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 3191
114th Session, 2013
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants successfully challenge a recruitment procedure which they considered as flawed.
Consideration 8
Extract:
"The EPO’s position grounded on a distinction between an appointment and a promotion is fundamentally flawed. An appointment is simply the assignment of an individual to a particular position or post. A promotion is the assignment of an individual to a higher position or rank. The fact that a so called appointment process is used to make a selection or that the assignment is called an appointment does not exclude the fact that it may also be a promotion by virtue of the fact that it also involves the attainment of a higher position or rank or, in this context, grade."
Keywords:
appointment; competition; executive head; flaw; promotion; promotion board; selection board; vacancy; vacancy notice;
Judgment 3186
114th Session, 2013
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to select her to several positions for which she had applied.
Judgment keywords
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3185, 3187
Keywords:
appointment; competition; complaint dismissed; selection procedure; status of complainant;
Judgment 3157
114th Session, 2013
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant successfully challenges the lawfulness of the selection process for a post for which he had unsuccessfully applied.
Considerations 9 and 11
Extract:
"[H]aving regard to the submissions [...], the Tribunal notes that the complainant was excluded from the technical evaluation on the grounds that he did not possess all the required qualifications, but that the [three] candidates shortlisted [...] did not possess them either. [...] [T]he complainant received unequal treatment when the shortlist was established. As the selection process is tainted with a flaw, the impugned decision must be set aside and the disputed appointment must be cancelled [...]. The Organization must shield the successful candidate from any injury that might result from the cancellation of his appointment, which he accepted in good faith."
Keywords:
appointment; breach; candidate; competition; competition cancelled; consequence; criteria; degree; equal treatment; good faith; grounds; internal competition; lack of injury; organisation's duties; procedural flaw;
Judgment 3110
113th Session, 2012
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 12
Extract:
[A]s pointed out in Judgment 3032 in relation to the same provisions on which the complainant relies, “when an international organisation wants to fill a post by competition, it must comply with the material rules and the general precepts of the case law”.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3032
Keywords:
appointment; competition; organisation's duties; selection procedure;
Judgment 3077
112th Session, 2012
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
competition; complaint dismissed; discretion; selection procedure;
Judgment 3073
112th Session, 2012
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"According to the case law, an international organisation which decides to hold a competition in order to fill a post cannot select a candidate who does not satisfy one of the required qualifications specified in the vacancy notice. Such conduct, which is tantamount to modifying the criteria for appointment to the post during the selection process, incurs the Tribunal's censure on two counts. Firstly, it violates the principle of patere legem quam ipse fecisti, which forbids the Administration to ignore the rules it has itself defined. In this respect, a modification of the applicable criteria during the selection procedure more generally undermines the requirements of mutual trust and fairness which international organisations have a duty to observe in their relations with their staff. Secondly, the appointment body's alteration, after the procedure had begun, of the qualifications which were initially required in order to obtain the post, introduces a serious flaw into the selection process with respect to the principle of equal opportunity among candidates. Irrespective of the reasons for such action, it inevitably erodes the safeguards of objectivity and transparency which must be provided in order to comply with this essential principle, breach of which vitiates any appointment based on a competition. (See Judgments 1158, 1646, 2584 and 2712.)"
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1158, 1646, 2584, 2712
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; appointment; breach; candidate; competition; condition; criteria; equal treatment; equity; flaw; grounds; organisation's duties; patere legem; safeguard; vacancy notice; working relations; written rule;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
competition; complaint allowed; decision quashed; selection procedure;
Judgment 3032
111th Session, 2011
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 22
Extract:
"[W]hen an international organisation wants to fill a post by competition, it must comply with the material rules and the general precepts of the case law (see, for example, Judgment 2163 [...], under 3)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2163
Keywords:
appointment; case law; competition; consequence; decision; due process; general principle; organisation's duties; provision; staff regulations and rules; written rule;
Consideration 11
Extract:
"According to the Tribunal's case law, as reflected, inter alia, in Judgments 556, under 4(b), and 2142 under 16 and 17, a candidate is not entitled to consult any record there may be of a discussion by the selection board or to know the identity of all the candidates who were eliminated."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 556, 2142
Keywords:
candidate; communication to third party; competition; disclosure of evidence; right; selection board; selection procedure;
Considerations 17- 18
Extract:
The complainants take the defendant to task for having unlawfully doubled the number of posts to be filled. According to them, any ex post facto change in the legal framework for the competition established by the vacancy notice breaches the principle of transparency of administrative procedures. [...]
