Judgment No. 4087
Decision
The complaint is dismissed.
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; selection procedure; complaint dismissed
Consideration 2
Extract:
[...] It should be recalled that the date of filing of complaints and briefs before the Tribunal is, in principle, the date on which they are sent and not the date on which they are received by the Registry (see, for example, Judgment 3566, consideration 3). The file contains a delivery receipt showing that the reply was deposited at the International Labour Office, secretariat of the International Labour Organization, where the Tribunal is based, on 15 June 2015. As the reply was thus sent on that date at the latest, that is within the prescribed time limit, which expired that evening, the complainant is wrong to claim that it was filed late (see Judgment 3648, consideration 2).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3566, 3648
Keywords
complaint; time limit; time bar; date of filing
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; vacancy notice; selection procedure
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; vacancy notice; selection procedure; loss of opportunity
| 
