Competition (294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299, 300, 301, 302, 303, 304,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Competition
Total judgments found: 169
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 | next >
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.
Consideration 5
Extract:
The Tribunal has consistently held that a staff member’s right to challenge the appointment of another staff member to a particular post is not contingent on whether she or he had a relatively good chance of being the successful candidate (see Judgment 2832, under 8, and the cited cases). However, the same case law also establishes that the individual concerned must be eligible to occupy the post, otherwise it could not be said that the individual was legally affected by the disputed appointment. As the complainant was not eligible to apply for appointment to the post at the relevant time, his complaint does not disclose a cause of action and must be dismissed.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2832
Keywords:
appointment; competition; no cause of action;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
competition; complaint dismissed; 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;
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 4008
126th Session, 2018
Energy Charter Conference
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: In her first complaint, the complainant challenges the decision not to extend her fixed-term contract following the abolition of her post, but to give her a Project Staff contract. In her second complaint, she challenges three vacancy notices concerning C category posts and in her third complaint, she challenges the rejection of her application for two of these posts.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
abolition of post; competition; complaint allowed; decision quashed; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract;
Judgment 3920
125th Session, 2018
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate her fixed-term appointment pursuant to the abolition of her post.
Consideration 18
Extract:
The Tribunal observed in Judgment 3647, consideration 9, that: “[t]he Tribunal’s case law recognises that the executive head of an international organisation may cancel a competition in the interest of the organisation if, among other reasons, it becomes apparent that the competition will not enable the post concerned to be filled, and that she or he may, if need be, decide to hold a new competition on different terms (see, for example, Judgments 1223, under 31, 1771, under 4(e), 1982, under 5(a), and 2075, under 3). However, the condition relating to the interests of the organisation must actually be met, so that the cancellation of the initial process is based on a legitimate reason. In this matter as in any other, arbitrary decision-making is unacceptable.”
[...] In most of the rules of the international organizations which have accepted the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, competitions are a fundamental mechanism of the selection of international civil servants for positions within international organizations and their integrity must be protected. However, in the present case, the complainant had not been shortlisted because she did not have the requisite years of experience. Thus, she suffered no detriment as a result of the cancellation of the competition.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1223, 1771, 1982, 2075, 3647
Keywords:
competition; competition cancelled; organisation's interest;
Judgment 3669
122nd Session, 2016
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to select him for a post of Director.
Consideration 4
Extract:
It is convenient, at the outset, to describe the general legal framework in which the complaint is to be considered. Firstly and fundamentally, the Tribunal accepts that the appointment by an international organisation of a candidate to a position is a decision that lies within the discretion of its executive head. It is subject only to limited review and may be set aside only if it was taken without authority or in breach of rule of form or 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. This formulation is found in many judgments of the Tribunal including, for example, Judgment 3209, consideration 11, and is intended to highlight the need for a complainant to establish some fundamental defect in the selection process. Those defects can include the appointment of a candidate who did not meet one of the conditions stipulated in the vacancy announcement (see, for example, Judgment 2712, consideration 8). However, 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.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1827, 2712, 3209
Keywords:
appointment; competition; discretion; judicial review; selection procedure;
Judgment 3652
122nd Session, 2016
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns two appointment decisions by the Director-General.
Consideration 7
Extract:
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).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2163, 3130, 3209, 3537
Keywords:
appointment; competition; organisation's duties; selection procedure;
Judgment 3648
122nd Session, 2016
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the validity of a competition process in which she participated and the lawfulness of the ensuing appointment.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
competition; complaint allowed; decision quashed;
Consideration 9
Extract:
As the Tribunal has already stated [...] (see Judgment 564, under 5 and 6), in the event that the applicable regulations change in the course of a competition, the rules governing the membership of the body responsible for selecting candidates that were in force at the time when the competition was advertised continue to apply. This is the case unless there are express provisions to the contrary (see Judgment 2051, under 5 to 8).