According to the Tribunal's case law, when a vacancy is to be filled, staff members must be given sufficient information to enable them to exercise their rights without facing any unnecessary hindrance. A competition aimed at filling a vacant post must be held under satisfactory conditions of objectivity and transparency, which guarantee that the candidates will receive equal treatment (see, for example, Judgment 2210, under 5, and the case law cited therein).
In this case, the question is whether the failure to state explicitly in the vacancy notice that there were two senior translator/reviser posts to be filled might have dissuaded some people from submitting applications or prevented the competition from being conducted under satisfactory conditions of objectivity and transparency which guaranteed that the candidates received equal treatment.
The Tribunal, like the defendant, considers that, given that the qualifications and experience required were exactly the same for the two posts, it cannot reasonably be argued that some people would have applied if they had known that there were two posts instead of just one to be filled. Furthermore, the complainants, who entered the competition anyway, were not adversely affected by that circumstance.
It follows that, since the error committed in the vacancy notice did not taint the competition with any procedural flaw, the plea must be rejected.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2210
Keywords:
appointment; candidate; competition; duty to inform; equal treatment; formal requirements; official; organisation's duties; procedure before the tribunal; right of appeal; safeguard; selection procedure; vacancy;
Judgment 2980
110th Session, 2011
Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
"To add candidates to a shortlist after the evaluation process has begun does not comply with the mandatory fairness and transparency of the recruitment process, and could have a prejudicial effect on the outcome of the process as every evaluation is conditioned by the quantity and quality of candidates to be evaluated. It could also have the effect of appearing to have been done to satisfy improper interests, regardless of whether or not one of the candidates added at a later date eventually succeeds."
Keywords:
candidate; competition; equal treatment; formal flaw; procedural flaw;
Judgment 2978
110th Session, 2011
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
"[A]ccording to the Tribunal's case law, when the result of a competition is announced and, more broadly when [...] the Administration chooses between candidates, the duty to state the reasons for the choice does not mean that they must be notified at the same time as the decision (see Judgments 1787, under 5, and 2035, under 4). These reasons may be disclosed at a later date, for example in the context of appeal proceedings (see Judgments 1590, under 7, and 2194, under 7)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1590, 1787, 2035, 2194
Keywords:
appointment; candidate; competition; date of notification; decision; discretion; duty to substantiate decision; formal requirements; grounds;
Consideration 6
Extract:
"[T]he mere fact that one of the candidates in a competition is temporarily holding the post to be filled does not render the procedure unlawful."
Keywords:
candidate; competition; procedural flaw; provisional measures;
Judgment 2959
110th Session, 2011
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"[T]he expression 'so far as practicable' cannot be interpreted to mean that for certain specific posts a competitive selection process can automatically be considered as not practicable (ubi lex voluit dixit, ubi noluit tacuit)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2620
Keywords:
appointment; competition; interpretation; post; provision;
Judgment 2935
109th Session, 2010
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
"[I]t is in the common interest of candidates and international organisations that appointment procedures be conducted with dispatch [...]. [In the present instance, the] extraordinarily long period of time [- four years] was not justified by any particular circumstances."
Keywords:
candidate; competition; delay; organisation's duties;
Judgment 2903
108th Session, 2010
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 9 to 11
Extract:
The complainant submits that the rejection of his second appeal on receivability grounds was incorrect. He argues that the breach of the Organisation's duty of care could only become apparent in the months or years that followed his separation from service and he considers that it had taken a decision against him, i. e. the decision to exclude him from a competition for a post, though it did not convey that decision to him.
