Judgment No. 107
Decision
THE COMPLAINT IS DISMISSED.
Consideration 2(C)
Extract:
"When making their decision the three experts were not aware of the names of the respective candidates, the papers having been placed in plain envelopes marked only with a letter of the alphabet. This ensured the impartiality of the experts. While it is true that complainant's chief, who was allegedly prejudiced against him, was a member of the Board of Experts, he expressed views which, although independent of those of his colleagues, did not differ from them. Consequently his presence cannot be said to have brought personal influence to bear on the results of the competition [...]. There is no reason to question the impartiality with which the results were evaluated."
Keywords
recusal; competition; selection board; bias; composition of the internal appeals body
Consideration 2(A)
Extract:
"The organization did not fail in its duty in making public announcement of the competition in the press, which attracted some hundred applicants; in so doing not only was it acting in accordance with [the applicable provision], but it was also increasing its chances of appointing a qualified person, and it cannot be blamed for this."
Keywords
organisation's duties; competition; vacancy notice
Consideration 1
Extract:
"The organization's [statutory] obligation to have regard to [the] qualifications [of members of the organization] implies, in the first place, that they are entitled to take part in any competitions that may be open to them. [T]his right [...] necessarily include[s] the right to demand that the arrangements for the competition ensure the appointment of the candidate who is really the best qualified. In other words, at every stage of the competition including the arrangements made, the conduct of the tests and the evaluation of their results, every candidate must be treated on an equal footing and with full impartiality."
Keywords
procedure before the tribunal; equal treatment; organisation's duties; competition; safeguard
Consideration 3
Extract:
The complainant "is not justified in criticising the conditions under which the competition was held. As he does not deny that his work was inferior to that of the candidate who was appointed, he cannot claim a preferential right as a serving official, since this exists only where qualifications are equal."
Keywords
competition; internal candidate; open competition; priority; condition
Consideration 3
Extract:
"As he was appointed for temporary fixed periods, [the complainant] is not entitled to claim reinstatement in a post of indefinite duration that he has never held."
Keywords
contract; fixed-term; permanent appointment; right
Consideration 2(A)
Extract:
"It is of no importance that the tests [of the second examination] differed to some extent from those taken by complainant [in the first examination]; the organization was quite right not to repeat the preceding examination exactly so that applicants who had taken the first examination should not be favoured at the expense of those who took the second."
Keywords
equal treatment; competition
Consideration 1
Extract:
"Although the organization is bound to have full regard to the qualifications and experience of persons already in its service, this does not mean that it must necessarily always appoint them in preference to outside applicants. If this privilege were automatically to be granted to the serving staff, the organization might be led to take decisions contrary to its own interests, a situation which was certainly not intended by those who drafted the Staff Regulations. The position is that persons already in the service of the organization have priority only if their qualifications appear to be at least equal to those of other candidates."
Keywords
appointment; competition; internal candidate; priority; organisation's interest
|