Judgment No. 619
Decision
THE COMPLAINT IS DISMISSED.
Consideration 4
Extract:
None of the three candidates met all the requirements. The organization cancelled the competition and delayed making an appointment for the vacant position. The provision on which the complainant relies "is not supposed to require [the organization] to choose someone, even if he has the best qualifications, who is still not qualified for the job and it was no breach of [the material rule] not to appoint any of them."
Keywords
competition; candidate; competition cancelled; qualifications; discretion
Consideration 1
Extract:
"By virtue of Article V of its Statute the Tribunal decides in each case whether oral proceedings shall be public or in camera. But its practice is to order such proceedings only in exceptional circumstances where evidence from the parties or witnesses may help in resolving the issues."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE V OF THE STATUTE
Keywords
exception; oral proceedings; purpose
Considerations 6-7
Extract:
When a second competition for the post was announced, the qualifications previously sought had been altered in several respects in the new vacancy notice. "The [organization's] approach would be open to criticism only if the requirements in the second announcement fell short of what might ordinarily be expected of the holder of the post."
Keywords
amendment to the rules; competition; vacancy notice; judicial review
Consideration 8
Extract:
"The Tribunal is not competent to compare the candidates' merits; it will merely determine whether there was any prejudice in the impugned decision. There is no reason to suppose that in preferring [Mrs. X] the FAO was actuated by any considerations other than merit. Indeed its impartiality is borne out by the fact that [...] the majority of the selection board were in favour of the successful candidate."
Keywords
vacancy; appointment; competition; selection procedure
| 