"The Tribunal finds that the complaint is irreceivable. Staff Rule 212.02 provides that a former staff member may bring an internal appeal against administrative decisions in accordance with Staff Regulation 12.1. That latter provision limits the internal appeal procedure to appeals of administrative decisions in relation to the non-observance of the terms of appointment, including all pertinent regulations and rules."
"In the present case, the complaint arises from circumstances occurring after the complainant's separation from UNIDO and, therefore, is excluded by the Staff Regulations and Rules."
"Further, although former officials may file complaints with the Tribunal, the Statute limits the Tribunal's jurisdiction to complaints alleging the non-observance of an official's terms of appointment and such provisions of the relevant Staff Regulations applicable to the case."
Keywords:
candidate; competence of tribunal; competition; internal appeal; non official; ratione personae; receivability of the complaint; right of appeal; separation from service; status of complainant; time bar;
Judgment 2884
108th Session, 2010
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 19
Extract:
"As the Internal Appeals Committee erred in law in finding that it was not necessary to include the use of an assessment centre in the vacancy notice, it follows that the President's decision endorsing this view involves an error of law. This error would ordinarily result in the impugned decision and the underlying selection procedure being set aside. However, having regard to the circumstances and the complainant's failure to demonstrate any link between the breach of the Service Regulations and the outcome of the process, the decision and the process will not be set aside. This should not be construed in any way as condoning the conduct of the EPO. In accordance with its power under Article VIII of the Statute, the Tribunal decides that the complainant is entitled to moral damages in the amount of 10,000 euros for the breach of the Service Regulations of the Office."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: Article VIII of the Statute
Keywords:
breach; competition; competition cancelled; discretion; flaw; moral injury; staff regulations and rules;
Considerations 13 and 16-18
Extract:
"The complainant submits that the selection procedure was flawed. The failure to indicate in the vacancy notice that there would be an individual assessment performed by a consulting firm and the failure to include the particular management skills that would be assessed by the firm constitute, in her view, a violation of Articles 2 and 5 of Annex II to the Service Regulations. She adds that it follows from the flaws in the notice that there was a lack of information concerning the kinds of tests the competition would be based on, as required by Annex II."
"The Tribunal considers that the Internal Appeals Committee erred in law in finding that the failure to indicate that an individual assessment would be performed by a third party in the vacancy notice did not constitute a breach of the applicable Service Regulations. In essence, the Committee found that, in view of the nature of the position being filled, the complainant's seniority and the widespread use being made of assessment centres, the complainant would have known that an assessment in such circumstances formed part of the selection procedure. The fundamental flaw in this reasoning is that these are irrelevant considerations in relation to the legal question as to whether the Service Regulations require the use of an assessment centre to be included in a vacancy notice."
"Article 2 of Annex II to the Service Regulations requires that a notice of competition must specify, among other things, "the kind of competition (whether on the basis of either qualifications or tests, or of both qualifications and tests)" and "where the competition is on the basis of tests, what kind they will be and how they will be marked"."
"As the individual assessment performed by the consulting firm was, at least in part, a testing mechanism, the failure to mention it in the vacancy notice constitutes a breach of Article 2 of Annex II."
Keywords:
breach; competition; flaw; organisation's duties; staff regulations and rules; vacancy notice;
Judgment 2868
108th Session, 2010
South Centre
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 35-36
Extract:
"At the material time, the Centre had not formally adopted a procedure for the selection of candidates for vacant posts; however, it had developed a set of Guidelines."
"Although the Guidelines do not have the force of formally adopted regulations or rules, they are intended to foster a transparent selection procedure in which candidates are fairly evaluated against selection criteria. The process in the present case [...] undermines the credibility of the procedure and is an affront to the dignity of the complainant, who submitted his candidature in good faith and with the expectation that it would be considered in accordance with the procedure found in the Guidelines."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1077, 2393
Keywords:
candidate; competition; criteria; difference; procedure before the tribunal; respect for dignity;
Judgment 2835
107th Session, 2009
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 6-7
Extract:
"The complainant takes issue with the composition of the Selection Board. [...] He relies on Judgment 1549, under 12, where the Tribunal stated that «[...] after the process of selection has begun the terms of competition may not be changed [...]»."
