|
|
 |
|
|
Selection board (303,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Selection board
Total judgments found: 56
1, 2, 3 | next >
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 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 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;
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;
Consideration 12
Extract:
[T]he fact that Mr G. participated with others in the selection process does not excuse his participation if there was a possibility, as plainly there was, particularly given his role as chair of the panel, for him influencing the decision-making of others. Additionally, the Director-General appears to have been suggesting that it was incumbent upon the complainant to “show prejudice, discrimination, lack of integrity or partiality on the part of [Mr G.]”. The conclusion of the Committee was based on the fact, as in the circumstances it could be, that a complaint of harassment against Mr G. had been lodged and was being processed and the [Organization] does not deny that Mr G. was aware of this. It was wrong of the Director-General to call in aid the fact that the [Office of the Inspector-General] had subsequently “found no credible case of harassment”. That is so for one and possibly two reasons. The outcome of the [Office of the Inspector-General]’s consideration of the grievance was not known at the time of Mr G.’s participation in the selection process. Thus, the assessment of a “reasonable person” that would not exclude partiality is to be based on known facts at the time, namely the time of the interviews. Moreover, the conclusion of the [Office of the Inspector-General] manifest in a Notice of Closure of 27 October 2017 was reached unlawfully as discussed in Judgment 4691.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4691
Keywords:
conflict of interest; selection board;
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.
Consideration 10
Extract:
[T]he complainant [...] alleges that there was a conflict of interest affecting one of the members of the Selection Board, as that member was the supervisor of one candidate.
The Tribunal recalls that a lack of impartiality, a bias or a conflict of interest on the part of members of a collegiate body such as a selection board may not be presumed. Any allegation of such matters must therefore be supported by tangible evidence (see, inter alia, Judgments 4451, consideration 16, 4408, consideration 22, and 3438, consideration 8). The mere fact, relied on in the present case, that the supervisor of one candidate was a member of the Selection Board cannot, in itself, be regarded as constituting a conflict of interest. In addition, since the complainant merely makes generalised assertions without adducing any tangible or specific evidence to establish the existence of a conflict of interest on the part of the member of the Selection Board in question, those assertions must be rejected.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3438, 4408, 4451
Keywords:
conflict of interest; impartiality; personal prejudice; selection board;
Judgment 4566
134th Session, 2022
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges a selection procedure for which he was a member of the Selection Board.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
cause of action; complaint dismissed; locus standi; member of an internal body; selection board; selection procedure; staff representative;
Consideration 3
Extract:
[T]he complainant lacks locus standi in his capacity as a staff representative for the reasons given by the Tribunal in its case law (see Judgment 3642, considerations 8 to 14). Secondly, he lacks locus standi in his capacity as a member of the Selection Board. In Judgment 4317, consideration 4, the Tribunal relevantly stated as follows:
“[...] the Tribunal adopted Judgment 3557, in a summary procedure, where it found that it was clear that the complainant, who was likewise acting in his capacity as a member of a Selection Board, did not have standing to challenge the outcome of the selection procedure. The same reasoning must be applied in the present case as ‘[the complainant] does not specifically allege any non-observance of his terms of appointment as required by Article II, paragraph 5, of the Tribunal’s Statute’.
As a matter of general principle, a complainant must, in order to raise a cause of action, allege and demonstrate arguably that the impugned administrative decision caused injury to her or him or was liable to cause injury (see, for example, Judgments 3921, consideration 6, and 3168, consideration 9). In accordance with this case law, a member of a board within an international organization, acting in this capacity, may only raise with the Tribunal the defects that have affected her or his prerogatives as a member of the board as defined by the internal provisions (see above-mentioned Judgment 3921, consideration 9). In the present case, the complainant does not specifically allege any non-observance of his terms of appointment or of board-related internal provisions.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3168, 3557, 3642, 3921, 4317
Keywords:
locus standi; member of an internal body; selection board; staff representative;
Judgment 4023
126th Session, 2018
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the validity of a competition procedure in which he participated and the lawfulness of the ensuing appointment.
