Selection procedure (660,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Selection procedure
Total judgments found: 113
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 | next >
Judgment 4214
129th Session, 2020
Energy Charter Conference
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant filed an application for execution of Judgment 4008.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
application for execution; cause of action; complaint dismissed; selection procedure;
Consideration 5
Extract:
[T]je complainant, being no longer a staff member, could not have applied in response to a new vacancy notice of the same kind [an "internal selection procedure]. Accordingly, by refraining from publishing such a notice and starting a new recruitment procedure, the organisation did not render the judgment ineffective.
Keywords:
cause of action; selection procedure;
Judgment 4208
129th Session, 2020
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to select him for a vacant post.
Considerations 2-3
Extract:
Regarding the basic principles which guide the Tribunal where a non-selection decision is challenged, the following was stated, for example, in Judgment 3652, consideration 7:
“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 Judgment 3537, under 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 which every applicant must enjoy, whatever her or his hope of success may be (see, inter alia, Judgment 2163, under 1, and the case law cited therein, and Judgment 3209, under 11). It was also stated that an organisation must abide by the rules 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 (see, for example, Judgment 3130, under 10 and 11).”
To successfully challenge a non-selection decision, a complainant is required to demonstrate that there was a serious defect in the selection process. The following was accordingly stated in Judgment 3669, consideration 4:
“[...] as the Tribunal observed in Judgment 1827, consideration 6: ‘The selection of candidates for promotion is necessarily based on merit and requires a high degree of judgment on the part of those involved in the selection process. Those who would have the Tribunal interfere must demonstrate a serious defect in it; it is not enough simply to assert that one is better qualified than the selected candidate.’”
However, when an organization conducts a competition to fill a post the process must accord with the relevant rules and the case law. The following was accordingly relevantly stated in Judgment 1549, considerations 11 and 13:
“11. 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.
[...]
13. The purpose of competition is to let everyone who wants a post compete for it equally. So precedent demands scrupulous compliance with the rules announced beforehand: patere legem quam ipse fecisti. [...]”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1549, 1827, 2163, 3130, 3209, 3537, 3652, 3669
Keywords:
selection procedure;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; selection procedure;
Judgment 4183
128th Session, 2019
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions not to select him for three positions for which he had applied as a priority candidate.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; selection procedure;
Judgment 4182
128th Session, 2019
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to place him on the shortlist for a position for which he had applied as a priority candidate.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; selection procedure;
Judgment 4180
128th Session, 2019
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the rejection of her appeal against the decision to abolish her post and terminate her appointment, the decision not to shortlist her for a specific position and the decisions not to select her for three other positions.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
abolition of post; complaint allowed; decision quashed; selection procedure; termination of employment;
Judgment 4154
128th Session, 2019
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the validity of a selection process in which he participated and the lawfulness of the ensuing appointment.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; selection procedure;
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 keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; decision quashed; selection procedure;
Consideration 5
Extract:
According to the Tribunal’s case law, an international organisation must observe the essential rule in every selection procedure, which is that the person appointed must possess the minimum qualifications specified in the vacancy notice (see Judgment 3372, consideration 19). It is also apparent from the case law that 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. Secondly, the appointment body’s alteration, after the procedure has 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, a breach of which vitiates any appointment based on a competition (see Judgments 3641, consideration 4(a), or 4001, consideration 15).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3372, 3641, 4001
Keywords:
patere legem; selection procedure;
Judgment 4147
128th Session, 2019
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision not to retain his candidature for a post.
Consideration 9
Extract:
In keeping with the consistent case law of the Tribunal, the complainant bears the burden of demonstrating that there was a serious defect in the selection process which had an impact on the consideration of his candidature (see Judgment 4023, consideration 2).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4023
Keywords:
burden of proof; selection procedure;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; 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 keywords
Keywords:
competition; complaint allowed; selection procedure;
Judgment 4098
127th Session, 2019
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to select him for a position for which he had applied.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
competition; complaint allowed; selection procedure;
Judgment 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.
Considerations 4 & 6
Extract:
The Director General’s decision to dismiss the complainant’s appeal for lack of a cause of action was based on the fact that the complainant “did not meet the requirements of the post (in terms of the minimum number of years of extensive professional experience required)”.
The Tribunal finds this reason to be well founded. [...]
The Director General was therefore right to consider that the complainant did not meet the condition of minimum length of professional experience stipulated in the vacancy announcement. Therefore, even though he was admitted to the competition, through an error on the part of the Organization, the complainant was not, in fact, eligible for appointment to the post in question.
Keywords:
cause of action; selection procedure; vacancy notice;
Consideration 7
Extract:
In accordance with the Tribunal’s well-established case law, an official has no cause of action to challenge the decision to appoint another official to a post if she or he is not eligible for appointment to that post (see, for example, Judgments 2832, consideration 8, and 3644, consideration 7). In view of the complainant’s lack of a cause of action, all other pleas that he raises against the impugned decision are of no avail. [...]
