Selection procedure (660,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Selection procedure
Total judgments found: 113
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 | next >
Judgment 3753
123rd Session, 2017
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, a former WHO staff member, contests the decision to terminate his fixed-term appointment pursuant to the abolition of his post.
Consideration 13
Extract:
It is not for the Tribunal to resolve precisely why the position description was said to require fluency in Portuguese. However it cannot be entirely discounted that this was done to facilitate the appointment of the Portuguese speaking individual who ultimately filled the position. But, importantly, what occurred does support the complainant’s case that there had been a manipulation of the position description and the selection process.
Keywords:
selection procedure;
Judgment 3747
123rd Session, 2017
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to select him for a post.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; selection procedure;
Consideration 4
Extract:
The Director General stated that he disagreed with the Appeal Board’s finding that the second vacancy announcement [… should be considered invalid since the Administration had failed to withdraw vacancy announcement […] beforehand. The Director General did not provide adequate reasons for his disagreement with the Appeal Board in this respect, as he limited himself to explaining that “[he] consider[ed] [the Appeal Board’s view] to be particularly formalistic given that no injury was caused [to the complainant] as a result”. First, his reference to the formalistic nature of the Appeal Board’s view is unconvincing, as the law is, by its very nature, formalistic. Second, his statement that the failure to cancel vacancy announcement […] did not cause any injury to the complainant is questionable as the Director General did not expressly consider the complainant’s allegations that his chances to succeed had been reduced.
Keywords:
motivation; selection procedure;
Judgment 3742
123rd Session, 2017
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the direct appointment of Ms S. to the position of Director, Office of Support to Decentralization.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; decision quashed; selection procedure;
Consideration 3
Extract:
A challenge to a direct appointment is essentially a challenge to a selection process, which the Tribunal approaches with some restraint. Such a decision is subject to only limited review. It is well established that staff appointments and promotions by an international organisation
are decisions which lie within the discretion of its executive head. However, the discretion must be exercised within the bounds of legality. The Tribunal explained this in Judgment 3537, under 10 [...].
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3537
Keywords:
discretion; selection procedure;
Consideration 14
Extract:
The impugned decision will be set aside on the understanding that the [Organization] shall shield the selected candidate […] from any injury that may flow from the setting aside of the impugned decision and the resultant quashing of an appointment which she had accepted in good faith (see Judgments 1477, under 11, and 2336, under 4).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1477, 2336
Keywords:
selection procedure;
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 2
Extract:
The only decision impugned in the internal appeal was that appointment [...]. Thus the complainant’s complaint to this Tribunal concerns that decision. That is not to say evidence of events in his career cannot, in an evidentiary sense, be relied on in support of allegations of bias or prejudice in relation to the consideration of his candidacy for the position [...]. If the evidence is of substance, it can be relied upon.
Keywords:
evidence; selection procedure;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; selection procedure;
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 3653
122nd Session, 2016
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions not to appoint him to a post, not to renew his contract, not to compensate him for “extra-contractual” work and not to compensate him on account of defamation by his former supervisor and for exposure to asbestos.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; 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 11
Extract:
The Director-General’s discretion to appoint staff members must be exercised in accordance with the [internal legal] provisions and the general principles of law governing the international civil service, as discretion must be exercised within the bounds of legality.
Keywords:
discretion; selection procedure;
Consideration 25
Extract:
The stated principle is that the nationality of a country that was non-represented or under-represented in the geographic distribution of staff members is only to be taken into account when candidates are equally well qualified. It was in error that qualifications, nationality and geographic distribution were accorded equal weight at that early stage of the process [...].
Keywords:
geographical distribution; selection procedure;
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 keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; joinder; selection procedure;
Considerations 15-16
Extract:
A matter which is more critical [...] is a concern for the integrity of the interview process, which the Appeals Committee raised in its report to the Director-General. The Committee expressed concern regarding the lack of transparency in the process, “including the fact that there [were] no available records of the scores from the interviews, which made it impossible for the Committee to verify whether the appellant’s assumption, that there was one point of difference between her and the original first ranked candidate, was accurate, and, if so, to consider whether there was ‘a significant and relevant difference between’ the external and internal candidates which could have led the PSSC, had it had a chance to review the original submission, to recommend a change in their respective rankings”.