"The Tribunal rejects this argument. First, the complainant's reliance on Judgment 1549 is misplaced. While the cited passage does refer to a selection decision, the composition of the Selection Board is not one of the «terms of competition»."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1549
Keywords:
competition; composition of the internal appeals body; due process; selection board;
Judgment 2834
107th Session, 2009
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
"The complainant's plea that the decision not to invite him to an assessment was not based on objective and transparent criteria and was arbitrary appears to be grounded on the complainant's view that other less meritorious and less senior candidates were invited to participate in the assessment centre. Given that a key requirement identified in the vacancy note was managerial skills, in the absence of some evidence showing that the complainant possesses managerial ability or that he has the potential to be a good manager, the complainant's assertion is speculative at best."
Keywords:
burden of proof; candidate; competition; criteria; evidence; promotion; seniority;
Judgment 2833
107th Session, 2009
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
In March 2006 the complainant, who had been assigned to Zimbabwe since 1996, applied for a transfer, in the same grade, to ILO headquarters in Geneva to occupy the advertised post of Senior Procurement Officer. His candidature was rejected because he failed to meet three of the core requirements listed in the vacancy notice. Circular No. 658, series 6, states that the Office should ensure, in particular, that 'priority for mobility is given to staff members who have completed their tours of duty', i.e. their assignment in a particular duty station.
"It is not disputed that the complainant can avail himself of the mobility rules to return, as and when appropriate, to the Organization's headquarters. But that does not, of course, mean that he has a right to return to headquarters to take up a particular post without it being determined beforehand that the post to which he aspires corresponds to his skills."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: Circular No. 658, series 6
Keywords:
administrative instruction; competition; condition; criteria; duty station; field; grade; grounds; headquarters; organisation's duties; period; post; priority; qualifications; reassignment; refusal; request for transfer; right; vacancy notice; written rule;
Judgment 2809
106th Session, 2009
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
The complainant impugns the decision not to award him an indefinite contract for one of the long-term jobs offered to other candidates who had been found better qualified.
"The Tribunal has consistently held that a good performance record does not in itself justify selecting one candidate rather than another for a promotion or for the award of a post. The opinion of the author of an annual appraisal cannot be substituted for the conclusions of a selection board which, in this case, comprised representatives of the department head concerned, two human resources coordinators and two experts from another department, and which was responsible for selecting the candidates who had to be ranked as the best for the award of an indefinite contract [...]."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2040
Keywords:
appointment; competition; decision; performance report; promotion; qualifications; rating; selection board;
Consideration 6
Extract:
The complainant impugns the decision not to award him an indefinite contract for one of the long-term jobs offered to other candidates who had been found better qualified.
"In accordance with its case law, the Tribunal will not assess the candidates on merit or rule on the Organization's choice [...]."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1497
Keywords:
appointment; candidate; competition; judicial review;
Judgment 2769
106th Session, 2009
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
"As it cannot be confirmed but for the flaw in the selection process that the complainant would have been appointed to the post of Section Head, this aspect of the claim for material damages is rejected. The complainant, however, lost a valuable opportunity to be properly considered for the said post."
Keywords:
appointment; competition; due process; injury; material damages; material injury; procedure before the tribunal;
Judgment 2766
106th Session, 2009
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
"It is not so much that applicants have an absolute right to confidentiality, but rather a right to the reasonable protection of their privacy. The Tribunal finds that the participation of the staff representative, in an observer capacity and not taking part in the Selection Board's meetings, does not unreasonably affect the complainant's privacy."
Keywords:
competition; organisation's duties; respect for dignity; right; selection board; staff member's interest; staff representative; staff union;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 | next >
|
