Appointment (293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299, 300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 661, 660, 686,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Appointment
Total judgments found: 214
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 | next >
Judgment 4584
135th Session, 2023
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant seeks the cancellation of the competition organised to fill the grade P.4 post of programme coordinator that he had held in the ITU Regional Office for Africa until his retirement.
Consideration 5
Extract:
[I]t must be reiterated that, under the Tribunal’s settled case law, a staff appointment by an international organisation is a decision that lies within the discretion of its executive head and, for that reason, is subject only to limited review. It 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 4408, consideration 2, 4153, consideration 2, 3188, consideration 8, or 2040, consideration 5). The Tribunal will not replace the organisation’s assessment with its own in this matter (see, in particular, Judgments 4100, consideration 5, 3537, consideration 10, 2833, consideration 10(b), or 2762, consideration 17). Furthermore, where an appointment is made on the basis of a selection among candidates for a post, a complainant seeking to have the appointment set aside must demonstrate that there was a serious defect in the selection process which impacted on the outcome of the competition (see, for example, Judgments 4524, consideration 8, 4208, consideration 3, 4147, consideration 9, or 4023, consideration 2). In particular, it is not enough simply to assert that one is better qualified for the post in question than the selected candidate (see, for example, Judgments 4467, consideration 2, 4001, consideration 4, 3669, consideration 4, or 1827, consideration 6).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1827, 2040, 2762, 2833, 3188, 3537, 3669, 4001, 4023, 4100, 4147, 4153, 4208, 4408, 4467, 4524
Keywords:
appointment; competition; role of the tribunal; selection procedure;
Judgment 4552
134th Session, 2022
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to select him for the post of director of the Language Service.
Consideration 2
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal recalls its case law under which an organisation has wide discretion in appointing or promoting staff. Such a decision is therefore subject to only limited review by the Tribunal, which will interfere only if the decision was taken without authority, if it was based on a mistake of fact or of law, if an essential fact was overlooked, if a clearly mistaken conclusion was drawn from the facts, if a rule of form or procedure was breached or if there was abuse of authority (see, in particular, Judgments 2060, consideration 4, 2457, consideration 6, 2834, consideration 7, and 4019, consideration 2).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2060, 2457, 2834, 4019
Keywords:
appointment; discretion; role of the tribunal; selection procedure;
Judgment 4524
134th Session, 2022
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to appoint, as a development reassignment, Ms V.M. to the post of Client Relationship Manager.
Consideration 8
Extract:
The Tribunal’s case law has it that a staff appointment by an international organisation is a decision that lies within the discretion of its executive head and is subject to only limited review. Such a decision 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. Nevertheless, anyone who applies for a post to be filled by some process of selection is entitled to have her or his application considered in good faith and in keeping with the basic rules of fair and open competition. That is a right which every applicant must enjoy, whatever her or his hope of success may be. An organisation must abide by the rules and the general precepts of the case law on selection, and, when the process proves to be flawed, the Tribunal can quash any resulting appointment, albeit on the understanding that the organisation must ensure that the successful candidate is shielded from any injury which may result from the cancellation of her or his appointment, which she or he accepted in good faith. A complainant must demonstrate that there was a serious defect in the selection process which impacted on the consideration and assessment of her or his candidature. It is not enough simply to assert that one is better qualified than the selected candidate (see, for example, Judgments 4023, consideration 2, and 3669, consideration 4).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3669, 4023
Keywords:
appointment; discretion; role of the tribunal; selection procedure;
Judgment 4472
133rd Session, 2022
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to appoint an official to his former post.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
appointment; complaint dismissed; selection procedure; transfer;
Judgment 4412
132nd Session, 2021
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions not to renew her short-term appointment beyond 31 March 2016 and not to select her for a G-3 position advertised through a vacancy announcement.
Consideration 7
Extract:
The Tribunal has consistently held that the appointment by an international organisation of a candidate to a position is a decision that lies within the discretion of its executive head. It is subject only to limited review and may be set aside only if it was taken without authority, or in breach of a rule of form or 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. This formulation is intended to highlight the need for a complainant to demonstrate that there was a serious defect in the selection process which impacted on the consideration and assessment of her or his candidature (see, for example, Judgment 4023, consideration 2).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4023
Keywords:
appointment; discretion; judicial review; selection procedure;
Judgment 4408
132nd Session, 2021
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant disputes the lawfulness and outcome of a competition procedure in which she participated.
