Appointment (293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299, 300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 661, 660, 686,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Appointment
Total judgments found: 213
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 | next >
Judgment 4903
138th Session, 2024
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the refusal to select him for a post of civil engineering technician.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
appointment; complaint dismissed; selection procedure;
Consideration 6
Extract:
[I]n matters of appointment, the choice of the candidate to be appointed lies within the discretion of the authority competent to make the appointment within the organisation concerned. Such a decision is therefore subject to only limited review by the Tribunal 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, in particular, Judgments 3652, consideration 7, and 3372, consideration 12). As a result, a person who has applied for a post that an organisation has decided to fill by a competition and whose application is ultimately unsuccessful must prove that the selection procedure was tainted by a serious defect (see to that effect, in particular, Judgments 4625, consideration 3, 4001, consideration 4, 3669, consideration 4, and 1827, consideration 6). The Tribunal also recalls that, in relation to competitions, it is not its role to replace the assessment made by the competent selection bodies with its own assessment (see Judgments 4594, consideration 8, 4100, consideration 5, and 1595, consideration 4).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1595, 1827, 3669, 4001, 4100, 4594, 4625
Keywords:
appointment; competition; judicial review; role of the tribunal; selection procedure;
Judgment 4866
138th Session, 2024
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to select her for the post of Senior Adviser, Human Rights and Law, following a competitive recruitment process.
Consideration 3
Extract:
As it is not within the Tribunal’s competence to order an international organisation to make an appointment (see, for example, Judgments 4100, consideration 5, and 2299, consideration 7), the complainant’s request to the Tribunal to appoint her directly to the post with full retroactive effect is rejected.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2299, 4100
Keywords:
appointment; competence of tribunal; order; relief claimed;
Judgment 4865
138th Session, 2024
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to select her for the post of Senior Advisor, Gender Equality, following a competitive recruitment process.
Consideration 2
Extract:
As it is not within the Tribunal’s competence to order an international organisation to make an appointment (see, for example, Judgments 4100, consideration 5, and 2299, consideration 7), the complainant’s request to the Tribunal to appoint her directly to the post with full retroactive effect is rejected.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2299, 4100
Keywords:
appointment; competence of tribunal; order; relief claimed;
Judgment 4855
138th Session, 2024
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the appointment of another official to the position of Deputy Director, Investment Centre Division, following a competition.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
appointment; breach; competition; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; duty of care; duty to substantiate decision; moral damages; moral injury; selection procedure;
Judgment 4854
138th Session, 2024
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the appointment of another official to the position of Director, Office of Strategy, Planning and Resources Management, following a competitive selection process.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
appointment; breach; competition; complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; duty of care; duty to substantiate decision; moral damages; moral injury; selection procedure;
Judgment 4853
138th Session, 2024
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the direct appointment, ad interim, of Mr F. to the position of Director, Agricultural Development Economics Division.
Considerations 9-11
Extract:
It is tolerably clear that the case law establishes, in the context of the filling of a post following a competition, that a person who has not participated in the competition does not have a cause of action to challenge the competition (see, for example, in recent Judgment 4702, consideration 3). Indeed, if a person participates in the competition but was admitted to it erroneously, they have no cause of action if they were not eligible for the position (see Judgment 4087, considerations 6 and 7). One obvious rationale for this approach is that participation in the competition is a manifestation of interest in the position on the part of the complainant, with corresponding injury to that person if not appointed, who can then challenge the lawfulness of the competition and appointment. It would be an extremely curious result that a complainant who did not have an interest in a position (either immediate or longer term and thus risk of immediate or future injury) filled by appointment without competition, rather than by competition, had a significantly broader basis for challenging the appointment. The obvious question which arises is what is the credible basis for confining standing to challenge an appointment following a competition to those who participated in the competition, but not confining standing in a similar or analogous situation concerning an appointment without competition. If the latter is confined only by eligibility for appointment, the obvious question which arises is why would that not also be so of an appointment following a competition. The coherent answer lies in whether the complainant had an interest in the lawfulness of the filling of the position. That would derive from having an interest, either immediate or longer term, in the filling of the position.
