Candidate (295, 296,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Candidate
Total judgments found: 106
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 | next >
Judgment 2210
94th Session, 2003
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"Where a reserve recruitment list is resorted to, the vacant post is filled without applying the competition procedure provided for in the above-mentioned provisions. Staff members must be given the possibility of entering competitions on the basis of which reserve lists for filling 'similar' posts are to be established. That possibility is denied them if they do not know what is meant by 'similar' posts. [...] The broader the definition of 'similar', the greater the risk of such occurrences. The requirements of equal treatment, objectivity and transparency in appointment procedures place the [organisation] under an obligation to provide a clear and precise definition of the concept of a 'similar' post. [...] It is the responsibility of the [organisation] to specify, in notices of competition, the nature of the posts which can be considered to be 'similar' for the purposes of any subsequent use of a reserve list."
Keywords:
appointment; candidate; competition; definition; equal treatment; good faith; organisation's duties; right; vacancy; vacancy notice;
Consideration 4(c) and (d)
Extract:
The Agency considers that the complainant has no cause of action (to challenge the outcome of a competition) since she holds a post corresponding to her wishes and did not apply for a post which is, according to the organisation, very similar to the disputed post. The Tribunal states that: "all staff members are entitled to compete in accordance with the conditions laid down in the applicable provisions. Staff members are free to choose whether or not to apply for a competition, provided that they do not abuse this right."
Keywords:
appointment; candidate; cause of action; competition; post; receivability of the complaint; right;
Judgment 2163
93rd Session, 2002
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 1
Extract:
"An appointment by an international organisation is a discretionary decision. 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. The Tribunal will, in cases like the present, exercise its power of review with special caution, its function being not to judge the candidates on merit but to allow the organisation full responsibility for its choice. [...] 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 Judgments 1077 [...], 1497 [...] and 1549 [...])."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1077, 1497, 1549
Keywords:
abuse of power; appointment; candidate; case law; competition; decision; decision-maker; discretion; disregard of essential fact; equal treatment; flaw; formal flaw; good faith; international civil service principles; judicial review; limits; mistake of fact; mistaken conclusion; misuse of authority; organisation's duties; procedural flaw; right;
Judgment 2157
93rd Session, 2002
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 2-3
Extract:
"The Tribunal is competent, ratione personae, to hear the complaint since, under Article ii, paragraph 6, of its Statute. The Tribunal is open to former staff members. However, Article ii, paragraph 5, restricts the Tribunal's competence, ratione materiae, to complaints alleging non-observance of the terms of appointment of officials and of provisions of an organisation's staff regulations. [...] As a general rule, a former staff member who applies for a post in an organisation after separation from it may not rely on the rules that governed his contract of appointment and so does not have access to the Tribunal (see, among others, Judgments 1845 [...] and 1554 [...])" except in the case of "any contractual obligation the [organisation] may have had to help the complainant to find new employment [...]."
Reference(s)
ILOAT reference: ARTICLE II (5) OF THE STATUTE;
ARTICLE II (6) OF THE STATUTE
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1554, 1845
Keywords:
candidate; case law; competence of tribunal; competition; complaint; contract; organisation's duties; receivability of the complaint; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 2142
93rd Session, 2002
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 18
Extract:
"In a selection for a post, the most worthy candidates are selected 'in', i.e. to become members of staff, whereas in a mutually agreed separation exercise these are the very people who are most likely to be selected 'out' i.e. not to be released, in accordance with the requirements of the service. The interest of the organisation, which is paramount in each case, requires that the best candidates be employed and promoted in the first instance, and that they be retained in the organisation's service in the second."
