Selection procedure (660,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Selection procedure
Total judgments found: 113
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 | 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 6
Extract:
As the Tribunal has repeatedly stated, officials are expected to know the rules and regulations to which they are subject (see, for example, Judgment 4673, consideration 16, and the case law cited therein). This principle clearly includes any matters particular to their personal situation. It was the complainant’s choice to apply for the post in respect of which he was awarded the promotion in question and it was up to him to assess the advantages and disadvantages thereof beforehand.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4673
Keywords:
candidate; duty to be informed; duty to know the rules; ignorance of the rules; selection procedure;
Judgment 4735
136th Session, 2023
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, a former staff member of IOM at its Country Office in Afghanistan, asserts that a position which was readvertised after its temporary abolition should be assigned to him.
Consideration 4
Extract:
The Tribunal notes that, at the time when he filed his complaint, the complainant was a former official of IOM. Although the Tribunal is open to former officials of international organizations recognising its competence, a complaint filed by a former official must, like any other complaint, invoke non-observance, in substance or in form, of the terms of the complainant’s appointment and/or of provisions of the Staff Regulations, as required by Article II, paragraph 5, of the Tribunal’s Statute (see, for example, Judgments 4201, consideration 3, 2333, consideration 8, and 1105, consideration 2). In this case, however, the complainant relies on an alleged “right” to recruitment arising out of his former employment which does not exist in any form whatsoever. Moreover, he does not put forward any arguments deriving from a breach of his former contract (see, for a similar case, Judgment 1941, consideration 6). The Tribunal is therefore not competent, under Article II of its Statute, to hear this complaint.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1105, 1941, 2333, 4201
Keywords:
cause of action; former official; selection procedure;
Judgment 4702
136th Session, 2023
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to appoint Mr K. to a position for which the complainant did not apply.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; selection procedure;
Consideration 3
Extract:
As found by the Tribunal in another case by the same complainant, “[t]he Tribunal has stated, in consideration 2 of Judgment 3449, that ‘[a]ny employee of an international organisation who is eligible for a post may challenge an appointment to that post, regardless of his or her chances of successful appointment to it (see Judgment 2959, under 3). In order to be entitled to take such action, however, he or she must have applied for the post or, failing that, must have been prevented from doing so through no fault of his or her own.’” (see Judgment 4520, consideration 6). As the complainant, who did not apply for the contested post, provides no evidence that he was prevented from doing so through no fault of his own, he lacks a cause of action. The complaint must therefore be dismissed.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2959, 3449, 4520
Keywords:
cause of action; selection procedure;
Judgment 4688
136th Session, 2023
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to select her for a developmental assignment.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; selection procedure;
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 4683
136th Session, 2023
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests her non-selection to a post.
Consideration 12
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal’s case law states that the duty to state the reasons for the choice does not mean that they must be notified at the same time as the decision. These reasons may be disclosed at a later date, for example in the context of appeal proceedings (see Judgments 4467, consideration 7, and 2978, consideration 4).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2978, 4467
Keywords:
motivation; selection procedure;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; selection procedure;
Consideration 6
Extract:
As regards the complainant’s reliance on acquired rights, consistent case law has it that “a staff member has no entitlement or right to be selected for a contested post. The Director-General’s decision to order a new selection process for the subject post was entirely within her discretionary authority” (see Judgment 4100, consideration 5). The complainant, regardless of the roster’s validity, had no acquired right to be directly appointed.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4100
Keywords:
acquired right; selection procedure;
Judgment 4677
136th Session, 2023
World Trade Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to select him to positions advertised internally.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; selection procedure;
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 4623
135th Session, 2023
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the lawfulness of a selection procedure and seeks its cancellation.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; selection procedure;
Consideration 2
Extract:
The basic principles are well settled in the Tribunal’s case law, where a decision such as this is challenged, as explained in Judgment 3652, consideration 7 […].
