Competition (294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299, 300, 301, 302, 303, 304,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Competition
Total judgments found: 163

< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 | next >

• Judgment 3648

  
  122nd Session, 2016
  World Intellectual Property Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the validity of a competition process in which she participated and the lawfulness of the ensuing appointment.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  competition; complaint allowed; decision quashed;
  

  Consideration 9

  Extract:

  As the Tribunal has already stated [...] (see Judgment 564, under 5 and 6), in the event that the applicable regulations change in the course of a competition, the rules governing the membership of the body responsible for selecting candidates that were in force at the time when the competition was advertised continue to apply. This is the case unless there are express provisions to the contrary (see Judgment 2051, under 5 to 8).
  In support of her argument, the complainant seeks to rely on the well-established case law under which any administrative decision should in principle be based on the provisions in force at the time it is adopted (see, in particular, Judgments 2459, under 9, and 2985, under 15). She infers from this that the decisions taken at the end of the disputed competition, including with regard to the arrangements for the prior consultation of the selection body, should have complied with the provisions in force at the time when they were taken.
  However, the same case law makes plain that it is appropriate to depart from this rule where, for example, applying it would breach the principle of good faith. The replacement of the Appointment and Promotion Board that had been set up initially with another selection body with a different membership would have infringed this principle, as it would have undermined the candidates’ legitimate expectation that the competition would take place in the conditions stipulated at its opening.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 564, 2051, 2459, 2985
  

  Keywords:

  competition;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3647

  
  122nd Session, 2016
  World Intellectual Property Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the validity of a competition process in which he participated and the lawfulness of the ensuing appointment.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  competition; complaint allowed; decision quashed;
  

  Consideration 9

  Extract:

  The Tribunal’s case law recognises that the executive head of an international organisation may cancel a competition in the interest of the organisation if, among other reasons, it becomes apparent that the competition will not enable the post concerned to be filled, and that she or he may, if need be, decide to hold a new competition on different terms (see, for example, Judgments 1223, under 31, 1771, under 4 (e), 1982, under 5 (a), and 2075, under 3).
  However, the condition relating to the interests of the organisation must actually be met, so that the cancellation of the initial process is based on a legitimate reason. In this matter as in any other, arbitrary decision-making is unacceptable.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 1223, 1771, 1982, 2075
  

  Keywords:

  competition;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3619

  
  121st Session, 2016
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant contests the rejection of her internal appeal against the decisions not to convert her fixed-term contract into a permanent contract and not to select her for a vacant permanent post.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  competition; complaint allowed; conversion of contract; decision quashed; fixed-term; permanent appointment;
  

  
  
  

• 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 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.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  appointment; candidate; competition; complaint dismissed;
  

  
  
  

• 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.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  competition; complaint allowed; harassment; joinder;
  

  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 3536

  
  120th Session, 2015
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the final selection decision taken by the President of the Office on a competition.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  appointment; candidate; competition; complaint dismissed;
  

  
  
  

• 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 2

  Extract:

  "Any employee of an international organisation who is eligible for a post may challenge an appointment to that post, regardless of his or her chances of successful appointment to it (see Judgment 2959, under 3). In order to be entitled to take such action, however, he or she must have applied for the post or, failing that, must have been prevented from doing so through no fault of his or her own."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2959
  

  Keywords:

  candidate; cause of action; competition;
  

  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;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3372

  
  118th Session, 2014
  International Labour Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The Tribunal dismissed the complaint seeking the cancellation of a competition and the appointment resulting from it.

  Consideration 19

  Extract:

  "According to the case law of the Tribunal, an international organisation must observe the essential rule in every selection procedure, which is that the person appointed must possess the minimum qualifications specified in the vacancy notice."

  Keywords:

  competition; qualifications;
  

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  competition; complaint dismissed;
  

  Consideration 12

  Extract:

  "According to the case law of the Tribunal, the selection of a successful applicant in a competition is a discretionary decision of the executive head of the organisation (see Judgment 2584, under 15). Such a decision is subject to only limited review. The Tribunal will interfere with such a decision only if it was taken without authority, or in breach of a rule of form or of procedure, or if it rested on an error of fact or of law, or if some essential fact was overlooked, or if there was abuse of authority, or if clearly mistaken conclusions have been drawn from the evidence. Moreover, the Tribunal will exercise its power of review with special caution in such cases, and will not replace the organisation’s assessment of the candidates with its own. (See, for example, Judgments 2362, 2365 and 2392, under 10.)"