The touchstone of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction is its Statute. Having regard to Article II, it concerns non-observance, in substance or in form, of the terms of appointment of officials and other provisions of the Staff Regulations. The relevant impugned decision must adversely affect the complainant’s rights or interests, or cause her or him injury, or be likely to cause injury (see, for example, Judgment 2670, consideration 5). This concerns legal rights or interests. As the Tribunal said in Judgment 4672, consideration 4:
“The Tribunal’s jurisdiction centres on whether there has been a reviewable administrative decision which, in turn, implies any act by an officer of an organisation which has a legal effect (see Judgments 4499, consideration 8, 3141, consideration 21, and 532, consideration 3).”
Plainly, if there is evidence that a staff member has manifested an interest in a position, then she or he has an interest in the preservation of the position for possible future appointment to it. That interest may be expressed, for example, by the staff member applying for the position in a competition. An interest might be inferred from all the circumstances, which might include that occupying the position would be a logical career progression or development for the staff member concerned. But, in the absence of evidence of interest, it is very difficult to discern what legal interest the staff member has in ensuring that the position, if filled, has been filled lawfully. Put slightly differently, it is difficult to discern what legal effect the appointment of another person to a position has on a staff member who has no interest in that position, even if she or he is qualified to be appointed to it.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4087, 4672, 4702
Keywords:
appointment; appointment without competition; cause of action; competition;
Consideration 12
Extract:
[T]he complainant clearly did not aspire to occupy the post of Director, ESA, in April 2017, when the vacancy notice was published. He did not apply for the position. He then had no legally enforceable interest in the steps which were, or were not taken, to fill the position. That is to say, any legal flaws in the selection process did not affect his rights or interests nor cause him injury. These facts would sustain an inference that in spring 2018, when the post was filled, his lack of interest in the position continued. It is true, and the Tribunal must recognise, that this was one year later. However, the complainant does not contend in his pleas that by spring 2018 he then had an interest in the position. Nor did the objective circumstances sustain an inference that he had. Accordingly, any procedural or other defects in the appointment of Mr F. in spring 2018 did not adversely affect his legal rights, or interests, or cause him injury.
Keywords:
appointment; appointment without competition; competition; no cause of action;
Consideration 6
Extract:
[T]he case law concerning a complainant challenging an appointment following a competition in which they did not compete and, accordingly, have no cause of action, informs the scope of the applicable principles, both when considering appointments following a competition and appointments which do not. Those principles should be coherent and consistent.
Keywords:
appointment; appointment without competition; cause of action; competition;
Judgment 4843
138th Session, 2024
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant – whose post was suppressed – challenges the decision to transfer another official to a post to which he believes he should have been reassigned as a priority.
Considerations 6-7
Extract:
First of all, and contrary to what the Organization submits, it is clear that the complainant had a cause of action in challenging the lawfulness of Ms M.’s appointment through an internal appeal, given that he himself was eligible to be appointed to that post. The question whether the complainant is correct in claiming that he should have been given priority over Ms M., or at least that his profile better suited the post in question, is a separate issue from his cause of action and has to be explored later, when the complaint is examined on the merits.
It also goes without saying that the decision to appoint Ms M. to a post for which the complainant was eligible constitutes an administrative decision that can be challenged by means of an internal appeal procedure and, subsequently, by a complaint before the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgments 4087, consideration 7, 3642, consideration 7, and 3450, consideration 7).
Similarly, contrary to what the Organization submits, in asserting in his internal appeal that efforts were supposed to be undertaken to reassign him within Interpol following the suppression of his post, the complainant was, implicitly but unquestionably, alleging a breach of the provisions of the Staff Manual relating to the reassignment process following the suppression of a post. The Secretary General himself had clearly acknowledged this given that, in the impugned decision, he had stated that the objection made by the complainant in support of his internal appeal formed part of the objections set out in an earlier internal appeal against the decision to terminate his appointment and that earlier appeal had been declared admissible. The argument put forward by the Organization in this regard is therefore irrelevant.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3450, 3642, 4087
Keywords:
appointment; cause of action; loss of opportunity;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
appointment; complaint allowed; reassignment;
Judgment 4836
138th Session, 2024
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his non-selection for several positions.
Consideration 2
Extract:
As to its role in a case where the selection of a successful candidate is challenged in a complaint, the Tribunal recalls its settled case law, stated, for example, in Judgment 4625, that in matters of appointment, the choice of the candidate to be appointed lies within the discretion of the authority competent to make the appointment within the organization concerned. Such a decision is therefore 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 (see, in particular, Judgments 3652, consideration 7, and 3372, consideration 12). As a result, a person who has applied for a post that an organization has decided to fill by a competition and whose application is ultimately unsuccessful must prove that the selection procedure was tainted by a serious defect.