A complainant is required to demonstrate that there was a serious defect in the selection process which impacted on the consideration and assessment of her or his candidacy. It is not enough simply to assert that one is better qualified than the selected candidate (see Judgment 3669, consideration 4).
However, when an organisation conducts a competition to fill a post, the process must accord with the relevant rules and the case law (see Judgment 1549, considerations 11 and 13, and the case law cited therein).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1549, 3652, 3669
Keywords:
selection procedure;
Judgment 4619
135th Session, 2023
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to place her on a roster.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; complaint allowed; roster; selection procedure;
Consideration 8
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal considers it useful to reiterate that, under their terms of appointment and the applicable staff rules in an international organisation, all staff members who apply to be placed on a roster with a view to future appointment to a vacant post are entitled to have their applications considered in good faith and in keeping with the basic rules of fair and open competition (see, by analogy, Judgment 4524, consideration 8, and the case law cited therein). The Organization is therefore wrong to contend that the complainant’s challenge to the decision not to place her on a roster in compliance with the Organization’s guidelines on creating and maintaining rosters is not based on her terms of appointment or staff rules.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4524
Keywords:
cause of action; contract; roster; selection procedure;
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 6
Extract:
Under the Tribunal’s settled case law in this area, a decision not to appoint an official of an international organisation to a post is in fact a decision that may be challenged in an internal appeal and ultimately before the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgments 4408, consideration 2, 4293, consideration 9, 4252, consideration 4, and 1204, consideration 6).
While the Secretary General also referred in his decision to the broad discretion enjoyed by an international organisation’s executive head in a selection procedure, that issue, which relates to the review of the merits of decisions taken in this area, has no bearing on the receivability of appeals directed against those decisions.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1204, 4252, 4293, 4408
Keywords:
administrative decision; discretion; internal appeal; selection procedure;
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 4589
135th Session, 2023
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the recruitment process for the position of Staff Council Coordinator and her non-selection for that position.
Consideration 4
Extract:
Consistent case law, stated for example in Judgments 4001, consideration 4, and 4467, consideration 2, has it that a person who challenges the selection of a candidate for a post must demonstrate that there was a serious defect in the selection process. As the selection of candidates is necessarily based on merit and requires a high degree of judgement on the part of those involved in the selection process, 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. However, when an organisation conducts a competition to fill a post the process must comply with the relevant rules and the Tribunal’s case law. When an organisation wants to fill a post by competition it must comply with the material rules and the general precepts of the case law, as the purpose of competition is to let everyone who wants a post compete for it equally. The Tribunal’s case law therefore demands scrupulous compliance with the rules announced beforehand.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4001, 4467
Keywords:
selection procedure;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; selection procedure;
Consideration 8
Extract:
Under the Tribunal’s case law, the absence of a desired qualification does not disqualify a candidate from being selected to fill a post (see, for example, Judgment 4467, consideration 13).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4467
Keywords:
qualifications; 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;
Consideration 11
Extract:
[T]he assessment of candidates in a selection procedure is independent of any assessment that might have been made in previous competitions [...].
Keywords:
selection procedure;
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;
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.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; selection procedure;
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;
Consideration 3
Extract:
The Tribunal considers [...] that the fact that a candidate has already been shortlisted in a previous selection procedure for the same post does not of itself imply that the candidate should necessarily be shortlisted in a subsequent selection procedure for the same post. The candidate’s career progression between the two selection procedures, the organisation’s evolving needs and changes in its approach to selecting management staff, and the fact that the candidates applying are not necessarily the same, are all factors that, taken individually or considered in combination, might explain why a candidate who was shortlisted in the first procedure is not in a subsequent one.
Keywords:
selection procedure;
Consideration 3
Extract:
[T]he complainant’s assertion that it is incomprehensible why an application from an external candidate was shortlisted whereas an application from an internal candidate is obviously stronger and ought therefore to have received the EPO’s special consideration, is based on circular reasoning, not on any tangible evidence submitted by the complainant.
