Selection board (303,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Selection board
Total judgments found: 53
< previous | 1, 2, 3 | next >
Judgment 2457
99th Session, 2005
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
The complainant argues that the competition procedure was flawed owing to the fact that one of the members of the Selection Board was not present at the pre-selection meeting. The Organisation does not deny this fact but considers that this procedural flaw could not invalidate the pre-selection since the Selection Board, which decided unanimously, would not have reached a different conclusion even if all Board members had been present.
Basing itself on the applicable rules the Tribunal considers that "the absence of one member of the Board did constitute a flaw, despite the fact that the Board's opinion was unanimous. Since the flawed composition of the Selection Board could not be corrected through subsequent consultation of the absent member, the competition procedure, which is tainted with a formal flaw, must be set aside where the complainant is concerned [...]. The complainant must therefore be restored to the position in which he was prior to the [pre-selection] meeting [...], and his application must be reviewed in accordance with the applicable rules."
Keywords:
candidate; claim; compensation; competition; complainant; composition of the internal appeals body; consequence; consultation; decision; difference; enforcement; flaw; formal flaw; identical claims; procedural flaw; procedure before the tribunal; provision; selection board; written rule;
Judgment 2363
97th Session, 2004
Pan American Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
The complainant's application for a post was unsuccessful. "While the complainant is undoubtedly technically qualified for the coveted post, and was found to be so in the two competitions in which she was unsuccessful, she was also, in both cases, found by two separate Selection Committees not to be the most qualified. Although the complainant clearly has a high view of her own merits, the fact that that view is not universally shared by others, whose honesty and good faith the complainant has not been successful in impugning, does not mean that the complainant has been unfairly treated or that she has been denied a promotion which should rightfully have been hers."
Keywords:
advisory opinion; breach; candidate; competence; competition; difference; equal treatment; good faith; lack of evidence; post; promotion; qualifications; refusal; right; selection board;
Judgment 2299
96th Session, 2004
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
The complainant's application for the post of technically qualified member of a board of appeal was unsuccessful. "The complainant considers that he was discriminated against because the Selection Board did not grant him an interview. Obviously the Board decided that, in the light of the candidacies submitted, an interview would not be necessary because it considered that it made procedural sense not to call a candidate who, in its opinion, appeared to be unsuitable for the vacancy concerned, which does not preclude the possibility of comparing the merits of all the candidates in the event of a subsequent challenge."
Keywords:
bias; candidate; competition; evidence; post; procedure before the tribunal; selection board;
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 1982
89th Session, 2000
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
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 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 1767
85th Session, 1998
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 12-13
Extract:
The texts provide that one member of the Selection Committee "must be the Staff Association's President or his nominee'. [...] Here the Staff Association refused to take part in the selection. Although a representative of the Association is free to take part, his refusal to do so cannot make the Committee's choice void. If that were so, the Staff Association's representative would have a veto [...]."
Keywords:
consequence; participation; refusal; right; selection board; staff representative; staff union;
Judgment 1728
84th Session, 1998
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 16
Extract:
"As for the right to be heard before termination, it must of course be respected where there is a proposal to terminate an appointment for disciplinary reasons or for unsatisfactory performance. A reduction-in-force committee does not, however, make findings of that kind but performs very different functions. That is clear from Manual paragraph II.9.340.3, which requires assessment 'essentially' on the basis of appraisal reports and other written records of performance and service."
Keywords:
complainant; confidential evidence; duty to inform; internal appeals body; limits; organisation's duties; personal file; selection board;
Judgment 1689
84th Session, 1998
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
"The Agency replies that [...] where candidates are found suitable and put on a par no explanation is called for, though 'a reasoned report would have made sense had the Board put the two candidates in order of preference'. The plea is unsound. It postulates that the complainant was unaffected by the finding that he was as fit for the post as the other candidate, and in any event overlooks the fact that the candidates are in competition. [...]. If two are ranked ex aequo each may have an interest in contending that the other should have been marked lower. [...]. In any event the final ranking [...] must be accounted for."
Keywords:
candidate; cause of action; competition; duty to substantiate decision; selection board;
Judgment 1522
81st Session, 1996
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
The organization has "discharged its duty to take an express decision duly giving its reasons for not reinstating him. Its decision [not to reinstate him] takes seriatim all the posts he might have been appointed to. It explains the reasons of fact or law why it came to the view that his training, experience or grasp of languages or the need for special skills disqualified him for some posts. The reasons why he was not appointed to others had to do with the budget, some posts being 'frozen'. Or else the reasons were administrative: for example the Appointment and Promotion Board was not in favour, or the organization gave priority to a permanent employee."