The case law further states that, 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 (see, for example, Judgment 4412, consideration 10). That is a right which every applicant must enjoy, whatever her or his hope of success may be (see, inter alia, Judgments 3209, consideration 11, and 2163, consideration 1, and the case law cited therein). The case law also states that an organization 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 organization 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 3652, consideration 7). The Tribunal also recalls that, in relation to competitions, it is not its role to replace the assessment made by the competent selection bodies with its own assessment (see, for example, Judgment 4594, consideration 8).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2163, 3209, 3372, 3652, 4412, 4594, 4625
Keywords:
appointment; judicial review; selection procedure;
Judgment 4835
138th Session, 2024
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to rescind an offer of employment that had been extended to him, on the basis that he had been disciplined for sexual misconduct.
Considerations 8-10
Extract:
At the time when the […] rescission decision was made, the complainant had been sanctioned twice for breaches of the Code of Conduct and Anti-Harassment Guidelines. Before the 1 May 2020 final letter of warning which was eventually set aside, the complainant had received, on 29 July 2019, a first warning letter, following a preliminary assessment which concluded that he “had failed to accept a female subordinate’s repeated requests to end their personal relationship and had continued to make unwanted contact attempts of a personal or intimate nature, which appeared to have made the female subordinate in question uncomfortable and to have created an offensive working environment.” Therefore, the mention of “reference checks [...] [which] revealed that [the complainant] ha[d] been sanctioned for sexual misconduct” in the […] rescission decision can be regarded as covering the 29 July 2019 warning letter issued to the complainant, which alone provided a sufficient legal basis for IFRC to decide to rescind the conditional employment offer that had been extended to him on 26 June 2020. […] The complainant’s argument […] that a warning letter cannot be used to rescind an employment offer since it is “the second least serious disciplinary sanction open to the Secretary General” is also unfounded. The Tribunal considers that the complainant’s conduct underlying the 29 July 2019 warning letter is likely to have compromised the trust between him and the Federation, regardless of the type of disciplinary measure which was ultimately imposed […] [T]he Federation withdrew the conditional offer of employment based on a reference check revealing that the complainant had been sanctioned for sexual misconduct, which it was entitled to do as part of the exercise of its discretionary power.
Keywords:
appointment; conduct; disciplinary measure; discretion; offer withdrawn; sexual harassment;
Consideration 2
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal has consistently stated, in consideration 7 of Judgment 4412, for example, that the appointment by an international organization of a candidate to a position is a decision that lies within the discretion of its executive head. It is subject to limited review and may be set aside only if it was taken without authority, or in breach of a 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.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4412
Keywords:
appointment; discretion; judicial review; offer withdrawn;
Judgment 4806
137th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, acting in his capacity as staff representative at the material time, challenges the appointment of the Principal Director of Human Resources.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
appointment; complaint dismissed; selection procedure; staff representative;
Judgment 4801
137th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the appointment of the Principal Director of Human Resources.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
appointment; complaint dismissed; selection procedure;
Judgment 4777
137th Session, 2024
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the calculation of his remuneration and the determination of his step following his promotion from grade G.6 to grade P.3.
Consideration 3
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal’s case law [...] establishes that the executive head of an organisation has wide discretion in appointing or promoting staff and, therefore, the decisions that she or he takes in this area are subject to only limited review by the Tribunal. Thus, the Tribunal will only interfere in such a decision if it was taken without authority or in breach of a rule of form or procedure, if it was based on a mistake of fact or law, if an essential fact was overlooked, if a clearly wrong conclusion was drawn from the evidence or if there was abuse of authority (see, for example, Judgments 4552, consideration 2, 4451, consideration 6, and 3742, consideration 3). This case law also applies in the particular situation where, as in the present case, the object of the contested decision is to determine whether it is appropriate to rescind the award of a promotion to a staff member who now feels dissatisfied with it. In this regard, the complainant is, in reality, simply asking the Tribunal to replace the Secretary-General’s assessment by its own assessment of whether or not the promotion he received should be rescinded, which misconstrues the limited power of review of the Tribunal in such a case.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3742, 4451, 4552
Keywords:
appointment; discretion; judicial review; promotion;
Judgment 4772
137th Session, 2024
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to appoint another candidate to the position of Director, Investment Centre Division following a competitive selection process.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
appointment; competition; complaint allowed; conflict of interest; selection board;
Judgment 4769
137th Session, 2024
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns what he refers to as decisions concerning Eurocontrol Agency’s reorganisation, and his transfer following that reorganisation.