This, in the Tribunal’s view, reflects a serious flaw in the early stages of the selection process. The scores from the interview stage of the selection process were critically important to assist in the determination whether the paramount consideration for selection secured the highest standards of efficiency, technical competence and integrity. They were also necessary to assist in the determination whether the candidates were equally well qualified, so that as an internal candidate, the complainant should have benefitted from that or the gender preference. With the reports from the subsequent stages of the selection process, those scores could have assisted to explain why the complainant was placed second in the two preliminary submissions and why that changed to third in the final submission that was transmitted to the PSSC on 16 November 2010. They could also have assisted to explain to the PSSC that paramount consideration was accorded to the qualifications required in the vacancy announcement; whether the candidates were equally well qualified or otherwise, and, ultimately, whether the complainant should have had the benefit of any preference. They could also have assisted to confirm these same matters for the Appeals Committee in the internal appeal, and for the Tribunal on this complaint.
Keywords:
selection procedure;
Judgment 3644
122nd Session, 2016
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge the procedural and substantive regularity of an appointment.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
appointment; complaint dismissed; joinder; selection procedure;
Judgment 3643
122nd Session, 2016
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge the lawfulness of the procedure followed to appoint another person to a P4 position.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
appointment; complaint dismissed; joinder; selection procedure;
Judgment 3642
122nd Session, 2016
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge the lawfulness of the procedure followed to fill an Administrative Assistant position.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
appointment; complaint dismissed; joinder; selection procedure;
Judgment 3641
122nd Session, 2016
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant disputes the lawfulness and the outcome of the competition procedure in which she participated.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; selection procedure;
Consideration 4(a)
Extract:
According to the Tribunal’s 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 tu 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 has 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, a breach of which vitiates any appointment based on a competition. (See Judgment 3073, under 4, and the case law cited therein.)
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3073
Keywords:
patere legem; selection procedure;
Consideration 5
Extract:
The mere fact that one of the candidates in a competition fills the advertised post ad interim does not render the procedure unlawful, unless the particular circumstances surrounding the competition suggest that it was no more than a paper exercise (see Judgment 2978, under 6). This may be the case where the ad interim appointment is made before the opening of the competition, provided there is also some objective indication that permanent appointment was a foregone conclusion when the competition was opened.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2978
Keywords:
selection procedure;
Judgment 3601
121st Session, 2016
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
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.
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 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:
bias; burden of proof; patere legem; personal prejudice; selection procedure;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; decision quashed; selection procedure;
Judgment 3595
121st Session, 2016
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges both the decision to separate him from service and his non-selection for a post.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; selection procedure; termination of employment;
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 3587
121st Session, 2016
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to initiate a new selection procedure after the decisions not to select her for a vacant post and to appoint another candidate were set aside due to a flawed selection procedure.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; loss of opportunity; procedural flaw; selection procedure;
Judgment 3584
121st Session, 2016
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his non-selection for a vacant post, alleging personal prejudice, and contests the transfer of the selected candidate to a commensurate post.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; loss of opportunity; moral injury; procedural flaw; selection procedure;
Judgment 3557
120th Session, 2015
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: As the complaint is clearly irreceivable, it is summarily dismissed.
Consideration 4
Extract:
"[T]o the extent that the complainant appears to be seeking to defend the general interest of the staff in having that particular vacancy filled by a lawful procedure, not only does he not have standing to do so either individually or as a member of a group, he also has a conflict of interest. Indeed, given that he participated in the selection process, he could not have been – even theoretically – a candidate for that vacancy. His claim is therefore clearly irreceivable as he lacks locus standi to bring it."
Keywords:
cause of action; locus standi; selection procedure;
Judgment 3543
120th Session, 2015
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: As the complainant did not prove the abuse of power she alleges, the Tribunal dismissed the complaint.
Consideration 8
Extract:
"[T]he Tribunal has already stated in Judgment 2648, under 8, that even if the guidelines provided for by the Collective Agreement are not adopted, their absence cannot prevent the Administration from carrying out the objective technical evaluations incumbent upon the authority responsible for selecting candidates in a competition."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2648
Keywords:
selection procedure;
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.
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 3494
120th Session, 2015
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the rejection of her candidature for a position in Eurocontrol.
Consideration 9
Extract:
"[A]s the Tribunal has consistently held, 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 that every applicant must enjoy, whatever her or his hopes of success may be (see Judgments 1549, under 9, 2163, under 1, or 3209, under 11)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1549, 2163, 3209
Keywords:
no cause of action; selection procedure;
Consideration 19
Extract:
"The Tribunal will not award the complainant the compensation she claims for loss of opportunity because, under the provisions of the Staff Regulations in force, Eurocontrol officials may not in principle be promoted to a higher grade bracket except through a competition (see Judgment 3404, under 8)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3404
Keywords:
loss of opportunity; selection procedure;
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 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;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 | next >
|