Keywords:
advisory opinion; application for execution; budgetary reasons; due process; duration of appointment; duty to substantiate decision; judgment of the tribunal; judicial review; knowledge of languages; organisation's duties; permanent appointment; priority; professional experience; promotion board; qualifications; refusal; reinstatement; selection board; training;
Judgment 1513
81st Session, 1996
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
"As a general rule a complainant may not be entitled to consult any records that may have been made of discussions by a selection committee: members of such committees would not feel free to discuss candidates independently in future if they felt at risk of having there own views divulged: see Judgment 556."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 556
Keywords:
case law; competition; confidential evidence; disclosure of evidence; report; request by a party; selection board;
Consideration 7
Extract:
The privilege that protects the Selection Committee's actual deliberations "must cover also interviews held in preparation for its meeting."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 556
Keywords:
competition; confidential evidence; disclosure of evidence; report; selection board;
Judgment 1477
80th Session, 1996
International Training Centre of the International Labour Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 8
Extract:
The rule that a selection committee may not delegate its authority unless provided for under the Staff Regulations "is even more important where, as in this case, the membership of the body that purports to delegate affords the staff special safeguards. Since the panel's members came mostly from the management side it was no offshoot of the Selection Committee".
Keywords:
competition; composition of the internal appeals body; delegated authority; safeguard; selection board; staff member's interest;
Consideration 7
Extract:
"It is plain from the whole process of selection that though the Committee did endorse the panel's report it had neither looked at the individual applications nor seen any of the candidates but had left all that to the panel. Though it is not unthinkable for a selection committee to set up a panel of people whom it believes to be better fitted to assess the technical qualifications of candidates, especially external ones, it may not delegate altogether its authority under the Staff Regulations. It must exercise its own authority and not delegate unless the rules say it may."
Keywords:
advisory body; competition; condition; delegated authority; flaw; impartiality; procedural flaw; selection board; staff regulations and rules;
Consideration 9
Extract:
"By letting [a special selection] panel draw up a short list and endorsing its conclusions without even seeing the candidates on that list or looking at their records the [Selection] Committee failed to observe its terms of reference under the Staff Regulations. [...] The process of selection was therefore unlawful".
Keywords:
competition; competition cancelled; due process; flaw; procedural flaw; selection board; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 1436
79th Session, 1995
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 7
Extract:
"However regrettable it may be that there are too few women in senior posts at the ITU - and for that matter in most international organisations - the Tribunal is satisfied that the complainant was not discriminated against. There was no breach of the General Assembly Resolution of 23 December 1992 [on women's contributions to the work of international organisations]: the Secretary-General could not have used his authority to get her name put on the short list."
Keywords:
applicable law; equal treatment; general assembly resolution; international civil service principles; promotion board; selection board; sex discrimination;
Judgment 1434
79th Session, 1995
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 9
Extract:
The organization denied the Appeals Board access to information and documents that were given to the Selection Board. The Tribunal holds that the complainant "was denied due process in the internal appeal proceedings, and for that he was entitled to redress. the organization did not offer him any. The Tribunal will therefore award him 3,000 United States dollars in moral damages".
Keywords:
compensation; confidential evidence; flaw; internal appeal; internal appeals body; moral injury; procedural flaw; selection board;
Judgment 1422
79th Session, 1995
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
The Tribunal has ruled in Judgment 988 "that Regulation 4.9 allows the Secretary-General to promote someone even against the Appointment and Promotion Board's advice and is intended as a safeguard to ensure compliance with the rules on appointment and promotion. The intent is not to enable the Secretary-General to prefer a weaker candidate on compassionate or indeed any other grounds."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ITU STAFF REGULATION 4.9
ILOAT Judgment(s): 988
Keywords:
advisory body; advisory opinion; appointment; case law; discretion; due process; enforcement; executive head; interpretation; promotion; promotion board; safeguard; selection board; staff regulations and rules;
Judgment 1359
77th Session, 1994
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 12
Extract:
One consistent requirement the regulations lay down for filling posts "is the appointment of a selection board that may consider all applicants [...] who qualify under one and the same notice of vacancy. As was said in Judgment 1223, that formal requirement affords every applicant a basic safeguard of open and objective decision-making, and it holds good whether the applicant wants promotion, transfer or a change of category."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1223
Keywords:
appointment; candidate; case law; competition; organisation's duties; procedure before the tribunal; promotion; safeguard; selection board; staff regulations and rules; transfer; vacancy notice;
Judgment 1331
76th Session, 1994
Pan American Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 13
Extract:
"On account of the undue delay in the selection process [i.e. some ten months between the issue of the vacancy notice and the meeting of the Selection Committee] the Tribunal awards the complainant damages for moral injury in a sum of 1,000 United States dollars."
Keywords:
administrative delay; competition; competition cancelled; delay; due process; moral injury; procedure before the tribunal; selection board; vacancy notice;
Judgment 1323
76th Session, 1994
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 8-9
Extract:
The WHO appointed an external candidate to a position which the complainant had applied for. On the grounds of privilege the organization offered no evidence to the Board or the Tribunal of the external candidate's qualifications. "The Tribunal does not accept that the disclosure of a candidate's identity and qualifications may [...] inhibit the free expression of views by members of selection committees or prejudice the interests of other candidates. [...] The external candidate's qualifications were of essential importance to the Selection Committee in making its choice and to any appeal against the appointment made." No such documents may be withheld from the Tribunal.
Keywords:
candidate; confidential evidence; evidence; internal appeals body; internal candidate; open competition; selection board; submissions;
< previous | 1, 2, 3 | next >
|
