External candidate (698,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: External candidate
Total judgments found: 15

• 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 10

  Extract:

  External advertisement of vacant positions may only be done pursuant to Staff Regulation 5.4.1(d). Under its provision, vacant positions may be advertised externally, only when the position requires technical skills, experience or professional qualifications are unlikely to be available among current Federation staff, or when a different skill set and external experience for the post or within the existing team is needed. Outside of these circumstances, the Federation’s rules do not permit external recruitment. The Federation, who is required by the case law, stated, for example, in consideration 20 of Judgment 3601, to prove that the procedure it had put in place was duly followed, has not shown that it advertised the subject positions because the requirements in Staff Regulation 5.4.1(d) existed at the material time.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3601
  

  Keywords:

  burden of proof; external candidate; internal candidate; interpretation of rules; selection procedure; vacancy notice;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4552

  
  134th Session, 2022
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to select him for the post of director of the Language Service.

  Consideration 3

  Extract:

  [T]he complainant’s assertion that it is incomprehensible why an application from an external candidate was shortlisted whereas an application from an internal candidate is obviously stronger and ought therefore to have received the EPO’s special consideration, is based on circular reasoning, not on any tangible evidence submitted by the complainant.

  Keywords:

  external candidate; internal candidate; selection procedure;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4548

  
  134th Session, 2022
  International Labour Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant claims compensation for the injury she considers she has suffered because she was not re-hired by the ILO.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  competence of tribunal; complaint dismissed; external candidate; former official; ratione personae;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3774

  
  123rd Session, 2017
  International Labour Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the fact that he has not been offered further contracts with the ILO.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  competence of tribunal; complaint dismissed; external candidate; ratione personae;
  

  Consideration 1

  Extract:

  To the extent that the present complaint is intended to challenge the complainant’s non-selection for another short-term contract with the ILO, it will be dismissed as irreceivable as the Tribunal has no competence to hear it. The Tribunal considers that the complainant has no standing to challenge his non-selection for a post by virtue of Article II of the Tribunal’s Statute because he was no more than an outside applicant and could not claim the non-observance of the terms and conditions of an appointment which he did not have. The rationale for this decision is well explained, for example, in Judgment 3653, consideration 4 [...].

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT reference: Article II of the Statute
  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3653
  

  Keywords:

  candidate; external candidate;
  

  
  
  

• 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.

  Consideration 4

  Extract:

  There is [...] no provision under which the Tribunal is competent to hear the claim concerning the complainant’s non-selection for the post [...]. As he was not selected for the post, he did not become a WFP staff member from that application and therefore obtained no right to lodge an internal appeal under Staff Regulation 301.11.1 to challenge the non-selection. Because of his non-selection, he had not entered into a contractual relationship with the WFP. Accordingly, by virtue of Article II, paragraph 5, of the Tribunal’s Statute, he has no standing to bring a claim before the Tribunal alleging the non-observance of the terms and conditions of an appointment which he did not have. This position was explained in Judgment 1509, consideration 16 [...].

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT reference: Article II, paragraph 5, of the Statute
  ILOAT Judgment(s): 1509
  

  Keywords:

  candidate; external candidate; locus standi; non official; ratione personae; status of complainant;
  

  
  
  

• 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 12

  Extract:

  [The Tribunal] stated in Judgment 2392, under 9:
  “It is well settled that preferences such as those mentioned [i.e. by reason of being an internal candidate and by reason of gender] must be given effect to where the choice has to be made between candidates who are evenly matched. On the other hand, they have no role to play where there is a significant and relevant difference between the candidates. […]”

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2392
  

  Keywords:

  external candidate; internal candidate;
  

  Consideration 12

  Extract:

  [The Tribunal] relevantly stated as follows in Judgment 2712, under 5 and 6:
  “5. The Tribunal has consistently held that 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 stipulated in the vacancy announcement (see for example Judgments 1158, 1646 and 2584.)

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 1158, 1646, 2584, 2712
  

  Keywords:

  external candidate; internal candidate;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3549

  
  120th Session, 2015
  International Criminal Court
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: As the complaint is clearly irreceivable, it is summarily dismissed.

  Consideration 3

  Extract:

  "Pursuant to Article II, paragraph 5, of its Statute, “[t]he Tribunal shall […] be competent to hear complaints alleging non-observance, in substance or in form, of the terms of appointment of officials”. At no point in time did the complainant have the status of an official of the ICC. As the Tribunal has often recalled in its case law, external candidates for employment and persons who have not concluded a contract of employment with an organisation that has recognised the jurisdiction of the Tribunal are not within the latter’s jurisdiction (see, for example, Judgments 803, under 3, 1554, under 10, 1964, under 4, and 3382, under 4)."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 803, 1554, 1964, 3382
  

  Keywords:

  candidate; external candidate; non official; ratione personae;
  

  
  
  

• 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.

