ILO is a specialized agency of the United Nations
ILO-en-strap
Site Map | Contact français
> Home > Triblex: case-law database > By thesaurus keyword

Appointment (293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299, 300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 661, 660, 686,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Appointment
Total judgments found: 204

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 | next >

  • 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 3

    Extract:

    [T]he Tribunal’s case law [...] establishes that the executive head of an organisation has wide discretion in appointing or promoting staff and, therefore, the decisions that she or he takes in this area are subject to only limited review by the Tribunal. Thus, the Tribunal will only interfere in such a decision if it was taken without authority or in breach of a rule of form or procedure, if it was based on a mistake of fact or law, if an essential fact was overlooked, if a clearly wrong conclusion was drawn from the evidence or if there was abuse of authority (see, for example, Judgments 4552, consideration 2, 4451, consideration 6, and 3742, consideration 3). This case law also applies in the particular situation where, as in the present case, the object of the contested decision is to determine whether it is appropriate to rescind the award of a promotion to a staff member who now feels dissatisfied with it. In this regard, the complainant is, in reality, simply asking the Tribunal to replace the Secretary-General’s assessment by its own assessment of whether or not the promotion he received should be rescinded, which misconstrues the limited power of review of the Tribunal in such a case.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3742, 4451, 4552

    Keywords:

    appointment; discretion; judicial review; promotion;



  • 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 4769


    137th Session, 2024
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant impugns what he refers to as decisions concerning Eurocontrol Agency’s reorganisation, and his transfer following that reorganisation.

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    As regards the memorandum [...] which the complainant describes as a general decision, the Tribunal observes that it is in fact a collective decision making various individual appointments against the backdrop of the planned restructuring to ensure that management functioned smoothly during a transition period before recruitment procedures were initiated or final appointment decisions adopted. However, even supposing that the complainant had a cause of action in challenging these appointments, he stated in his internal complaint of 20 September 2019 that he did not seek to cause injury to his colleagues appointed and that he therefore remained at the Organisation’s disposal to discuss possible alternatives to cancelling the decision not to appoint him and to appoint his colleagues. The complainant did not request that one or more recruitment procedures be initiated for these various positions, nor did he later challenge his colleagues’ final individual appointments by the Organisation on 12 November 2019. It follows that his request for the memorandum of 5 July 2019 to be set aside is lacking in substance in any event and is therefore irreceivable as being moot.

    Keywords:

    appointment; cause of action; claim moot; general decision; individual decision;



  • Judgment 4738


    137th Session, 2024
    Energy Charter Conference
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to consider him not eligible for the appointment of Secretary-General of the Energy Charter Secretariat for a mandate starting in January 2022.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    appointment; complaint dismissed; executive head;



  • Judgment 4737


    137th Session, 2024
    Energy Charter Conference
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant, who was the Secretary-General of the Energy Charter Secretariat, challenges the decision not to launch the procedure for his reappointment as Secretary-General.

    Consideration 13

    Extract:

    It is true that the terms on which [the complainant] was initially appointed expressly, in his letter of appointment, recognised his right to have protected any acquired right. But the relevant question is whether a right to repeatedly reapply for the position was an acquired right which could not be altered. The Tribunal’s case law recognises that international civil servants’ conditions of employment existing at the time of recruitment are not immutable and need not, of necessity, be applied to them throughout their careers (see, for example, Judgment 4465, considerations 5 to 8). The Tribunal is not satisfied that an unconstrained right to reapply for the position of Secretary-General meets the criteria of an acquired right identified in, for example, Judgment 4195, consideration 7.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 4195, 4465

    Keywords:

    acquired right; appointment; executive head;

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    [T]he organisation [contends] that the decision not to launch the reappointment procedure, which was made by the Conference, was a bare political decision that is not open to judicial review. But the Tribunal notes that the decision was not entirely political but indirectly raised the question of the application of the conditions in the rules for appointment of the Secretary-General and had a direct legal adverse effect on the complainant, an international civil servant. The observations of the Tribunal in Judgment 2232, consideration 10, are apt to apply:
    ‘a decision terminating the appointment of an international civil servant prior to the expiry of his/her term of office is an administrative decision, even if it is based on political considerations. The fact that it emanates from the Organisation's highest decision-making body cannot exempt it from the necessary review applying to all individual decisions which are alleged to be in breach of the terms of an appointment or contract, or of statutory provisions’.

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2232

    Keywords:

    administrative decision; appointment; competence of tribunal; executive head;

    Consideration 11

    Extract:

    The limitation on reapplication [to the position of Secretary-General] was to operate in the future and, in terms, was to operate on the “serving” Secretary-General. Thus, it was, in terms, to apply in the future to anyone with that status. While the complainant acquired that status (by way of reappointment) on the same day the amendment took legal effect, the amendment creating the limitation on reapplying could and would, on its face, apply at the expiration of the term of the complainant’s reappointment. It is the combined effect of the historical fact that the complainant had been reappointed once to the position in 2016, effective 1 January 2017, together with his status as Secretary-General after the amendment came into effect, that engaged the amendment.
    Moreover, the purpose of the amendment is clear. It was to eliminate the possibility that a serving Secretary-General could, by repeated reappointments flowing from repeated reapplications, remain in the position for a very lengthy period of time. Its purpose was to ensure finite periods of occupation of the position rather than open-ended periods.

