|
|
 |
|
|
Impartiality (716,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Impartiality
Total judgments found: 22
1, 2 | next >
Judgment 5184
141st Session, 2026
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the deductions that were made from his salary at weekends whilst he was on certified sick leave and under a partial incapacity regime.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; deduction; impartiality; salary; sick leave;
Judgment 5017
140th Session, 2025
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: La requérante considère avoir été privée de ses fonctions par suite d’une restructuration et demande réparation du préjudice qu’elle estime avoir subi en raison de ce qu’elle estime être une résiliation de facto de son engagement.
Consideration 13
Extract:
[I]l est de jurisprudence constante que la charge de la preuve d’un manque d’impartialité d’un ou de plusieurs membres d’un organe de recours interne incombe à tout requérant. De simples soupçons et des allégations non étayées par une preuve tangible ne suffisent manifestement pas à établir un manque d’impartialité (voir également les jugements 4662, au considérant 13, et 4553, au considérant 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4553, 4662
Keywords:
burden of proof; impartiality; internal appeals body;
Judgment 4971
139th Session, 2025
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests his dismissal from service for misconduct.
Consideration 6
Extract:
In light of the […] Staff Regulations and Rules, and the Standards of Conduct, international civil servants must be impartial and independent from national States, and cannot engage in outside activities which can undermine their independence and their impartiality. There can be no doubt that freedom of association is a well-recognised and acknowledged universal right which all workers, including international civil servants, should enjoy (see Judgment 4551, consideration 9, and the case law cited therein). International civil servants have the right to join trade unions without seeking prior authorization from their employer.
In addition, the private activities of WIPO’s staff members are respected to the extent that the Staff Regulations and Rules allow staff to engage in “specific outside activities” which are defined as “private non-remunerated activities for social, artistic, religious, or charitable purposes which have no relation to the staff member’s official functions or to the Organization”, with no need for prior authorization. However, in order to join other kinds of private associations included in the definition of “outside activities”, WIPO’s staff members need to seek the prior authorization of their employer, aimed at assessing that the purposes of the private associations are not in conflict with the staff members’ duty to be impartial and independent. Having regard to the statutory purposes of the AIP, this Association cannot be included in the definition of “Specific outside activities – Social, artistic, religious or charitable activities” provided for by paragraph 15 of Office Instruction No. 1/2018. Nor can it be characterized as a trade union or staff association. Although Article 1 of its Statute states that AIP is a “non-profit association” and that “[i]t is politically neutral”, these statements are contradicted by Article 3 of the Statute. The purposes illustrated in Article 3 concern the interests of India and Indian nationals, and are political in nature, as they refer, inter alia, to improving relations between India, Switzerland, and the respective international and non-governmental organizations of the members of AIP, and contributing to India’s developmental goals and aspirations. Therefore, the complainant could not have engaged in the AIP at his own discretion without requesting prior authorization from his employer.
In light of the foregoing, the Tribunal is satisfied that the impugned decision and the disciplinary decision are free from flaws with regard to the first, second and fourth counts of the first charge letter. They correctly considered that the AIP’s objectives are inconsistent with a WIPO staff member’s duty of impartiality and independence, and that, accordingly, the complainant engaged in an outside activity in contrast with his duties without even trying to seek prior authorization. In addition, the disciplinary decision provided persuasive evidence of the complainant’s “instrumental contribution in forming and operationalizing the AIP” […]
As to the complainant’s contention that the AIP’s aim to contribute to the development of India was never pursued and was only one among many other aims that were ignored by the Organization, the Tribunal reiterates that the AIP’s Statute is unequivocal in stating political objectives in the interest of India. Accordingly, it is immaterial whether the complainant actually took action to reach the statutory objective. It is also immaterial to consider the many purposes of the AIP, because those that were taken into account by WIPO are inconsistent with the duties of an international civil servant.
Moreover, the mere fact that the complainant had a significant role in forming and operationalizing the AIP, as described in the first charge letter, amounts to evidence of the charge that he made the interests of the AIP prevail over those of the Organization.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4551
Keywords:
freedom of association; impartiality; independence; outside activity; staff union;
Consideration 7
Extract:
It is useful to recall that according to the Tribunal’s case law, where such staff rules are established, the persons subject to an investigation carried out by an international organization have a duty to cooperate with the investigation and may be sanctioned if they fail to do so (see Judgment 4858, consideration 25). The complainant himself acknowledges that he did not answer questions that he perceived as “an unwarranted intrusion and an unacceptable investigation in the internal affairs of an independent and ‘sovereign’ organization”. By doing so, the complainant violated not only his duty to cooperate with the investigation but also his duty to put the interests of the Organization before his own private interests. In his capacity as an international civil servant, he was not allowed to invoke a duty of confidentiality towards the AIP to refuse to respond to the questions of the IOD. In so doing, he violated his duty of independence and impartiality. In conclusion, the allegations challenging the third charge of the first letter of charges are unfounded and are rejected.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4858
Keywords:
confidentiality; impartiality; independence;
Judgment 4915
139th Session, 2025
International Bureau of Weights and Measures
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the BIPM’s decision to close his harassment complaint and to reject his requests for compensation.
