Judgment No. 4520
Decision
The complaint is dismissed.
Summary
The complainant challenges the appointment of a staff member.
Judgment keywords
Keywords
cause of action; selection procedure; complaint dismissed
Consideration 1
Extract:
By an email [...], the complainant requested, in effect, the recusal of two of the judges sitting on the panel this session deciding this and other complaints filed by the complainant. This request had been preceded by correspondence to the same effect in relation to the same and other judges in other proceedings involving the complainant. Ordinarily (that is, other than in cases of necessity) a judge would not sit to hear and determine a case if there was a reasonable apprehension that the judge was biased and could not bring an open mind to the determination of the case. The complainant does not point to any facts which would sustain such a conclusion. He does refer to the fact, in earlier correspondence, that one of the judges on the present panel has participated, as a panel member, in a succession of cases in which the complainant was unsuccessful. But nothing was pointed to by way of commentary in the judgments disposing of these cases suggestive of bias against the complainant. The mere fact that a litigant is unsuccessful in proceedings determined by a judge, without more, does not warrant the recusal of the judge in subsequent proceedings involving the same litigant (see Judgment 110, consideration 1). Indeed, a judge has a duty to hear and determine a case allocated to her or him and a decision to recuse which was not properly founded would constitute a breach of that duty.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 110
Keywords
recusal of a judge
Consideration 6
Extract:
The Tribunal has stated, in consideration 2 of Judgment 3449, for example, 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) [, but that i]n 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”. As the complainant, who did not apply for the subject vacant post, provides no evidence that he was prevented from doing so through no fault of his own, he does not have a cause of action.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2959, 3449
Keywords
cause of action; selection procedure
|