  Consideration 5

  Extract:

  "A steady line of precedent has it that the Tribunal may not hear complaints challenging a decision to reject the candidature of an external applicant for a post in an international organisation that has recognised the Tribunal’s jurisdiction (see Judgment 2657, under 3). This case law must apply here by analogy, since the complaint concerns the circumstances surrounding recruitment procedures within two administrative entities which are clearly identified as being separate, though they belong to the same international organisation."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2657
  

  Keywords:

  candidate; external candidate; non official; ratione personae; receivability of the complaint;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3382

  
  118th Session, 2014
  European Organization for Nuclear Research
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complaint filed by an unsuccessful external candidate for employment was summarily dismissed as being not within the scope of the Tribunal’s competence.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  candidate; complaint dismissed; external candidate; non official; official; ratione personae; receivability of the complaint; status of complainant; summary procedure;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2657

  
  103rd Session, 2007
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 5

  Extract:

  The complainant contests the decision not to appoint him to a post as examiner at the European Patent Office on the grounds that he did not meet the physical requirements for the post. The Organisation submits that the Tribunal is not competent to hear complaints from external applicants for a post in an organisation that has recognised its jurisdiction. "However regrettable a decision declining jurisdiction may be, in that the complainant is liable to feel that he is the victim of a denial of justice, the Tribunal has no option but to confirm the well-established case law according to which it is a court of limited jurisdiction and 'bound to apply the mandatory provisions governing its competence', as stated in Judgment 67, delivered on 26 October 1962. [...]
  It [can be inferred from Article II of the Statute of the Tribunal] that persons who are applicants for a post in an international organisation but who have not been recruited are barred from access to the Tribunal. It is only in a case where, even in the absence of a contract signed by the parties, the commitments made by the two sides are equivalent to a contract that the Tribunal can decide to retain jurisdiction (see for example Judgment 339). According to Judgment 621, there must be 'an unquestioned and unqualified concordance of will on all terms of the relationship'. That is not the case, however, in the present circumstances: while proposals regarding an appointment were unquestionably made to the complainant, the defendant was not bound by them until it had established that the conditions governing appointments laid down in the regulations were met."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT reference: Article II of the Statute
  ILOAT Judgment(s): 67, 339, 621
  

  Keywords:

  appointment; candidate; case law; competence of tribunal; complaint; condition; consequence; contract; declaration of recognition; definition; exception; external candidate; formal requirements; grounds; handicapped person; iloat statute; intention of parties; interpretation; medical examination; medical fitness; open competition; organisation; post; proposal; provision; refusal; terms of appointment; vested competence; written rule;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 1845

  
  87th Session, 1999
  European Southern Observatory
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 10

  Extract:

  "Under Article II(6) of its Statute the Tribunal is open to a former staff member. However, Article II(5) restricts the competence of the Tribunal, ratione materiae, to complaints alleging the non-observance, in substance or in form, of the terms of appointment of a staff member or of the provisions of the applicable staff regulations. On expiry of the complainant's contract, he ceased to be a staff member. His complaint, concerning his non-selection [to the post of assistant to the head of administration] does not involve any allegation of the violation of any rights which he enjoyed under his contract or the Staff Regulations insofar as they continued to apply to him. The Tribunal therefore [cannot] entertain the complaint."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT reference: ARTICLE II (5) OFTHE STATUTE;
  ARTICLE II (6) OF THE STATUTE
  
  

  Keywords:

  candidate; competence of tribunal; competition; contract; enforcement; external candidate; iloat statute; locus standi; receivability of the complaint; separation from service; staff regulations and rules;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 1554

  
  81st Session, 1996
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 10

  Extract:

  "The complainant is wrong in contending that for challenging the non-renewal of his contract the time limit of ninety days was somehow held over because of a connexion with his application for a post. His complaint shows two distinct elements: the non-renewal of his contract on 31 January 1994 and his unsuccessful application for a post in April 1994. His failure to file a complaint with the Tribunal within ninety days of 31 January 1994 means that any claim in relation to his contract is time-barred. As for his application for a post, by the time he made it he was no longer an employee of the Organisation. Since an outside candidate for employment does not have access to the Tribunal his complaint is irreceivable in that regard as well."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT reference: ARTICLE VII OF THE STATUTE
  
  

  Keywords:

  candidate; competition; complainant; contract; external candidate; locus standi; non-renewal of contract; ratione personae; receivability of the complaint; status of complainant; time bar; time limit;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 1509

  
  81st Session, 1996
  United Nations Industrial Development Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 16

  Extract:

  When the complainant lodged a claim to reinstatement "he was neither a serving nor a former official of UNIDO, to which he was no more than an outside applicant for employment and whose decision was in fact a refusal to recruit him. That decision raises no question of non-observance of the terms of appointment of an official of UNIDO, or of its Staff Regulations. So again the Tribunal may not entertain the claim."

  Keywords:

  appointment; breach; candidate; competence of tribunal; competition; complainant; contract; external candidate; locus standi; official; refusal; reinstatement; staff regulations and rules; status of complainant;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 580

  
  51st Session, 1983
  International Labour Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 8

  Extract:

  "The [Organisation] contends that the complainant has no cause of action. [It pleads] that the impugned decision does him no injury. It is clear, however, that in the circumstances the complainant has an interest, of a kind which the Tribunal will protect, in pleading any irregularity there may have been in the [...] candidacy" to the post of Director-General [the complainant was deprived of an opportunity to stand; if he had been able to stand, his chances of being elected would have been diminished with the candidacy in question].

  Keywords:

  candidate; cause of action; executive head; external candidate; injury;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 71

  
  12th Session, 1964
  Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 5

  Extract:

  "It results from an examination of the correspondence exchanged between the organization and the complainant that no legal relationship whatsoever was ever established between [the complainant and the organization]; that consequently, the complainant cannot be considered as an official of the organization in the sense of [...] Article II, paragraph 6, [of the Statute of the Tribunal]; and that, therefore, his complaint is not receivable."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT reference: ARTICLE II, PARAGRAPH 6, OF THE STATUTE
  
  

  Keywords:

  candidate; competence of tribunal; external candidate; locus standi; receivability of the complaint; right of appeal; status of complainant;