Judgment No. 3601

• Organization: Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW)
• Date: 03.02.2016
• Original: French
• Judges: Rouiller, Frydman, Diakité
• Full judgment text - Full judgment text (french)

Decision

1. The decision of the Director-General of the OPCW of 27 February 2013 and the decisions of 20 December 2011 and 30 January 2012 announcing promotions to Inspection Team Leader posts at grade P-5 and the designation of Acting Team Leaders respectively are set aside.
2. The OPCW shall pay the complainant compensation in the amount of 10,000 euros for moral injury.
3. It shall also pay him 5,000 euros in costs.
4. All other claims are dismissed.

Summary

The complainant impugns the decisions not to promote him to a post of Inspection Team Leader and not to designate him as an Acting Team Leader.

Judgment keywords

Keywords

complaint allowed; decision quashed; selection procedure

Consideration 7

Extract:

"In accordance with the principle tu patere legem quam ipse fecisti, when an international organisation decides to fill a post by competition it must comply with the material rules which it has itself established for such appointments (see, for example, Judgments 2163, under 3, or 3032, under 22)."

Reference(s)

ILOAT Judgment(s): 2163, 3032

Keywords

patere legem; selection procedure

Consideration 10

Extract:

"[T]he Tribunal has consistently held that a practice cannot become legally binding if it contravenes a written rule that is already in force (see, for example, Judgments 2959, under 7, or 3544, under 14)."

Reference(s)

ILOAT Judgment(s): 2959, 3544

Keywords

practice

Consideration 18

Extract:

"Contrary to the Organisation’s submissions, the failure to comply with the various requirements of the applicable text, adherence to which constitutes a safeguard for candidates, was obviously liable to have a real impact on the outcome of the disputed selection procedure."

Keywords

selection procedure

Consideration 20

Extract:

"It is well settled by the Tribunal’s case law that it is incumbent upon an international organisation to prove that a procedure which it has put in place has been duly followed, if the implementation thereof is disputed (see, for example, Judgments 2096, under 9, or 2792, under 7). Moreover, this approach is particularly appropriate in the instant case where the facts needed to prove this matter lie peculiarly in the knowledge of the Organisation."

Reference(s)

ILOAT Judgment(s): 2096, 2792

Keywords

burden of proof; patere legem; bias; selection procedure; personal prejudice