In support of her argument, the complainant seeks to rely on the well-established case law under which any administrative decision should in principle be based on the provisions in force at the time it is adopted (see, in particular, Judgments 2459, under 9, and 2985, under 15). She infers from this that the decisions taken at the end of the disputed competition, including with regard to the arrangements for the prior consultation of the selection body, should have complied with the provisions in force at the time when they were taken.
However, the same case law makes plain that it is appropriate to depart from this rule where, for example, applying it would breach the principle of good faith. The replacement of the Appointment and Promotion Board that had been set up initially with another selection body with a different membership would have infringed this principle, as it would have undermined the candidates’ legitimate expectation that the competition would take place in the conditions stipulated at its opening.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 564, 2051, 2459, 2985
Keywords:
competition;
Judgment 3647
122nd Session, 2016
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the validity of a competition process in which he participated and the lawfulness of the ensuing appointment.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
competition; complaint allowed; decision quashed;
Consideration 9
Extract:
The Tribunal’s case law recognises that the executive head of an international organisation may cancel a competition in the interest of the organisation if, among other reasons, it becomes apparent that the competition will not enable the post concerned to be filled, and that she or he may, if need be, decide to hold a new competition on different terms (see, for example, Judgments 1223, under 31, 1771, under 4 (e), 1982, under 5 (a), and 2075, under 3).
However, the condition relating to the interests of the organisation must actually be met, so that the cancellation of the initial process is based on a legitimate reason. In this matter as in any other, arbitrary decision-making is unacceptable.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1223, 1771, 1982, 2075
Keywords:
competition;
Judgment 3619
121st Session, 2016
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the rejection of her internal appeal against the decisions not to convert her fixed-term contract into a permanent contract and not to select her for a vacant permanent post.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
competition; complaint allowed; conversion of contract; decision quashed; fixed-term; permanent appointment;
Judgment 3590
121st Session, 2016
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant disputes the validity of the competition procedure in which she participated and the lawfulness of the appointment announced at its end.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
appointment; competition; complaint allowed; decision quashed; selection procedure;
Judgment 3542
120th Session, 2015
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: As the Tribunal cannot hear complaints relating to recruitment procedures for external candidates, the complaint is dismissed.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
appointment; candidate; competition; complaint dismissed;
Judgment 3537
120th Session, 2015
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges a competition procedure and alleges harassment.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
competition; complaint allowed; harassment; joinder;
Consideration 10
Extract:
The Tribunal cannot substitute its evaluation for that of the EPO and will only interfere with a selection decision if that decision was taken without authority; if it was based on an error of law or fact, a material fact was overlooked, or a plainly wrong conclusion was drawn from the facts; if it was taken in breach of a rule of form or of procedure; or if there was an abuse of authority (see Judgments 2060, under 4, and 2457, under 6).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2060, 2457
Keywords:
appointment; competition; discretion; judicial review; selection procedure;
Judgment 3536
120th Session, 2015
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the final selection decision taken by the President of the Office on a competition.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
appointment; candidate; competition; complaint dismissed;
Judgment 3449
119th Session, 2015
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The Tribunal cancelled the disputed competitions because the ILO rendered the recruitments unlawful.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
cause of action of staff representative; competition; complaint allowed; decision quashed; flaw; joinder; selection procedure; staff representative; vacancy notice;
Consideration 2
Extract:
"Any 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). In 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."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2959
Keywords:
candidate; cause of action; competition;
Consideration 9
Extract:
"By adopting a procedure that could mislead potential applicants as to the nature of recruitment to the posts in question, the ILO rendered these recruitments unlawful."
Keywords:
competition; flaw; selection procedure;
Judgment 3372
118th Session, 2014
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The Tribunal dismissed the complaint seeking the cancellation of a competition and the appointment resulting from it.
Consideration 19
Extract:
"According to the case law of the Tribunal, 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."