Consideration 7
Extract:
The Tribunal observes that Rule 18.5.3 of the BIPM Staff Manual, entitled “Incompatibilities of Appeals Committee members”, provides that:
“The Appeals Committee shall not include any member involved in the process leading up to the case, in relation with his functions or a mediation procedure. This member is hence replaced by his substitute.”
The Tribunal notes that, in principle, persons who played a role as parties, decision-making authorities, or witnesses in administrative proceedings should not act as members of the internal appeal body in ensuing internal appeal proceedings. In the context of the BIPM, failure to respect this would amount to “incompatibility” within the meaning of Rule 18.5.3, and would, in any event, be inconsistent with the Tribunal’s case law concerning due process and the impartiality of an internal appeal body. Relevantly, in Judgment 3732, consideration 3, the Tribunal held that the member, whose participation in the internal appeal body was contested in that case, could not be a member of the internal appeal body assessing the complainant’s appeal if he had been interviewed by the Internal Auditor, since the internal appeal body had to assess the testimonies on which the Internal Auditor’s report was based. In those circumstance, the contested member’s impartiality might be open to question as there were reasonable grounds for concluding that there was an actual conflict of interest, not merely a perceived conflict (see Judgments 2671, consideration 10, and 2225, consideration 19). The fact that the decision of an appeal body is reached unanimously does not eliminate the flaw in the process due to the participation in the decision-making of a member who should have recused themselves. Indeed, the participation in an appeal body of a member having a conflict of interest may influence the decision-making of the other members (see Judgment 4772, consideration 12). Accordingly, the Appeals Committee member […] who was heard as a witness in the investigation process, and in this capacity referred to specific episodes involving the complainant and the Director, should not have participated in the appeal proceedings as a member of the Appeals Committee, irrespective of the fact that the Appeals Committee adopted its opinion unanimously.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2225, 2671, 3732, 4772
Keywords:
composition of the internal appeals body; conflict of interest; impartiality; member of an internal body; recusal; rules of the organisation;
Judgment 4842
138th Session, 2024
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the application to her salary of the new salary scale for 2018.
Consideration 4
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal recalls that its settled case law has it that the complainant bears the burden of proving a lack of impartiality on the part of one or several members of an internal appeals body. In the present case, the complainant clearly does not adduce the requisite proof, given that mere suspicions and allegations unsupported by tangible evidence are insufficient to establish a lack of partiality on the part of all or some members of the Joint Appeals Committee (see, for example, Judgments 4662, consideration 13, and 4553, consideration 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4553, 4662
Keywords:
burden of proof; impartiality; internal appeals body;
Judgment 4837
138th Session, 2024
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, who separated from service, contests the placement in his personnel file of a letter stating that he was found to have committed sexual harassment during his employment and that, had he not separated from service, he would have been imposed the disciplinary measure of a final letter of warning.
Consideration 13
Extract:
Regarding the complainant’s allegation of bias, conflict of interest and breach of impartiality on the part of the investigator, as the Appeals Commission in effect found, the allegation could not be proved on the mere basis that the same investigator had already concluded in his initial investigative report that he (the complainant) was culpable for sexual harassment. As the case law states, such allegation must be substantiated and based on specific facts (see, for example, Judgment 4711, consideration 5).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4711
Keywords:
bias; burden of proof; conflict of interest; impartiality; investigation;
Considerations 16-17
Extract:
[The complainant] submits that the Commission was improperly constituted and that its members had a conflict of interest so that they were biased and not impartial. This, he states, is because the members of the panel had already expressed a concluded view in their initial report that he was culpable of the allegation of harassment […] He cites the Tribunal’s statement in consideration 12 of Judgment 2671, that “a reasonable person knowing that a member of [an internal Appeal’s body] had already expressed a concluded view as to the merits of the appeal being considered, would not think that that member would bring an impartial and objective mind to the issues involved [and that] failing an explicit provision in the regulations and rules, the [members] concerned are bound to withdraw if they have already expressed their view on the issue in such a way as to cast doubt on their impartiality” […] The Tribunal notes that […] the members of the Commission did not express a prior view on the issue whether the complainant had [engaged in sexual harassment] to lead to a conclusion that they did not embark upon considering the internal appeal in the reopened investigation with open minds thereby casting doubt on their impartiality and precluding them from considering the latter internal appeal.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2671
Keywords:
composition of the internal appeals body; conflict of interest; harassment; impartiality; internal appeals body; investigation; sexual harassment;
Judgment 4662
136th Session, 2023
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the Secretary General’s decision to reject her application for voluntary departure and her claim for compensation for “legitimate resignation”.
