Selection procedure (660,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Selection procedure
Total judgments found: 113

< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

• Judgment 3073

  
  112th Session, 2012
  International Labour Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  competition; complaint allowed; decision quashed; selection procedure;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3052

  
  112th Session, 2012
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Judgment keywords

  Keywords:

  complaint dismissed; composition of the internal appeals body; selection board; selection procedure;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3032

  
  111th Session, 2011
  International Labour Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 11

  Extract:

  "According to the Tribunal's case law, as reflected, inter alia, in Judgments 556, under 4(b), and 2142 under 16 and 17, a candidate is not entitled to consult any record there may be of a discussion by the selection board or to know the identity of all the candidates who were eliminated."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 556, 2142
  

  Keywords:

  candidate; communication to third party; competition; disclosure of evidence; right; selection board; selection procedure;
  

  Considerations 17- 18

  Extract:

  The complainants take the defendant to task for having unlawfully doubled the number of posts to be filled. According to them, any ex post facto change in the legal framework for the competition established by the vacancy notice breaches the principle of transparency of administrative procedures. [...]
  According to the Tribunal's case law, when a vacancy is to be filled, staff members must be given sufficient information to enable them to exercise their rights without facing any unnecessary hindrance. A competition aimed at filling a vacant post must be held under satisfactory conditions of objectivity and transparency, which guarantee that the candidates will receive equal treatment (see, for example, Judgment 2210, under 5, and the case law cited therein).
  In this case, the question is whether the failure to state explicitly in the vacancy notice that there were two senior translator/reviser posts to be filled might have dissuaded some people from submitting applications or prevented the competition from being conducted under satisfactory conditions of objectivity and transparency which guaranteed that the candidates received equal treatment.
  The Tribunal, like the defendant, considers that, given that the qualifications and experience required were exactly the same for the two posts, it cannot reasonably be argued that some people would have applied if they had known that there were two posts instead of just one to be filled. Furthermore, the complainants, who entered the competition anyway, were not adversely affected by that circumstance.
  It follows that, since the error committed in the vacancy notice did not taint the competition with any procedural flaw, the plea must be rejected.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2210
  

  Keywords:

  appointment; candidate; competition; duty to inform; equal treatment; formal requirements; official; organisation's duties; procedure before the tribunal; right of appeal; safeguard; selection procedure; vacancy;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2762

  
  105th Session, 2008
  European Patent Organisation
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Considerations 26-27

  Extract:

  The complainant challenges the EPO's decision to recruit the spouse of the former President of the Office. "The Organisation is correct in stating that the Service Regulations do not preclude the recruitment of the spouses of staff members. Nor does there appear to be any regulatory bar to the recruitment of the spouses, friends, or close associates of the highest ranking officials in the Organisation. Whether this type of recruitment ought to be permitted is not for the Tribunal to decide but is a question of policy for each organisation to answer.
  However, where an organisation permits such recruitment, then it is imperative that special procedures be put in place to ensure the integrity and transparency of the selection process. Where such procedures have not been put in place, the presumptions of regularity and bona fides will not apply. In the absence of the operation of these presumptions, it will take very little to establish improper motive or bad faith."

  Keywords:

  appointment; competence of tribunal; competition; executive head; family relationship; good faith; motivation; presumption; procedure before the tribunal; selection procedure;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2474

  
  99th Session, 2005
  International Labour Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 23

  Extract:

  The Director-General’s decision to cancel the competition and to vacate the post to which the complainant was appointed must stand only because the requirement of experience at the international level is to be interpreted in the manner indicated above. Clearly, as is indicated in the Organization’s reply on the first complaint, different people took different views as to that requirement which, standing alone, lacked precise meaning. The failure to take timely steps to clarify the meaning of that requirement, to specify in what manner the complainant lacked the requisite experience, to provide documents and information in regard to the decision or to follow the procedures in relation to the provision of those documents and information, demonstrates a serious disregard for the complainant’s dignity and a failure to act in good faith towards him. Accordingly, he is entitled to moral damages as claimed in the first complaint. The Organization’s suggestion that that claim for moral damages is irreceivable because it was made neither when the complainant sought further information and reconsideration of the decision on 15 April 2003 nor when he lodged his grievance with respect to the decision on 28 October of that year must be rejected. The claim was made at the first real opportunity, namely, when the first complaint was filed with the Tribunal in September 2003. Moral damages should be assessed at 30,000 Swiss francs.