Keywords:
agreed termination; appointment; candidate; competition; organisation; organisation's interest; post; procedure before the tribunal; promotion; qualifications;
Judgment 2122
93rd Session, 2002
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
The complainant submitted her candidacy for a post of legal assistant. Her application was not taken into consideration because she did not fulfil the eligibility conditions set out in the notice of competition. She submits that there is a contradiction between the provisions of Staff Regulation Article 30 and those of Rule of Application No. 2 which sets out conditions for eligibility. The Tribunal finds "no contradiction between the provisions of Staff Regulation Article 30 and those of Rule of Application No. 2. [...] Contrary to what the complainant appears to suggest, the fact that Article 30(1) of the Staff Regulations says that the 'selection of candidates shall be based on qualifications' does not preclude the setting of eligibility conditions. [...] The eligibility conditions provided for in Rule No. 2 offend against no provision of the Staff Regulations. [...] The complainant did not meet all the conditions set in the notice of competition, and the Agency was therefore right to reject her application."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ARTICLE 30 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS GOVERNING OFFICIALS OF THE AGENCY
Keywords:
appointment; breach; candidate; competition; complainant; condition; criteria; degree; difference; enforcement; grounds; post; provision; refusal; staff regulations and rules; vacancy notice;
Judgment 2120
93rd Session, 2002
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 10-11
Extract:
A paragraph of a notice issued by the Organisation's secretariat stipulates that the spouse of a staff member shall normally not be employed in the same department as the staff member. The Tribunal considers that "the provision improperly discriminates between candidates for appointment based on their marital status and family relationship [...]. Discrimination on such grounds is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations, general principles of law and those which govern the international civil service, as well as international instruments on human rights. [...] All forms of improper discrimination are prohibited. What is improper discrimination? It is, at least in the employment context, the drawing of distinctions between staff members or candidates for appointment on the basis of irrelevant personal characteristics. Manifestly, the fact that two staff members may be married to each other is not relevant to their competence or the capacity of either one of them to fulfil their obligations. and, if it is thought that marital or intimate personal relationships between staff members may create management problems, such problems must be dealt with in ways that do not discriminate against either of them as a result of such relationships. The Tribunal notes that [the notice] as it is written, besides being too broad, is not even effective in dealing with the presumed possibility of undue influence or favouritism for it is silent on non-marital intimate relationships. It also fails to deal with marriages taking place after appointment".
Keywords:
administrative instruction; assignment; breach; candidate; competition; definition; difference; equal treatment; family relationship; general principle; grounds; international civil service principles; international instrument; official; organisation; post; provision; publication; qualifications; staff member's duties; terms of appointment; un charter; universal declaration of human rights;
Judgment 2116
92nd Session, 2002
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"The [organization] was cavalier in the way in which it informed [the complainant] of what was to become of the selection process. For the complainant it was particularly important that she be informed promptly whether she could expect to be appointed, so that she could start to look for another job if need be. She contends, and the [organization] does not demur, that she had the more reason to be optimistic as she had been told unofficially that of all the applicants, she stood the best chance of being appointed. In these circumstances, the [organization] ought to have [informed] her [...] that reclassification was a serious possibility for the post in question. But it did not [...] thereafter, when a decision was taken [...] to withdraw the vacancy announcement, the organization should have informed the candidates immediately. [...] The complainant was so informed in writing [...] nearly four months later. Even if [...] she was informed by telephone [...] written notification was nonetheless an obligation. The complainant's personal interests have undoubtedly been harmed and some redress for the material and moral injury she suffered is warranted [...]."
Keywords:
appointment; assignment; candidate; competition; competition cancelled; date of notification; delay; duty to inform; material damages; material injury; moral injury; organisation's duties; post; post classification; procedure before the tribunal; staff member's interest; time limit; vacancy notice;
Judgment 2074
91st Session, 2001
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
The complainant applied for a post but was not selected. "The complainant claims the right of preference which is accorded, when candidates are equally competent, to internal applicants [...] In view of its objective, which is to secure the best possible employees for an organisation, equality of competence applies to all the abilities required of an employee, both professional and personal. The Secretary-General did not overstep his discretionary authority by concluding that the overall aptitude of the candidates was not equal. The plea must therefore fail."