Keywords:
external candidate; internal candidate; selection procedure;
Consideration 9
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal considers that, when an initial selection procedure is unsuccessful owing to a lack of suitable applications, it is for the competent authority to decide if a new selection procedure must be initiated and, if so, which of the procedures provided for in the applicable rules is to be used (see, to this effect, Judgments 1223, consideration 31, 1771, consideration 4(e), 1982, consideration 5(a), 2075, consideration 3, and 3647, consideration 9).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1223, 1771, 1982, 2075, 3647
Keywords:
criteria; selection procedure; vacancy notice;
Judgment 4529
134th Session, 2022
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests WHO’s decision to select Ms V. for the post of Proofreader (Spanish), at grade G-4, in WHO’s Headquarters’ Word Processing Centre.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; selection procedure;
Consideration 4
Extract:
According to the Tribunal’s well-established case law, in matters of appointment through competition the Tribunal has limited power to review a contested selection, as explained, for instance, in Judgment 3652, consideration 7 […].
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3652
Keywords:
role of the tribunal; selection procedure;
Consideration 10
Extract:
[P]ersons already in the service of the Organization have priority only if their qualifications appear to be equal to those of other candidates (see, for example, Judgment 1954, consideration 7). In Judgment 3652, consideration 12, the Tribunal also recalled that:
“Similarly, it was stated in Judgment 2392, under 9:
‘It is well settled that preferences such as those mentioned [i.e. by reason of being an internal candidate and by reason of gender] must be given effect to where the choice has to be made between candidates who are evenly matched. On the other hand, they have no role to play where there is a significant and relevant difference between the candidates. [...]’”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1954, 2392, 3652
Keywords:
criteria; internal candidate; 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 15
Extract:
The complainant provides no persuasive evidence to prove that the decision to appoint the selected candidate was taken in bad faith or for an improper purpose (see, for example, Judgments 4261, consideration 10, and 4345, consideration 6).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4261, 4345
Keywords:
abuse of power; selection procedure;
Consideration 6
Extract:
[T]he duty to produce documents does not extend to confidential interview reports (see, for example, Judgments 3032, consideration 11, and 4023, consideration 8).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3032, 4023
Keywords:
confidentiality; disclosure of evidence; selection procedure;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; selection procedure;
Consideration 10
Extract:
[I]t is recalled that according to the case law, an international organisation which decides to hold a competition in order to fill a post cannot select a candidate who does not satisfy one of the required qualifications specified in the vacancy notice. Such conduct, which is tantamount to modifying the criteria for appointment to the post during the selection process, incurs the Tribunal’s censure on two counts. Firstly, it violates the principle of tu patere legem quam ipse fecisti, which forbids the Administration to ignore the rules it has itself defined. In this respect, a modification of the applicable criteria during the selection procedure more generally undermines the requirements of mutual trust and fairness which international organisations have a duty to observe in their relations with their staff. Secondly, the appointment body’s alteration, after the procedure had begun, of the qualifications which were initially required in order to obtain the post, introduces a serious flaw into the selection process with respect to the principle of equal opportunity among candidates. Irrespective of the reasons for such action, it inevitably erodes the safeguards of objectivity and transparency which must be provided in order to comply with this essential principle, breach of which vitiates any appointment based on a competition (see Judgment 3073, consideration 4).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3073
Keywords:
criteria; patere legem; qualifications; selection procedure;
Consideration 14
Extract:
These arguments [against the use of a video interview assessment tool] are unmeritorious and accordingly rejected as neither the rules or case law prohibit the use of electronic assessment tools, which, as the OIOS noted, was not a substitute for the interview but was used in the pre-screening stage (rather than for the interview) to determine whether the candidates satisfy the requirement for the post and can proceed to the interview. Moreover, all of the candidates were subjected to it.
Keywords:
selection procedure;
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;
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 | next >
|