Consideration 13
Extract:
As regards the alleged breach of her right to an effective internal appeal due to a lack of impartiality on the part of the Joint Appeals Committee, the Tribunal observes that the complainant’s submissions on this point refer mainly to the fact that the member representing the staff did not issue a dissenting opinion in the face of the numerous egregious flaws in the process before the Committee. However, settled case law has it that the complainant bears the burden of proving allegations of lack of impartiality and, in this case, the complainant clearly does not adduce the requisite proof. Mere suspicions and allegations unsupported by tangible evidence are insufficient (see Judgment 4553, consideration 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4553
Keywords:
burden of proof; impartiality; internal appeals body;
Judgment 4594
135th Session, 2023
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant seeks the cancellation of a competition in which she took part.
Consideration 10
Extract:
[T]he complainant [...] alleges that there was a conflict of interest affecting one of the members of the Selection Board, as that member was the supervisor of one candidate.
The Tribunal recalls that a lack of impartiality, a bias or a conflict of interest on the part of members of a collegiate body such as a selection board may not be presumed. Any allegation of such matters must therefore be supported by tangible evidence (see, inter alia, Judgments 4451, consideration 16, 4408, consideration 22, and 3438, consideration 8). The mere fact, relied on in the present case, that the supervisor of one candidate was a member of the Selection Board cannot, in itself, be regarded as constituting a conflict of interest. In addition, since the complainant merely makes generalised assertions without adducing any tangible or specific evidence to establish the existence of a conflict of interest on the part of the member of the Selection Board in question, those assertions must be rejected.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3438, 4408, 4451
Keywords:
conflict of interest; impartiality; personal prejudice; selection board;
Judgment 4447
133rd Session, 2022
International Olive Council
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the withdrawal of some of her functions, arguing that such removal amounted to de facto demotion.
Consideration 10
Extract:
The evidence does not reveal that the Joint Committee was not constituted in accordance with Article 2 of its Procedure. Nonetheless, its composition bears out the complainant’s observation that it could not be seen as an internal appeal body which was objective or impartial owing to the “contamination between professional tasks” and the overlapping of roles and functions. […] The Tribunal concludes that the obvious close administrative roles of some of the members of the Joint Committee violated the complainant’s right to have her internal appeal heard by a properly functioning body.
Keywords:
composition of the internal appeals body; impartiality;
Consideration 12
Extract:
[I]t is anomalous that a Legal Department, which is responsible for presenting the organization’s defence to a staff member’s internal appeal, should appear to work in concert with the appeal body (in this case the Joint Committee) whose duty is to fairly hold the balance of justice between the parties. The IOC’s statement that the complainant provides no evidence that the Legal Department gave any kind of orders to the external lawyer is of no moment.
Keywords:
impartiality; internal appeals body;
Judgment 4368
131st Session, 2021
International Olive Council
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the cancellation of a competition procedure in which she participated.
Consideration 16
Extract:
[T]he complainant [...] rightly contends that her appeal to the Joint Committee was not considered, at least in appearance, in compliance with the essential requirements as to impartiality.
First, the written evidence shows that a member of that Committee – who, according to the complainant’s undisputed assertion, was the spouse of the only other candidate participating in the contested competition, and whose disqualification the complainant had requested for that very reason – took part in hearing the case in question. The Tribunal considers that this member faced, in the circumstances of the case, a conflict of interest that required him to withdraw. The practical difficulties put forward by the organisation to justify the fact that he did not do so cannot be accepted, particularly as the member in question had an alternate.
Second, the Joint Committee had, as already stated, asked the head of the Legal Department to provide it with an opinion in connection with its examination of the complainant’s appeal. However, as a member of the Committee pointed out in a dissenting opinion, that request breached the principle of impartiality since, in particular, that official was herself involved in managing competitions and, above all, she had at the same time been appointed to represent the Executive Director before the Joint Committee in that case.