Keywords:
candidate; competition; condition; discretion; executive head; internal candidate; no cause of action; organisation's interest; purpose; qualifications; refusal; right;
Judgment 2060
91st Session, 2001
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7(a)
Extract:
"The complainant alleges that the decision not to shortlist him was not adequately explained. But the plea cannot succeed. Precedent has it that when an organisation informs candidates that they have been unsuccessful, it must take care not to harm their prospects. Moreover, in announcing the results of a competition and, more generally when the administration has to choose between several candidates, as here, the reasons for the choice need not be given at the same time as the decision. It is enough for the reasons to be given in some later procedure (see Judgments 1990 and 2035 and the others cited therein)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1990, 2035
Keywords:
candidate; case law; competition; decision; duty to substantiate decision; grounds; organisation's duties; refusal; respect for dignity;
Consideration 4
Extract:
"Candidates who apply for a post to be filled by competition, whatever their hopes of success may be, are entitled to have their applications considered in good faith and in keeping with the basic rules of fair competition. An organisation must be careful to abide by the rules on selection and when the process proves flawed, the Tribunal will quash any resulting appointment, albeit on the understanding that the organisation must 'shield' the successful candidate from any injury (see for example Judgments 1990 and 2020 and the others cited therein)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1990, 2020
Keywords:
appointment; candidate; case law; competition; competition cancelled; condition; due process; equal treatment; general principle; good faith; injury; international civil service principles; post; qualifications;
Judgment 2054
91st Session, 2001
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
"The Tribunal is unable to agree with the complainant that as a disabled former staff member he is entitled to a right to reassignment. There is no basis in the Staff Regulations for conferring on him a preferential status. As with any job applicant, he has to follow the procedures and apply for any desired vacant post. To rule otherwise would, in effect, introduce an amendment to the applicable rules to unduly favour disabled former staff members. As the Tribunal has held in Judgment 637 [...] the staff (much less former employees) 'may not demand amendment of the rules governing their employment'."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 637
Keywords:
amendment to the rules; candidate; competition; handicapped person; priority; reassignment; right; separation from service; staff regulations and rules; vacancy;
Judgment 2051
91st Session, 2001
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 11
Extract:
The complainant had applied for another post within the organization. While he was on leave in order to prepare his daughter's wedding, he was invited by telephone to attend an interview within two days. The complainant having stated he would not be able to attend the interview in that timeframe, his name was deleted from the list of candidates taken into consideration by the Selection Committee. "The failure to give reasonable notice to the complainant to attend an interview by refusing to take into account the family circumstances of the complainant at the time, followed by the elimination of the complainant from consideration when he could not attend, constitutes [a] flaw in the procedure adopted by the administration in respect of the selection for this post."
Keywords:
candidate; competition; due process; flaw; notice; post; refusal; selection board;
Judgment 2040
90th Session, 2001
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
"As the Tribunal has held in many judgments, a decision by an international organisation to make an appointment is a discretionary one and as such is subject to only limited review. It may be quashed 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 were 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 Judgment 1497 [...])."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1497
Keywords:
abuse of power; appointment; candidate; competition; decision; decision-maker; discretion; disregard of essential fact; flaw; formal flaw; judicial review; mistake of fact; mistaken conclusion; misuse of authority; procedural flaw;
Judgment 2004
90th Session, 2001
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 20
Extract:
"The Tribunal wishes to emphasise that there is nothing wrong in having a policy aimed at gender parity. For too long women have been subjected to discrimination in appointments to senior posts which can be proved by statistics. But this policy cannot be achieved by setting quotas and by reverse discrimination, in other words, by the appointment for particular posts of women who are less qualified than men. This is contrary to [Staff] Regulation 4.3 which provides that selection shall be without regard to race, creed or sex'. The policy can be achieved by different means [...] but the bottom line must always be that the person best qualified should be appointed."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: WHO STAFF REGULATION 4.3
Keywords:
appointment; candidate; competition; equal treatment; priority; qualifications; remand; right; sex discrimination;
Judgment 1990
89th Session, 2000
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"The basic rules to be respected [in a competition] include the right of all applicants to equal treatment. The organisation may make no distinction between candidates on the basis of criteria - language, for example - which are not referred to in the entry requirements (see Judgment 1158, [...] under 4 et seq)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1158
Keywords:
candidate; competition; criteria; due process; equal treatment; knowledge of languages; qualifications;
Consideration 7
Extract:
"In the competition, the English-speaking and French-speaking candidates were not in the same situation, so criteria were needed that took account of the differences. The matter becomes more complex if account is taken of candidates whose mother tongue is neither English nor French. [...] Since one of the requirements of the competition - and the post in question - was a good knowledge of the two main working languages, it was not unfair to provide for tests in one language only and apply an adequate correction factor to all candidates who were non-English-speaking. Such a solution redresses the balance and goes some way to ensuring equality between the candidates. Provided that it really is adequate, a correction factor does not impair the right to equal treatment."