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2362, 2365, 2392, 2584
  

  Keywords:

  candidate; competition; discretion; judicial review;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3288

  
  116th Session, 2014
  International Criminal Court
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant unsuccessfully challenges a recruitment process.

  Consideration 8

  Extract:

  "The Tribunal is of the opinion that, following the guidelines set out in Judgment 2959, the present complaint is unfounded. As Regulation 4.3 uses the term “normally”, the Tribunal finds that the Regulations governing the selection of staff members will be followed as written unless there is an exceptional situation in which it is not practicable to do so for objective reasons. Unlike the situation leading to Judgment 2959, the present complaint stems from a direct appointment that indeed can be considered as having occurred based on the “impracticability” of following the usual competitive selection process."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2959
  

  Keywords:

  appointment; competition; interpretation; post; provision; written rule;
  

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  appointment; competition; complaint dismissed;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3272

  
  116th Session, 2014
  Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant successfully challenges the decision not to appoint her to a vacant post due to procedural flaw and violation of her right to due process.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  competition; complaint allowed; disclosure of evidence;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3219

  
  115th Session, 2013
  International Labour Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant successfully challenges his non-selection for a post, alleging that the selection process was flawed and unfair.

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  competition; complaint allowed; decision quashed; equal treatment; flaw; selection procedure;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3209

  
  115th Session, 2013
  International Telecommunication Union
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant accuses the ITU of having failed in its duty to ensure transparency in a selection process.

  Considerations 13 and 14

  Extract:

  The complainant applied for a post but was not selected. She asks the Tribunal to require disclosure of the file of the selection process.
  "[The Organisation] argues that the complainant’s request for the communication of the file is a claim made for the first time in her complaint and must therefore be dismissed as irreceivable. However, as the complainant rightly observes, this is not a new claim which would be subject to the rule on the exhaustion of internal remedies. In this instance, it is merely a request made on the basis of Article 11 of the Rules of the Tribunal, for the Tribunal to use its powers of investigation, which it can in fact do on its own motion.
  The defendant also stated that if the Tribunal considered that the information supplied in support of its arguments was insufficient, it would transmit the file of the selection process for the exclusive attention of the Tribunal. [...] The Tribunal recalls that, according to the adversarial principle, all documents submitted to it by a party to the proceedings must be communicated to the other party. It will be for the organisation itself, if it considers this necessary in order to protect the interests of third parties, to conceal identities to the required extent in the documents produced."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT reference: Article 11 of the Rules
  
  

  Keywords:

  adversarial proceedings; application of law ex officio; competition; disclosure of evidence; interlocutory order; internal remedies exhausted; new claim; receivability of the complaint;
  

  Consideration 11

  Extract:

  According to the Tribunal’s case law, an appointment by an international organisation is a decision that lies within the discretion of its executive head. Being 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. Nevertheless, anyone who applies for a post to be filled by some process of selection is entitled to have 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 his hopes of success may be (see, inter alia, Judgment 2163, under 1, and the case law cited therein).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2163
  

  Keywords:

  appointment; competition; discretion; judicial review; selection procedure;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3206

  
  115th Session, 2013
  World Intellectual Property Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complaint, which aims at the cancellation of a contested appointment, is allowed.

  Consideration 16

  Extract:

  The complainant challenges the decision to appoint a colleague to a grade D-2 position through a direct recruitment procedure. The Tribunal finds that there was no valid reason to apply such a procedure. “The Director General was therefore right to conclude […] that [the] appointment […] was unlawful. However, he was mistaken in believing that this did not oblige him to withdraw that appointment. Since this unlawful decision was the subject of an internal appeal validly filed by another staff member who had cause of action, the Director General had no option but to withdraw it. [T]he fact that [the colleague in question] had left the Organization’s service in the meantime did not alter that duty […].”

  Keywords:

  appointment; cause of action; competition; flaw; internal appeal; selection procedure;
  

  
  
  

• 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;
  

< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 | next >