Keywords:
impartiality; internal appeals body; recusal;
Judgment 4318
130th Session, 2020
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests his objectives for the reporting exercise January to December 2015 and the composition of the Appeals Committee that issued the opinion on the basis of which the impugned decision was taken.
Consideration 8
Extract:
The complainant asserts that the Chair of the Appeals Committee was not impartial as she twice put his internal appeal on the agenda for summary proceedings. The Tribunal finds this claim of lack of impartiality to be unsubstantiated. The Appeals Committee is entitled to use the summary procedure in accordance with the [rules].
Keywords:
impartiality; internal appeals body;
Judgment 4279
130th Session, 2020
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reject her internal complaint of psychological harassment.
Considerations 3-4
Extract:
[T]he complainant submits [...] that the two investigators who were appointed by the Director General to investigate her complaint [...] did not offer the requisite guarantees of impartiality.
[...]
The investigators appointed in this case were the Director of the Maastricht Upper Airspace Control Centre [...] and the Agency’s Head of Internal Audit. Since the departments headed by those two senior Eurocontrol’s officials did not come under the Directorate of Resources, the complainant is plainly wrong in contending that they were under the authority of Mr V. The Tribunal notes, moreover, that the officials in question considered it important to certify in their report that they did not have a reporting relationship with any of the parties to the dispute. While it is true that they were answerable to the Director General for the performance of their ordinary professional duties, that did not preclude them, in this case, from being entrusted with the investigation of the complaint in question, which was not directed against the Director General.
Theoretically, it would doubtless have been preferable, as the Director General himself admitted in his decision of 15 May 2017, to entrust the investigation into the harassment complaint against the Principal Director of Resources to a person outside Eurocontrol. The investigators in fact acknowledged that they had experienced some “discomfort” in having to investigate Mr V.’s conduct. It is furthermore regrettable that the Rule of Application, which, under the Article 12a of the Staff Regulations, was to lay down the implementing provisions for that article, had not yet been adopted when the harassment complaint at issue was made, as the Rule did not come into force until 23 May 2017.
However, the fact remains that these two officials – who had, in compliance with the requirements of Article 4.8 of the aforementioned Policy, received training in conducting an investigation before they took on that assignment – provided all the guarantees necessary to assume the responsibility entrusted to them.
In this regard, the Tribunal points out that, contrary to what the complainant appears to argue in referring to Judgments 3071, 3337 and 3660, which she misinterprets, its case law does not require investigations into harassment to be entrusted to a standing investigative body specifically established for that purpose. For the relevant requirements to be met, it suffices that such investigations are carried out by completely independent investigators.
That was the case here, since the arguments, put forward in passing by the complainant, that the independence of one of the investigators was compromised by his holding an appointment for a limited period or that he was disqualified from conducting an investigation because he himself had been the subject of a harassment complaint in the past, are irrelevant.
Moreover, the excerpts from the investigation report and the records of the interviews on the file lead the Tribunal to consider that the complaint was investigated by the investigators with complete impartiality.
Keywords:
conflict of interest; impartiality; inquiry; investigation;
Judgment 4257
129th Session, 2020
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his staff report for 2014.
Consideration 17
Extract:
If an official involved in the preparation of a staff report is not impartial and that can be demonstrated by prior conduct, the fact that the conduct took place some years earlier does not render that prior conduct irrelevant when assessing partiality. Partiality is not necessarily periodic or episodic and can be enduring. In addition, it may be doubted that the Appraisals Committee could, without investigating the matter itself, simply rely on a short letter from management to satisfactorily deal with the question of partiality.
Keywords:
impartiality; performance evaluation;
Judgment 4243
129th Session, 2020
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the dismissal of her complaint of discrimination and harassment.
Consideration 9
Extract:
[T]he mere fact that the Assistant Director General is ordinarily under the authority of the Director General is insufficient to call his impartiality into question, since there is no evidence that he had received any instructions from the Director General.
Keywords:
conflict of interest; impartiality;
Judgment 4240
129th Session, 2020
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reassign her to the post of Senior Advisor on Innovative Strategic Information, Strategic Information and Evaluation Department.
Consideration 10
Extract:
The Tribunal’s case law states that it is a general rule of law that an official who is called upon to take a decision affecting the rights or duties of other persons subject to her or his jurisdiction must withdraw in cases in which her or his impartiality may be open to question on reasonable grounds. It further states that it is immaterial that, subjectively, the official may consider herself or himself able to take an unprejudiced decision; nor is it enough for the persons affected by the decision to suspect its author of prejudice (see, for example, Judgment 3958, consideration 11). The Tribunal finds that the evidence which the complainant provides to support the allegation of conflict of interest may raise a suspicion. However, it does not provide reasonable grounds on which to hold that the Executive Director’s impartiality may have been open to question.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3958
Keywords:
conflict of interest; impartiality;
Judgment 4234
129th Session, 2020
International Office of Epizootics
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss him.