Considerations 5-8
Extract:
Preliminarily to examining the other grounds relied on by the complainant, however, the Tribunal will consider his request for the disclosure of the competition documents without any redactions. According to the case law, a staff member must, as a general rule, have access to all evidence on which the authority bases or intends to base its decision against him, and, under normal circumstances, such evidence cannot be withheld on grounds of confidentiality. It follows that a decision cannot be based on a material document that has been withheld from the concerned staff member. The Tribunal has consistently affirmed the confidentiality of the records of the discussions regarding the merits of the applicants for a post. However, this does not extend to the reports regarding the results of the selection process with appropriate redactions to ensure the confidentiality of third parties (see Judgment 3272, considerations 14 and 15, and the case law cited therein, as well as Judgment 3077, consideration 4). [...]
The IAEA did not disclose to the complainant the evaluator’s notes from the testing process and the related candidates’ identification keys. It considered that, on the basis of Judgment 3272, the discussions of the members of the selection panel concerning the relative merits of the candidates should remain confidential. The Tribunal agrees with this last contention and further determines that the other documents were not inappropriately redacted. Therefore, it will not order the disclosure of the transcripts of the interviews in these proceedings. The request for disclosure is dismissed.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3077, 3272
Keywords:
confidential evidence; disclosure of evidence; selection board; selection procedure;
Judgment 3557
120th Session, 2015
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: As the complaint is clearly irreceivable, it is summarily dismissed.
Consideration 3
Extract:
"It is obvious that the complainant does not have standing to submit such a claim. He does not specifically allege any non-observance of his terms of appointment as required by Article II, paragraph 5, of the Tribunal’s Statute. While in certain circumstances staff representatives may challenge the appointment of another official, in so doing they must allege a breach of their own individual rights, which might include, for example, the right to be consulted (see, for example, Judgments 2236, under 4, and 3449, under 4) or the right to compete for the post (see, for example, Judgment 2755, under 6). In the present case, the complainant does not clearly articulate any violation of his rights as a member of the selection board."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2236, 2755, 3449
Keywords:
cause of action; locus standi; selection board; staff representative;
Judgment 3513
120th Session, 2015
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants contest a circular concerning the use of assessment centres by the EPO in the selection and appointment of staff.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
appointment; complaint dismissed; joinder; selection board;
Judgment 3422
119th Session, 2015
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The Tribunal found that the Global Fund breached its duty of care towards the complainant and that his separation entitlements were not sufficient.
Consideration 12
Extract:
[The complainant submits that] the composition of the selection panel was flawed. One member of the panel was a person who had been two levels below him in the administrative hierarchy and the complainant had sided with this person’s first level supervisor in not increasing her performance rating. She was thus, the complainant submits, “in a conflicted position”. The complainant also points to the fact that the majority of the members of the selection panel were more junior than him and not able to effectively evaluate his qualifications, experience and performance. Also, changes were made to the recruitment panel which he had not been afforded the opportunity to challenge. Several other specific complaints were made by the complainant about the selection process. However what the complainant singularly fails to do is demonstrate that it is probable some or a number of members
of the selection panel were biased against him or that the panel or selection process was otherwise flawed.
Keywords:
bias; burden of proof; composition of the internal appeals body; flaw; selection board;
Judgment 3421
119th Session, 2015
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant successfully challenges the rejection of his application in a selection process.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; decision quashed; flaw; selection board;
Judgment 3412
119th Session, 2015
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant unsuccessfully challenges an appointment to a position for which he had applied, claiming discrimination.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
appointment; selection board;
Judgment 3272
116th Session, 2014
Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant successfully challenges the decision not to appoint her to a vacant post due to procedural flaw and violation of her right to due process.
Consideration 15
Extract:
"The Tribunal has consistently affirmed the confidentiality of the records of the discussions regarding the merits of the applicants for a post. However, this does not extend to the reports regarding the results of the selection process with appropriate redactions to ensure the confidentiality of third parties."
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; confidential evidence; disclosure of evidence; due process; duty to inform; organisation's duties; procedural flaw; right to be heard; selection board; selection procedure;
Judgment 3214
115th Session, 2013
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant unsuccessfully impugns the decision not to extend his appointment beyond retirement age.
Consideration 22
Extract:
The complainant, who requested the extension of his appointment beyond normal retirement age, claims that he was not informed of the names of the members of the Selection Committee.