  Keywords:

  good faith; moral injury; respect for dignity; selection procedure;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2393

  
  98th Session, 2005
  Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 13

  Extract:

  The general principles also allow that a mistake as to a candidate’s qualifications or experience may constitute a mistake of fact or result in some material fact being overlooked. It is this consideration that is invoked by the complainant’s contentions that he had greater experience and skills than the successful candidate, and that the interview panel and the FAO were mistaken as to his management skills. However, and as held in Judgment 1827, the selection of candidates necessarily “requires a high degree of judgment” with which the Tribunal will interfere only if a serious defect is demonstrated. And as was also held in that judgment, a defect of that kind is not established merely by asserting that one is better qualified than the selected candidate.

  Keywords:

  appointment; competition; discretion; judicial review; mistake of fact; mistake of law; selection procedure;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 1646

  
  83rd Session, 1997
  International Telecommunication Union
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Considerations 6 and 10

  Extract:

  "When an organisation chooses to hold a competition it must abide by its written rules and by the general principles set forth in the case law, particularly insofar as they govern the formal side of the process. [...] As the Appeal Board gathered from the personal records of the candidates on the preselection panel's list, [the successful candidate] had neither the university degree nor the experience that the notice required."

  Keywords:

  applicable law; appointment; candidate; case law; competition; criteria; degree; due process; international civil service principles; organisation's duties; patere legem; procedure before the tribunal; professional experience; selection procedure; staff regulations and rules; vacancy notice;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 1549

  
  81st Session, 1996
  International Atomic Energy Agency
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 11

  Extract:

  "When an organisation wants to fill a post by competition it must comply with the material rules and the general precepts of the case law."

  Keywords:

  appointment; case law; competition; due process; general principle; international civil service principles; organisation's duties; post; selection procedure; staff regulations and rules;
  

  Consideration 13

  Extract:

  "The purpose of competition is to let everyone who wants a post compete for it equally. So precedent demands scrupulous compliance with the rules announced beforehand: patere legem quam ipse fecisti."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 107, 729, 1071, 1077, 1158, 1223, 1359
  

  Keywords:

  appointment; case law; competition; due process; equal treatment; organisation's duties; patere legem; selection procedure; staff regulations and rules; vacancy;
  

  Consideration 13

  Extract:

  "Although an organisation [may consider] late applicants, it must, whenever a competition is required or desired, announce a new deadline in the same way as it did the vacancy. It will then commit no breach of equality and the competition will be seen as fair."

  Keywords:

  appointment; candidate; competition; delay; due process; equal treatment; internal candidate; new time limit; organisation's duties; receivability of the complaint; selection procedure; time limit; vacancy; vacancy notice;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 1436

  
  79th Session, 1995
  International Telecommunication Union
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 6

  Extract:

  "As was said for example in Judgment 1223, the Tribunal will not interfere with comparison of candidates in a competition. Only when it appears that the choice rests on a mistake of fact or law or that there has probably been misuse of authority will the Tribunal order the defendant to produce further evidence so that it may review such comparison."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 1223
  

  Keywords:

  abuse of power; burden of proof; candidate; case law; competition; due process; evidence; further submissions; judicial review; mistake of fact; misuse of authority; presumption of innocence; qualifications; selection procedure;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 1077

  
  70th Session, 1991
  Pan American Health Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 10

  Extract:

  There was a further potential flaw in the process. Since the candidates had to write their names on the test papers, the person in charge of quantifying the results would, had she marked the papers, have been aware of their identity, and there would have been a risk that the examiner might, even involuntarily, be influenced by knowing the candidates. The process of evaluation must not only be fair, as provision 344 requires, but also be seen to be fair.

  Keywords:

  candidate; competition; flaw; impartiality; selection procedure;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 619

  
  53rd Session, 1984
  Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 8

  Extract:

  "The Tribunal is not competent to compare the candidates' merits; it will merely determine whether there was any prejudice in the impugned decision. There is no reason to suppose that in preferring [Mrs. X] the FAO was actuated by any considerations other than merit. Indeed its impartiality is borne out by the fact that [...] the majority of the selection board were in favour of the successful candidate."

  Keywords:

  appointment; competition; selection procedure; vacancy;
  

  
  
  

• 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 174

  
  26th Session, 1971
  Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Preamble

  Extract:

  The complainant contests an appointment made to fill a vacancy. The person appointed to the post is regarded as co-defendant. "Considering [...] the observations made by [Mr X] who was notified of the complaint on the decision of the President of the Tribunal[...]"

  Keywords:

  appointment; candidate; co-defendant; selection procedure; vacancy;
  

< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6