Consideration 3
Extract:
The proposal to dismiss the complainant was drawn up by the Director General and was introduced by the OIE’s counsel at the Council’s meeting. It is not disputed that the Director General and his Deputy did not leave the meeting room after the complainant was heard. The OIE explains in this regard that although those two senior officials are not members of the Council, the applicable rules state that they have to attend its meetings in order, among other reasons, to provide secretarial support. According to the Organisation, they “facilitated” the rest of the meeting but did not participate in the actual deliberations. These explanations are confirmed by the minutes of the meeting of the Council on 1 October 2015, which the Tribunal has examined in camera.
However, the fact remains that, under a general rule of law which is not unique to the international civil service, a person called upon to take a decision affecting the rights or duties of other persons subject to her or his authority must withdraw in cases in which her or his impartiality may be open to question on reasonable grounds. The duty to act impartially is incumbent not only on the authority competent for issuing the final decision, but also on bodies responsible for making a recommendation to this authority (see Judgments 2667, consideration 5, and 3958, consideration 11).
The circumstance that the complainant had initiated criminal proceedings against the Director General was liable to cast doubt on the latter’s impartiality, particularly because in this case the disciplinary action had been taken more than six months after the events and shortly after the submission of the request for compensation for harassment. The Tribunal observes in this respect that the proposal for a disciplinary measure was issued on the same day that the request for compensation for moral harassment was rejected. In these particular circumstances, the Director General ought to have entrusted the matter to the next most senior official whose impartiality could not be disputed (see Judgment 3958, consideration 13).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2667, 3958
Keywords:
conflict of interest; impartiality;
Judgment 3732
123rd Session, 2017
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss his allegations of harassment and abuse of authority as unfounded.
Consideration 3
Extract:
The Tribunal is of the opinion that the contested JAC member could not be a member of the JAC assessing the complainant’s appeal if he had been interviewed by the Internal Auditor, since the JAC had to assess the testimonies on which the Internal Auditor’s report was based. His impartiality may be open to question (see Judgment 2671, under 10) as there are reasonable grounds for concluding that there was an actual conflict of interest, not merely a perceived conflict (see Judgment 2225, under 19).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2225, 2671
Keywords:
conflict of interest; impartiality; internal appeals body;
Judgment 2615
102nd Session, 2007
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
This explanation is hardly satisfactory [i.e. “[t]he fact that the Finance Committee did not have a copy of the actuarial review or an opportunity to hear a presentation from the actuary […] cannot have a bearing on the lawfulness of the Council’s decision. Indeed […] according to the applicable rules and regulations, it is the Governing Board that must receive and discuss actuarial reviews of the Pension Fund. The Finance Committee and the CERN Council are informed of its opinion and decide whether to follow the recommendations it issues.”]. Procedural rules which provide for prior consultation or discussion, and which entrust certain bodies with the task of formulating an opinion or a recommendation before a decision is taken, are established particularly in order that the decision-making authority may be informed as objectively and fully as possible about interests worthy of protection which its decision may harm; this should make it easier to gain the support of those concerned by the decision and should ultimately contribute to its smooth implementation. Advisory bodies can naturally play their role only if they have access to all the relevant information necessary for the formulation of their opinion.
Keywords:
advisory body; consultation; impartiality;
Judgment 2520
100th Session, 2006
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 8-9
Extract:
"It is well settled that candidates are entitled to equal treatment in a competition for an advertised post (see Judgment 1990). It is an important aspect of the principle of equality that all candidates be considered objectively. Necessarily, a person's candidacy should not be evaluated by a person whose impartiality is open to question on reasonable grounds. The rule applies not only to those making or participating in the actual decision but also to those who have an advisory role, for they may exert influence on the ultimate decision (see Judgment 179). [...] To say that a person should not participate in the selection of candidates for an advertised position if his or her impartiality is reasonably open to question is not to say that a person should not have had a professional relationship with, or even supervisory responsibility for, one or more of the candidates. However, if the relationship goes beyond the proper bounds of a professional or supervisory relationship, there may well be reasonable grounds to question the impartiality of the person concerned."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 179, 1990
Keywords:
advisory body; bias; candidate; case law; competition; composition of the internal appeals body; equal treatment; impartiality; post; selection board; supervisor;
Judgment 1477
80th Session, 1996
International Training Centre of the International Labour Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
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;
1, 2 | next >
|
|
|
|
|
