Judgment No. 4903
Decision
The complaint is dismissed.
Summary
The complainant challenges the refusal to select him for a post of civil engineering technician.
Judgment keywords
Keywords
appointment; selection procedure; complaint dismissed
Consideration 6
Extract:
[I]n matters of appointment, the choice of the candidate to be appointed lies within the discretion of the authority competent to make the appointment within the organisation concerned. Such a decision is therefore subject to only limited review by the Tribunal and 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 (see, in particular, Judgments 3652, consideration 7, and 3372, consideration 12). As a result, a person who has applied for a post that an organisation has decided to fill by a competition and whose application is ultimately unsuccessful must prove that the selection procedure was tainted by a serious defect (see to that effect, in particular, Judgments 4625, consideration 3, 4001, consideration 4, 3669, consideration 4, and 1827, consideration 6). The Tribunal also recalls that, in relation to competitions, it is not its role to replace the assessment made by the competent selection bodies with its own assessment (see Judgments 4594, consideration 8, 4100, consideration 5, and 1595, consideration 4).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1595, 1827, 3669, 4001, 4100, 4594, 4625
Keywords
appointment; competition; judicial review; selection procedure; role of the tribunal
Consideration 7
Extract:
[A]ccording to [the] case law, the duty to state the reasons for the rejection of an application in a selection procedure does not mean that they must be notified at the same time as the decision itself. These reasons may be disclosed at a later date to the staff member concerned, for example in the context of internal appeal proceedings (see, in particular, Judgments 4683, consideration 12, 4467, consideration 7, and 2978, consideration 4). In the present case, these reasons were in fact disclosed to the complainant during the internal appeal proceedings, as he himself acknowledges.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2978, 4467, 4683
Keywords
selection procedure; motivation
Considerations 10 and 15
Extract:
[The complainant] argues that the shortlist was drawn up on the basis of an incomplete examination of his application, that this examination did not take account of some of his fundamental competencies and that the examiners did not take into consideration all the competency and professional experience criteria listed in the vacancy notice.
[...]
Contrary to what the complainant also seems to argue, the examiners did not need to examine all the competency and professional experience criteria listed in the vacancy notice, as they considered that several essential criteria in view of the particular nature of the post to be filled were not met.
Keywords
criteria; selection procedure
Consideration 16
Extract:
[T]he circumstance that the complainant suffered an accident while working as a firefighter at CERN ˗ however obviously unfortunate that accident may have been ˗ cannot be taken into consideration in a procedure for opening a post by means of a competition with a view to obtaining an indefinite contract. A finding to the contrary would contravene the rules applicable in this area and could legitimately be considered by other candidates as constituting a breach of the principle of equality in their respect.
Keywords
professional accident; selection procedure
|