Consideration 7
Extract:
As regards the memorandum [...] which the complainant describes as a general decision, the Tribunal observes that it is in fact a collective decision making various individual appointments against the backdrop of the planned restructuring to ensure that management functioned smoothly during a transition period before recruitment procedures were initiated or final appointment decisions adopted. However, even supposing that the complainant had a cause of action in challenging these appointments, he stated in his internal complaint of 20 September 2019 that he did not seek to cause injury to his colleagues appointed and that he therefore remained at the Organisation’s disposal to discuss possible alternatives to cancelling the decision not to appoint him and to appoint his colleagues. The complainant did not request that one or more recruitment procedures be initiated for these various positions, nor did he later challenge his colleagues’ final individual appointments by the Organisation on 12 November 2019. It follows that his request for the memorandum of 5 July 2019 to be set aside is lacking in substance in any event and is therefore irreceivable as being moot.
Keywords:
appointment; cause of action; claim moot; general decision; individual decision;
Judgment 4738
137th Session, 2024
Energy Charter Conference
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to consider him not eligible for the appointment of Secretary-General of the Energy Charter Secretariat for a mandate starting in January 2022.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
appointment; complaint dismissed; executive head;
Judgment 4737
137th Session, 2024
Energy Charter Conference
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, who was the Secretary-General of the Energy Charter Secretariat, challenges the decision not to launch the procedure for his reappointment as Secretary-General.
Consideration 13
Extract:
It is true that the terms on which [the complainant] was initially appointed expressly, in his letter of appointment, recognised his right to have protected any acquired right. But the relevant question is whether a right to repeatedly reapply for the position was an acquired right which could not be altered. The Tribunal’s case law recognises that international civil servants’ conditions of employment existing at the time of recruitment are not immutable and need not, of necessity, be applied to them throughout their careers (see, for example, Judgment 4465, considerations 5 to 8). The Tribunal is not satisfied that an unconstrained right to reapply for the position of Secretary-General meets the criteria of an acquired right identified in, for example, Judgment 4195, consideration 7.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4195, 4465
Keywords:
acquired right; appointment; executive head;
Consideration 5
Extract:
[T]he organisation [contends] that the decision not to launch the reappointment procedure, which was made by the Conference, was a bare political decision that is not open to judicial review. But the Tribunal notes that the decision was not entirely political but indirectly raised the question of the application of the conditions in the rules for appointment of the Secretary-General and had a direct legal adverse effect on the complainant, an international civil servant. The observations of the Tribunal in Judgment 2232, consideration 10, are apt to apply:
"a decision terminating the appointment of an international civil servant prior to the expiry of his/her term of office is an administrative decision, even if it is based on political considerations. The fact that it emanates from the Organisation's highest decision-making body cannot exempt it from the necessary review applying to all individual decisions which are alleged to be in breach of the terms of an appointment or contract, or of statutory provisions".
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2232
Keywords:
administrative decision; appointment; competence of tribunal; executive head;
Consideration 11
Extract:
The limitation on reapplication [to the position of Secretary-General] was to operate in the future and, in terms, was to operate on the “serving” Secretary-General. Thus, it was, in terms, to apply in the future to anyone with that status. While the complainant acquired that status (by way of reappointment) on the same day the amendment took legal effect, the amendment creating the limitation on reapplying could and would, on its face, apply at the expiration of the term of the complainant’s reappointment. It is the combined effect of the historical fact that the complainant had been reappointed once to the position in 2016, effective 1 January 2017, together with his status as Secretary-General after the amendment came into effect, that engaged the amendment.
Moreover, the purpose of the amendment is clear. It was to eliminate the possibility that a serving Secretary-General could, by repeated reappointments flowing from repeated reapplications, remain in the position for a very lengthy period of time. Its purpose was to ensure finite periods of occupation of the position rather than open-ended periods.
