:
"To what extent must an administration substantiate its decisions? The answer is that it depends on the sort of decision that is to be substantiated. In the present case a distinction must be drawn between the rejection of an external application, particularly where a competition has attracted many candidates, and the rejection of an application by a serving official. In the latter case the organisation has a duty to maintain the relations of trust it has with the staff member, and although it must remain free to choose how it will notify the reasons to him it must be wary of damaging his career prospects."
Keywords:
appointment; candidate; competition; competition cancelled; discretion; duty to substantiate decision; internal candidate; organisation's duties; purport; refusal; staff member's interest;
Consideration 27
Extract:
Article 15 of Annex 1 to the Eurocontrol Convention says that "the Agency shall be empowered to recruit personnel directly only if the contracting parties are unable to make qualified personnel available to it". The Tribunal holds that the provision "limits the organisation's freedom to recruit by giving priority to candidates prescribed by the contracting parties over 'outside' candidates, but it puts no restrictions on the organisation's freedom to assess the suitability of applicants, wherever they may come from, nor its right to give serving staff a reasonable opportunity of advancement provided that they are as well qualified as other candidates."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ARTICLE 15 OF ANNEX 1 TO THE EUROCONTROL CONVENTION
Keywords:
appointment; candidate; career; competition; competition cancelled; discretion; equal treatment; internal candidate; international instrument; interpretation; legitimate expectation; member state; official; priority; promotion; qualifications;
Consideration 27
Extract:
The organisation argues that the International Court of Justice in an opinion it delivered on 23 October 1956 "recognised that the internal practices of international organisations may have force of law (Digest 1956, p. 18). But those practices must be lawful and must not offend, as they do in the present case, against the internal law of an organisation or the principles of due administrative process."
Keywords:
advisory opinion of icj; case law; competition cancelled; due process; icj; practice; staff regulations and rules; written rule;
Judgment 1331
76th Session, 1994
Pan American Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 13
Extract:
"On account of the undue delay in the selection process [i.e. some ten months between the issue of the vacancy notice and the meeting of the Selection Committee] the Tribunal awards the complainant damages for moral injury in a sum of 1,000 United States dollars."
Keywords:
administrative delay; competition; competition cancelled; delay; due process; moral injury; procedure before the tribunal; selection board; vacancy notice;
Judgment 1316
76th Session, 1994
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
The EPO submits that unless the complainant shows that he had a genuine chance of gaining appointment to a post put up for competition he may not challenge the appointment procedure. It therefore alleges that the decision he is impugning has caused him no injury. "The plea is mistaken. The material question is whether the complainant's rights as a candidate for the post were infringed. [...] The EPO included the complainant in the list of applicants eligible for consideration by the Selection Board and thereby accepted his candidature. So it may not now contend that he had no interest in the outcome of the procedure and has no right to challenge it."
Keywords:
candidate; cause of action; competition; competition cancelled; decision; organisation's duties; selection board;
Judgment 1315
76th Session, 1994
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
The Tribunal quashes the results of a competition because the appointment procedure was tainted with bias. This entails the quashing of the appointment of an external candidate. "The Tribunal expects that the President will take such measures as will ensure that [the external candidate], who accepted the [appointment] in good faith, suffers no material injury."
Keywords:
abuse of power; appointment; bias; competition; competition cancelled; flaw; good faith; misuse of authority; open competition; organisation's duties;
1, 2 | next >
|
|
|
|
|