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2832, 3644
Keywords:
cause of action; loss of opportunity; selection procedure; vacancy notice;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
appointment; complaint dismissed; selection procedure;
Judgment 4070
127th Session, 2019
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to select her for a position for which she had applied.
Consideration 4
Extract:
The Tribunal holds that the complainant’s admission that she did not meet the requirements for the subject post means that she has no cause of action to challenge the shortlisting of the selected candidate or his final selection to fill the contested post. The complaint is therefore unfounded and will be dismissed.
Keywords:
cause of action; competition; selection procedure;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
appointment; competition; complaint dismissed; selection procedure;
Judgment 4069
127th Session, 2019
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the direct appointment of Mr D. and Mr A. to two D-2 level posts.
Consideration 8
Extract:
The complainant seeks an award of “actual damages, with full retroactivity, all additional salary, benefits, entitlements, including step increases and pension contributions, and any other emoluments he would have received had he been selected for either of said posts and been promoted to grade D2, from 8 July 2014 (the date of the first irregular direct appointment) through his statutory date of [...] retirement”. There is no basis for such an award which, in effect, would be material damages. Such an award cannot be made on a mere expectation that his application for either post might have been successful. However, he is entitled to 4,000 euros in moral damages for the violation of his right to compete for the posts.
Keywords:
material damages; moral injury; selection procedure;
Judgment 4061
127th Session, 2019
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions not to cancel the appointment of an external candidate following a recruitment procedure and not to organise a new procedure open to internal candidates only.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
competition; complaint dismissed; selection procedure;
Judgment 4033
126th Session, 2018
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant primarily challenges his non-selection for a post.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; selection procedure;
Judgment 4027
126th Session, 2018
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the lawfulness and outcome of several competitions in which he participated.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; decision quashed; selection procedure;
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.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
appointment; competition; complaint dismissed; selection procedure;
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;
Consideration 2
Extract:
The Tribunal has stated the basic principles which guide it, where a decision such as this is challenged, [...] 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 candidature. It is not enough simply to assert that one is better qualified than the selected candidate (see Judgment 3669, consideration 4).
However, when an organization 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:
appointment; competition; discretion; judicial review; selection procedure;
Judgment 4001
126th Session, 2018
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to confirm the appointment of Ms S. to the post of Head of the Caribbean Section.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
appointment; case sent back to organisation; complaint allowed; decision quashed; selection procedure;
Consideration 4
Extract:
The following basic principles as stated, for example, in Judgment 3652, consideration 7, guide the Tribunal where a decision such as this is challenged:
“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 Judgment 3537, under 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 which every applicant must enjoy, whatever her or his hope of success may be (see, inter alia, Judgment 2163, under 1, and the case law cited therein, and Judgment 3209, under 11). It was also stated that an organisation must abide by the rules 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 (see, for example, Judgment 3130, under 10 and 11).”
A complainant is required to demonstrate that there was a serious defect in the selection process. The following was accordingly relevantly stated in Judgment 1827, consideration 6:
“The selection of candidates for promotion is necessarily based on merit and requires a high degree of judgment on the part of those involved in the selection process. Those who would have the Tribunal interfere must demonstrate a serious defect in it; it is not enough simply to assert that one is better qualified than the selected candidate.”
However, when an organization conducts a competition to fill a post the process must comply with the relevant rules and the case law. The following was accordingly relevantly stated in Judgment 1549, considerations 11 and 13:
“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. [...] The purpose of competition is to let everyone who wants a post compete for it equally. So precedent demands scrupulous compliance with the rules announced beforehand: patere legem quam ipse fecisti. See Judgments 107[...], 729 [...], 1071 [...], 1077 [...], 1158 [...], 1223 [...] and 1359 [...].”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1549, 1827, 3652
Keywords:
bias; burden of proof; personal prejudice; selection procedure;
Consideration 15
Extract:
According to the Tribunal’s case law, an international organisation must observe the essential rule in every selection procedure, which is that the person appointed must possess the minimum qualifications specified in the vacancy notice (see Judgment 3372, under 19). The case law further states that 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 which forbids the Administration to ignore the rules it has itself defined (tu patere legem quam ipse fecisti). 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 has 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, a breach of which vitiates any appointment based on a competition (see Judgment 3641, under 4(a)).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3372, 3641
Keywords:
patere legem; selection procedure;
Judgment 3868
124th Session, 2017
World Trade Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to shortlist him for a position for which he had applied.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; selection procedure;
Consideration 4
Extract:
The Tribunal considers it convenient to outline the relevant applicable legal framework at this juncture. The basic principle is that a decision concerning the selection of a successful applicant in a competition is a discretionary one and is subject to only 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. Nevertheless, anyone who applies for a post to be filled by a selection process must have her or his application considered in good faith and in keeping with the basic rules of fair and open competition. An organisation must abide by its own rules 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 an appointment accepted in good faith (see Judgment 3652, under 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3652
Keywords:
selection procedure;
Judgment 3758
123rd Session, 2017
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his non-selection for a post.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; decision quashed; selection procedure;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 | next >
|