"In the instant case, while the Organisation does not dispute the fact that it did not advise the complainant of the names of the Committee members, he does not say that he asked for this information, although he had every opportunity to do so during the proceedings, in particular when he received the invitation to his interview with that body. Since he did not seek to assert that right, he may not submit that the [Organisation], which was not obliged to supply him with the information in question of its own accord, denied him the possibility of exercising it."
Keywords:
age limit; composition of the internal appeals body; discretion; extension beyond retirement age; request by a party; retirement; right; selection board;
Consideration 24
Extract:
The complainant, who requested the extension of his appointment beyond normal retirement age, takes the Organisation to task for not sending him the Selection Committee’s opinion or the minutes of its deliberations showing its proposal.
"The Tribunal’s case law has it that, as a general rule, a staff member must have access to all evidence on which the competent authority bases its decisions concerning him or her, especially the opinion issued by such an advisory organ. A document of that nature may be withheld on grounds of confidentiality from a third person but not from the person concerned (see, for example, Judgments 2229, under 3(b), or 2700, under 6).
[T]he Tribunal observes that the complainant does not say that he asked for the document in question. While the Organisation could not lawfully have refused to grant such a request, it was under no obligation to forward the document of its own accord (see Judgment 2944, under 42). The position would have been different only if – as is not the case here – the reasons given by the competent authority for its decision had been confined to a mere reference to the advisory body’s opinion."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2229, 2700, 2944
Keywords:
advisory body; advisory opinion; age limit; communication to third party; confidential evidence; decision; disclosure of evidence; discretion; duty to inform; exception; extension beyond retirement age; general principle; grounds; official; organisation's duties; proposal; refusal; request by a party; retirement; right; selection board;
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 3077
112th Session, 2012
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
The complainant takes the Board to task for having violated the adversarial principle by not giving him access to the competition file, or by not even being prepared to discuss whether the file was so confidential that all or part of it had to be kept secret.
The Board’s procedure is governed by Annex IV to the Staff Regulations, paragraph 20 of which provides that “[a]ll proceedings of the Board are confidential” and that “[a]ny breach of confidentiality shall be considered serious misconduct”. In [...] Judgment 3032 the Tribunal held that the Board’s in camera consultation of a competition file did not constitute a procedural flaw warranting the quashing of the impugned decision. A candidate in a competition is not in fact entitled to consult the records of the Selection Board’s deliberations or to know the identity of the other candidates who have been eliminated (see Judgments 556, under 4(b), and 2142, under 16 and 17). In the instant case it is necessary to abide by this rule of confidentiality, the purpose of which is to protect both the general interest, thereby ensuring the Organization’s proper functioning, and the candidates’ privacy. The complainant, who was able to obtain all the relevant information from the responsible chief and to express his opinion thereon, also had an opportunity to comment as he wished on the ILO’s substantive arguments during the internal appeal procedure.
It follows that this plea must [...] be dismissed.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 556, 2142, 3032
Keywords:
disclosure of evidence; selection board; selection procedure;
Judgment 3052
112th Session, 2012
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; composition of the internal appeals body; selection board; selection procedure;
Judgment 3032
111th Session, 2011
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
"According to the Tribunal's case law, as reflected, inter alia, in Judgments 556, under 4(b), and 2142 under 16 and 17, a candidate is not entitled to consult any record there may be of a discussion by the selection board or to know the identity of all the candidates who were eliminated."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 556, 2142
Keywords:
candidate; communication to third party; competition; disclosure of evidence; right; selection board; selection procedure;
Judgment 2835
107th Session, 2009
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 6-7
Extract:
"The complainant takes issue with the composition of the Selection Board. [...] He relies on Judgment 1549, under 12, where the Tribunal stated that «[...] after the process of selection has begun the terms of competition may not be changed [...]»."
"The Tribunal rejects this argument. First, the complainant's reliance on Judgment 1549 is misplaced. While the cited passage does refer to a selection decision, the composition of the Selection Board is not one of the «terms of competition»."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1549
Keywords:
competition; composition of the internal appeals body; due process; selection board;
Judgment 2834
107th Session, 2009
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 13
Extract:
"While a candidate is entitled to know the reasons for the rejection of his own candidacy, this does not extend to access to the Selection Board's consideration of the merits of other candidates."
Keywords:
candidate; duty of discretion; duty to substantiate decision; limits; organisation's duties; selection board;
1, 2, 3 | next >
|
|
|
|
|