    Keywords:

    appointment; executive head; retroactivity;

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    administrative decision; appointment; complaint dismissed; executive head; official; plenary judgment;



  • Judgment 4698


    136th Session, 2023
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant seeks reinstatement in a post to which he had been appointed and requests payment of the corresponding function allowance.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    appointment; complaint allowed; withdrawal of decision;



  • 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 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 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.

    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 4552


    134th Session, 2022
    European Patent Organisation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to select him for the post of director of the Language Service.

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    [T]he Tribunal recalls its case law under which an organisation has wide discretion in appointing or promoting staff. Such a decision is therefore subject to only limited review by the Tribunal, which will interfere only if the decision was taken without authority, 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, if a rule of form or procedure was breached or if there was abuse of authority (see, in particular, Judgments 2060, consideration 4, 2457, consideration 6, 2834, consideration 7, and 4019, consideration 2).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2060, 2457, 2834, 4019

    Keywords:

    appointment; discretion; role of the tribunal; selection procedure;



  • Judgment 4524


    134th Session, 2022
    International Atomic Energy Agency
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to appoint, as a development reassignment, Ms V.M. to the post of Client Relationship Manager.

    Consideration 8

    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 and is subject to only limited review. Such a decision 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. 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. That is a right which every applicant must enjoy, whatever her or his hope of success may be. An organisation must abide by the rules and the general precepts of the case law on selection, and, when the process proves to be flawed, the Tribunal can quash any resulting appointment, albeit on the understanding that the organisation 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. A complainant must demonstrate that there was a serious defect in the selection process which impacted on the consideration and assessment of her or his candidature. It is not enough simply to assert that one is better qualified than the selected candidate (see, for example, Judgments 4023, consideration 2, and 3669, consideration 4).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 3669, 4023

    Keywords:

    appointment; discretion; role of the tribunal; selection procedure;



  • Judgment 4472


    133rd Session, 2022
    European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to appoint an official to his former post.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    appointment; complaint dismissed; selection procedure; transfer;



  • Judgment 4412


    132nd Session, 2021
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions not to renew her short-term appointment beyond 31 March 2016 and not to select her for a G-3 position advertised through a vacancy announcement.

    Consideration 7

    Extract:

    The Tribunal has consistently held that the appointment by an international organisation of a candidate to a position is a decision that lies within the discretion of its executive head. It is subject only to limited review and may be set aside only if it was taken without authority, or in breach of a rule of form or 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. This formulation is intended to highlight the need for a complainant to demonstrate that there was a serious defect in the selection process which impacted on the consideration and assessment of her or his candidature (see, for example, Judgment 4023, consideration 2).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 4023

    Keywords:

    appointment; discretion; judicial review; 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.

    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 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.

    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;



  • Judgment 4153


    128th Session, 2019
    International Telecommunication Union
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the lawfulness of a competition procedure in which she participated and of the appointment made at the end of that procedure.

    Consideration 2

    Extract:

    According to the Tribunal’s case law, the decision of an international organisation to make an appointment is 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 law or fact, or if some material fact was overlooked, or if there was an abuse of authority, or if a clearly wrong conclusion was drawn from the evidence (see Judgment 3537, consideration 10). 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. That is a right that every applicant must enjoy, whatever her or his hopes of success may be (see, inter alia, Judgment 2163, consideration 1, and the case law cited therein, as well as Judgment 3209, consideration 11). The case law also establishes that an organisation must be careful to abide by the rules on selection and, when the process proves to be flawed, the Tribunal will quash any resulting appointment, albeit on the understanding that the organisation must shield the successful candidate from any injury that may result from the setting aside of an appointment he accepted in good faith (see, for example, Judgment 3130, considerations 10 and 11).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 2163, 3130, 3209, 3537

    Keywords:

    appointment; discretion; judicial review; selection procedure;



  • 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.

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    [A] staff member has no entitlement or right to be selected for a contested post.

    Keywords:

    appointment; selection procedure;

    Consideration 5

    Extract:

    [I]t is well settled that the Tribunal “may not replace the Organisation’s assessment of the applicants with its own and order any particular appointment” (Judgment 1595, under 4).

    Reference(s)

    ILOAT Judgment(s): 1595

    Keywords:

    appointment; competence of tribunal; selection procedure;



  • Judgment 4087


    127th Session, 2019
    World Intellectual Property Organization
    Extracts: EN, FR
    Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
    Summary: The complainant challenges the validity of a competition procedure in which he took part and the lawfulness of the ensuing appointment.

    Judgment keywords

    Keywords:

    appointment; complaint dismissed; selection procedure;

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 | next >


 
Last updated: 07.03.2024 ^ top