|
|
 |
|
|
Selection board (303,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Selection board
Total judgments found: 53
< previous | 1, 2, 3
Judgment 1316
76th Session, 1994
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
The EPO submits that unless the complainant shows that he had a genuine chance of gaining appointment to a post put up for competition he may not challenge the appointment procedure. It therefore alleges that the decision he is impugning has caused him no injury. "The plea is mistaken. The material question is whether the complainant's rights as a candidate for the post were infringed. [...] The EPO included the complainant in the list of applicants eligible for consideration by the Selection Board and thereby accepted his candidature. So it may not now contend that he had no interest in the outcome of the procedure and has no right to challenge it."
Keywords:
candidate; cause of action; competition; competition cancelled; decision; organisation's duties; selection board;
Judgment 1109
71st Session, 1991
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
After recommending that the complainant should get a personal promotion, the Selection Board held a further meeting at the instance of the Deputy Director-General and shifted ground. The Tribunal holds that "in only two cases may an internal body be asked to think again. One is where something unforeseeable and of decisive moment occurs after it has reported, and the other is where there comes to light some fact or evidence, again of cardinal importance, that it did not know of or could not have known of before it reported." Since those conditions were not met in the instant case, the decision is tainted with a procedural flaw and must be quashed. The complainant is sent back to the Organisation for his case to be reviewed.
Keywords:
advisory body; case reopened; condition; flaw; internal appeals body; organisation; procedural flaw; request by a party; selection board;
Judgment 1077
70th Session, 1991
Pan American Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6, summary
Extract:
The Selection Committee initially recommended the appointment of the complainant. Recruitment to the post having been frozen for two years, the Committee's recommendation never reached the Director. After the freeze another selection process began without taking account of the outcome of the first, and the complainant was not selected. The Tribunal is satisfied that in view of the time that had elapsed between the two selection processes it was only reasonable to treat the first one as abortive and to start a new one.
Keywords:
competition; competition cancelled; recommendation; selection board;
Judgment 1049
69th Session, 1990
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
The complainants, who applied for a vacant post put up for competition, wish to have the results set aside. The Tribunal is satisfied on the evidence that the selection procedure shows several serious flaws, of which at least two are fatal: in breach of Manual provision II.3.340 no short-list had been drawn up and the Director-General drew had drawn mistaken conclusions from the evidence before him in dismissing the Appeals Boards' findings of improprieties.
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: WHO MANUAL PROVISION II.3.340
Keywords:
application for quashing; competition; flaw; mistaken conclusion; procedural flaw; procedure before the tribunal; selection board;
Judgment 1004
68th Session, 1990
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 19
Extract:
The complainant's candidature in an internal competition having been eliminated, he challenged the composition of the Selection Board. He had doubts that its Vice-chairman, who had retired and later gone back to the organisation, might not have been reappointed to the Board as required under the material rules. The Tribunal observes that the guidelines issued to implement the provisions of Circular 380 (Series 6) of 3 March 1987 expressly stipulate that officials who have been reappointed will be considered to have had no break in service for the purposes of service on the Selection Board. The argument fails.
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: CIRCULAR 380 (SERIES 6) OF 3 MARCH 1987
Keywords:
composition of the internal appeals body; condition; recusal; selection board;
Judgment 958
66th Session, 1989
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 17
Extract:
"Unless there is express derogation the rule is that the organisation need not, if that is not its practice, state the reasons for all its decisions: what matters is that the absence of a statement should not be to the staff member's detriment."
Keywords:
appointment; candidate; duty to substantiate decision; injury; lack of injury; selection board;
Judgment 939
65th Session, 1988
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
The complainant was transferred without prior consultation of the Selection Board as required under Article 4.2(f) of the Staff Regulations. The Tribunal holds that the breach of procedure was minor, though it did cause the complainant injury. The Tribunal will therefore refrain from quashing the impugned decision and will order the organisation to pay the complainant damages and a further sum towards costs.
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: ARTICLE 4.2 OF THE ILO STAFF REGULATIONS
Keywords:
consultation; costs; flaw; injury; material damages; organisation's duties; procedural flaw; selection board; transfer;
Judgment 670
56th Session, 1985
Pan American Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary
Extract:
The Selection Committee recommended the appointment of the complainant. The selection procedure was declared void by the Director and a new selection procedure initiated. There is not sufficient evidence of the Director having acted out of personal animosity against the complainant. There is evidence that he allowed certain criteria to take on exaggerated importance and he misunderstood the role of the Selection Committee. When setting the amount of compensation, it should be noted that this is the second time the Director has flaunted a recommendation favouring the complainant.
Keywords:
appointment; competition; competition cancelled; recommendation; selection board;
Judgment 564
51st Session, 1983
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 6
Extract:
The Board, made up of four staff members, included the chief of the Bureau in which the vacancy was to be filled. "Its composition was in line with the [...] rules on open competitions and was therefore correct in this instance since applications were invited [...] from outside candidates. [...] The elimination of all outside candidates in the course of the selection procedure did not change the competition into an internal one."
Keywords:
competition; composition of the internal appeals body; open competition; selection board;
Judgment 556
50th Session, 1983
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 4
Extract:
The complainant is not entitled to consult any record of discussion by the Selection Board. "Members of selection boards would not feel free to discuss candidates independently in future if they were at risk of having their personal views divulged."
Keywords:
competition; confidential evidence; disclosure of evidence; interlocutory order; order; report; request by a party; selection board; selection procedure;
Judgment 326
39th Session, 1977
Pan American Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 3
Extract:
WHO Staff Regulation 4.4 provides that "without prejudice to the inflow of fresh talent at the various levels, vacancies shall be filled by promotion of persons already in the service of the organization in preference to persons from outside". The organization must rely upon the members of a selection committee to pay what they consider to be due regard to the factors mentioned in the Regulations. "It would only be in a case in which it could be shown that a factor had been wilfully disregarded that the Tribunal could begin to entertain any complaint."
Reference(s)
Organization rules reference: WHO STAFF REGULATION 4.4
Keywords:
appointment; competition; criteria; judicial review; post held by the complainant; selection board; vacancy;
Judgment 238
33rd Session, 1974
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations
Extract:
"[T]he Selection Board had to select the best candidates by various criteria [...]. It was therefore entitled, after marking the written papers, to ask the organisation to reveal the names of the candidates so that it could fulfil its task by assessing the general suitability of each of them for employment in the international civil service."
Keywords:
appointment; candidate; competition; discretion; fitness for international civil service; open competition; qualifications; selection board;
Judgment 107
17th Session, 1967
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
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:
bias; competition; composition of the internal appeals body; recusal; selection board;
< previous | 1, 2, 3
|
|
|
|
|