Keywords:
candidate; compensatory measure; competition; criteria; difference; equal treatment; knowledge of languages; qualifications; safeguard;
Judgment 1982
89th Session, 2000
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5(A)
Extract:
"Precedent has it that, in the interests of the organisation, a chief executive may interrupt a competition, even in order to change the requirements of the post (see Judgment 1771, [...] under 4(e), and the judgments cited therein). He may even decide not to proceed to any appointment or promotion if he concludes that none of the candidates meets the specified requirements (see Judgment 1771, under4(c))."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1771
Keywords:
appointment; candidate; case law; competition; competition cancelled; discontinuance; organisation's interest;
Consideration 5(D)
Extract:
The complainant was an unsuccessful candidate for a post. The initial competition for the post was cancelled and the complainant argues that the subsequent competition and selection procedure were flawed. Therefore he asks that the decision appointing another candidate be set aside. "The Tribunal's case law has it that it is not necessary to take up the whole procedure when it is easy to determine the point at which it began to be flawed."
Keywords:
appointment; candidate; flaw; procedural flaw; selection board;
Judgment 1954
89th Session, 2000
Pan American Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
The complainant unsuccessfully applied for a new post. She maintains that the candidate selected for the post had been considered as an internal candidate during the selection process, when in fact she was an external candidate. "The correct interpretation of Staff Regulation 4.4 is that persons already in the service of the organization have priority only if their qualifications appear to be equal to those of other candidates (see Judgment 107). Since the complainant was found not to be as well qualified as Ms P., she cannot rely on Regulation 4.4. "
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: PAHO STAFF REGULATION 4.4
ILOAT Judgment(s): 107
Keywords:
appointment; candidate; competition; internal candidate; priority; selection board; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 1871
87th Session, 1999
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 9-10
Extract:
"The Tribunal observes that the Director-General gave paramount importance to the principle of geographic distribution, which resulted in him selecting the applicant who was second in the list recommended by the Selection Committee because that applicant was a national of an 'under-represented' country, while the complainant, who was in first place, was a national of an 'equitably represented' country. Analysis of the [Constitution, General Rules and Manual of the organization as well as] the facts of the case show that the Director-General was mistaken in his interpretation of these provisions. The Constitution [...] clearly states that the highest standards of efficiency and of technical competence' are of paramount importance in appointing staff. The Selection Committee is under the obligation to recommend for selection the candidate whose qualifications most closely meet the requirements of the post. Therefore the essential qualifications required are the priority criterion. Consideration of other criteria, including seniority of service and geographic distribution, which appear to be of a subsidiary nature, is only envisaged where several candidates are equally well qualified."
Keywords:
appointment; candidate; competition; criteria; geographical distribution; nationality; recommendation; selection board; seniority; staff regulations and rules;
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 1827
86th Session, 1999
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"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."
Keywords:
burden of proof; candidate; competition; criteria; discretion; judicial review; limits; procedural flaw; promotion; qualifications; satisfactory service; selection board; work appraisal;
Judgment 1789
86th Session, 1999
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
"[The Organisation] rejected [the complainant's application] on the grounds that he was overqualified [for the job put up for competition]. Such grounds are wrong in law. Yet they are the only ones on which the [organisation] rejected the complainant, purporting to act under R II 1.03 [of the Staff Regulations]. It thereby denied the complainant his right to apply and to have his application properly considered. There was breach of equal treatment."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ARTICLE R II 1.03 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS
Keywords:
breach; candidate; competition; criteria; discretion; equal treatment; flaw; grounds; procedure before the tribunal; right; staff regulations and rules;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 | next >
|