Keywords:
appointment; executive head; retroactivity;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
administrative decision; appointment; complaint dismissed; executive head; official; plenary judgment;
Judgment 4698
136th Session, 2023
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant seeks reinstatement in a post to which he had been appointed and requests payment of the corresponding function allowance.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
appointment; complaint allowed; withdrawal of decision;
Judgment 4687
136th Session, 2023
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate her appointment after she refused two reassignments.
Consideration 8
Extract:
One legal issue presented for consideration by the pleas is whether the power to reassign an official to such a position is in any way conditioned or qualified in circumstances where a competition is on foot to fill the position. While it is not explicitly put this way by the complainant, it is the import of one of her pleas. There are a number of cases where the Tribunal has considered the direct appointment of a person to a position in circumstances where it denied the complainant “a right to compete” (see generally Judgments 4069, 3742, 3288 and 2959). By parity of reasoning, and notwithstanding the unequivocal bias just referred to, the decision to appoint the complainant, by way of reassignment, to the position in Cameroon deprived those who had entered the competition following the 27 December 2017 vacancy announcement of their right to compete and for each to have their candidature assessed on its merits. Deprivation of that right would involve a breach of WHO’s duty to act in good faith (see Judgments 4619, consideration 8, and 4618, consideration 8) to those who entered the competition. Consistent with the existence of this duty to act in good faith, the power to fill a position by reassignment, should not be interpreted as authorising reassignment
to a position when a competition is on foot to fill the very same position. There is an implied limitation on the exercise of the power to reassign. Thus, the decision of 12 January 2018 to reassign the complainant to the position in Cameroon was not lawful. Accordingly, the decision of 16 March 2018 to terminate her employment because she had refused the reassignment, was tainted by the unlawfulness of the reassignment decision and the decision to terminate should be set aside.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2959, 3288, 3742, 4069, 4618, 4619
Keywords:
appointment; appointment without competition; reassignment; selection procedure; termination of employment; transfer;
Judgment 4625
135th Session, 2023
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant disputes the lawfulness and outcome of a competition procedure in which she participated.
Consideration 3
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal recalls its settled case law under which, in matters of appointment, the choice of the candidate to be appointed lies within the discretion of the authority competent to make the appointment within the organisation concerned. Such a decision is therefore 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, in particular, Judgments 3652, consideration 7, and 3372, consideration 12). As a result, a person who has applied for a post that an organisation has decided to fill by a competition and whose application is ultimately unsuccessful must prove that the selection procedure was tainted by a serious defect (see, in particular, Judgments 4001, consideration 4, and 1827, consideration 6).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1827, 3372, 3652, 4001
Keywords:
appointment; competition; judicial review; role of the tribunal; selection procedure;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
appointment; competition; complaint dismissed; selection procedure;
Judgment 4584
135th Session, 2023
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant seeks the cancellation of the competition organised to fill the grade P.4 post of programme coordinator that he had held in the ITU Regional Office for Africa until his retirement.
Consideration 5
Extract:
[I]t must be reiterated that, under the Tribunal’s settled case law, a staff appointment by an international organisation is a decision that lies within the discretion of its executive head and, for that reason, is subject only to 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 (see, in particular, Judgments 4408, consideration 2, 4153, consideration 2, 3188, consideration 8, or 2040, consideration 5). The Tribunal will not replace the organisation’s assessment with its own in this matter (see, in particular, Judgments 4100, consideration 5, 3537, consideration 10, 2833, consideration 10(b), or 2762, consideration 17). Furthermore, where an appointment is made on the basis of a selection among candidates for a post, a complainant seeking to have the appointment set aside must demonstrate that there was a serious defect in the selection process which impacted on the outcome of the competition (see, for example, Judgments 4524, consideration 8, 4208, consideration 3, 4147, consideration 9, or 4023, consideration 2). In particular, it is not enough simply to assert that one is better qualified for the post in question than the selected candidate (see, for example, Judgments 4467, consideration 2, 4001, consideration 4, 3669, consideration 4, or 1827, consideration 6).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1827, 2040, 2762, 2833, 3188, 3537, 3669, 4001, 4023, 4100, 4147, 4153, 4208, 4408, 4467, 4524
Keywords:
appointment; competition; role of the tribunal; selection procedure;
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 | next >
|