Keywords:
competition; qualifications;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
competition; complaint dismissed;
Consideration 12
Extract:
"According to the case law of the Tribunal, the selection of a successful applicant in a competition is a discretionary decision of the executive head of the organisation (see Judgment 2584, under 15). Such a decision is subject to only limited review. The Tribunal will interfere with such a decision only if it was taken without authority, or in breach of a rule of form or of procedure, or if it rested on an error of fact or of law, or if some essential fact was overlooked, or if there was abuse of authority, or if clearly mistaken conclusions have been drawn from the evidence. Moreover, the Tribunal will exercise its power of review with special caution in such cases, and will not replace the organisation’s assessment of the candidates with its own. (See, for example, Judgments 2362, 2365 and 2392, under 10.)"
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2362, 2365, 2392, 2584
Keywords:
candidate; competition; discretion; judicial review;
Judgment 3288
116th Session, 2014
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant unsuccessfully challenges a recruitment process.
Consideration 8
Extract:
"The Tribunal is of the opinion that, following the guidelines set out in Judgment 2959, the present complaint is unfounded. As Regulation 4.3 uses the term “normally”, the Tribunal finds that the Regulations governing the selection of staff members will be followed as written unless there is an exceptional situation in which it is not practicable to do so for objective reasons. Unlike the situation leading to Judgment 2959, the present complaint stems from a direct appointment that indeed can be considered as having occurred based on the “impracticability” of following the usual competitive selection process."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2959
Keywords:
appointment; competition; interpretation; post; provision; written rule;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
appointment; competition; complaint dismissed;
Judgment 3272
116th Session, 2014
Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant successfully challenges the decision not to appoint her to a vacant post due to procedural flaw and violation of her right to due process.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
competition; complaint allowed; disclosure of evidence;
Judgment 3219
115th Session, 2013
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant successfully challenges his non-selection for a post, alleging that the selection process was flawed and unfair.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
competition; complaint allowed; decision quashed; equal treatment; flaw; selection procedure;
Judgment 3209
115th Session, 2013
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant accuses the ITU of having failed in its duty to ensure transparency in a selection process.
Considerations 13 and 14
Extract:
The complainant applied for a post but was not selected. She asks the Tribunal to require disclosure of the file of the selection process.
"[The Organisation] argues that the complainant’s request for the communication of the file is a claim made for the first time in her complaint and must therefore be dismissed as irreceivable. However, as the complainant rightly observes, this is not a new claim which would be subject to the rule on the exhaustion of internal remedies. In this instance, it is merely a request made on the basis of Article 11 of the Rules of the Tribunal, for the Tribunal to use its powers of investigation, which it can in fact do on its own motion.
The defendant also stated that if the Tribunal considered that the information supplied in support of its arguments was insufficient, it would transmit the file of the selection process for the exclusive attention of the Tribunal. [...] The Tribunal recalls that, according to the adversarial principle, all documents submitted to it by a party to the proceedings must be communicated to the other party. It will be for the organisation itself, if it considers this necessary in order to protect the interests of third parties, to conceal identities to the required extent in the documents produced."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article 11 of the Rules
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; application of law ex officio; competition; disclosure of evidence; interlocutory order; internal remedies exhausted; new claim; receivability of the complaint;
Consideration 11
Extract:
According to the Tribunal’s case law, an appointment by an international organisation is a decision that lies within the discretion of its executive head. Being 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 some process of selection is entitled to have 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 his hopes of success may be (see, inter alia, Judgment 2163, under 1, and the case law cited therein).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2163
Keywords:
appointment; competition; discretion; judicial review; selection procedure;
Judgment 3206
115th Session, 2013
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complaint, which aims at the cancellation of a contested appointment, is allowed.
Consideration 16
Extract:
The complainant challenges the decision to appoint a colleague to a grade D-2 position through a direct recruitment procedure. The Tribunal finds that there was no valid reason to apply such a procedure. “The Director General was therefore right to conclude […] that [the] appointment […] was unlawful. However, he was mistaken in believing that this did not oblige him to withdraw that appointment. Since this unlawful decision was the subject of an internal appeal validly filed by another staff member who had cause of action, the Director General had no option but to withdraw it. [T]he fact that [the colleague in question] had left the Organization’s service in the meantime did not alter that duty […].”
Keywords:
appointment; cause of action; competition; flaw; internal appeal; selection procedure;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 | next >
|