Consideration 2
Extract:
The Tribunal’s case law has it that a staff appointment by an international organisation is a decision that lies within the discretion of its executive head. Such a decision is subject to only limited review 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, for example, Judgment 3537, consideration 10).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3537
Keywords:
appointment; competition; discretion; judicial review;
Judgment 4216
129th Session, 2020
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the lawfulness of the decision to cancel a competition procedure in which he took part.
Consideration 10
Extract:
Contrary to what the complainant submits, the setting aside of those decisions [to cancel the competition and to reject an appeal against that decision] does not in itself imply that the Director General was obliged to appoint him to the [...] post [in question] following the competition procedure. Under the case law [of the Tribunal], the Director General had a discretion to decide, in the interest of the organisation, not to act on the proposals of the selection board. The complainant’s claims for an order to appoint him retroactively to the post in question [...], with all the legal consequences that this entails, must therefore be dismissed.
Keywords:
appointment; competition cancelled;
Judgment 4153
128th Session, 2019
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the lawfulness of a competition procedure in which she participated and of the appointment made at the end of that procedure.
Consideration 2
Extract:
According to the Tribunal’s case law, the decision of an international organisation to make an appointment is within the discretion of its executive head. Such a decision is subject to only limited review 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 law or fact, or if some material fact was overlooked, or if there was an abuse of authority, or if a clearly wrong conclusion was drawn from the evidence (see Judgment 3537, consideration 10). Nevertheless, anyone who applies for a post to be filled by some process of selection is entitled to have her or his application considered in good faith and in keeping with the basic rules of fair and open competition. That is a right that every applicant must enjoy, whatever her or his hopes of success may be (see, inter alia, Judgment 2163, consideration 1, and the case law cited therein, as well as Judgment 3209, consideration 11). The case law also establishes that an organisation must be careful to abide by the rules on selection and, when the process proves to be flawed, the Tribunal will quash any resulting appointment, albeit on the understanding that the organisation must shield the successful candidate from any injury that may result from the setting aside of an appointment he accepted in good faith (see, for example, Judgment 3130, considerations 10 and 11).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2163, 3130, 3209, 3537
Keywords:
appointment; discretion; judicial review; selection procedure;
Judgment 4100
127th Session, 2019
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to select him for a position for which he had applied.
Consideration 5
Extract:
[A] staff member has no entitlement or right to be selected for a contested post.
Keywords:
appointment; selection procedure;
Consideration 5
Extract:
[I]t is well settled that the Tribunal “may not replace the Organisation’s assessment of the applicants with its own and order any particular appointment” (Judgment 1595, under 4).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1595
Keywords:
appointment; competence of tribunal; selection procedure;
Judgment 4087
127th Session, 2019
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the validity of a competition procedure in which he took part and the lawfulness of the ensuing appointment.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
appointment; complaint dismissed; selection procedure;
Judgment 4070
127th Session, 2019
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to select her for a position for which she had applied.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
appointment; competition; complaint dismissed; selection procedure;
Judgment 4061
127th Session, 2019
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions not to cancel the appointment of an external candidate following a recruitment procedure and not to organise a new procedure open to internal candidates only.
Consideration 5
Extract:
The Tribunal has consistently held that a staff member’s right to challenge the appointment of another staff member to a particular post is not contingent on whether she or he had a relatively good chance of being the successful candidate (see Judgment 2832, under 8, and the cited cases). However, the same case law also establishes that the individual concerned must be eligible to occupy the post, otherwise it could not be said that the individual was legally affected by the disputed appointment. As the complainant was not eligible to apply for appointment to the post at the relevant time, his complaint does not disclose a cause of action and must be dismissed.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2832
Keywords:
appointment; competition; no cause of action;
Judgment 4023
126th Session, 2018
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the validity of a competition procedure in which he participated and the lawfulness of the ensuing appointment.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
appointment; competition; complaint dismissed; selection procedure;
Consideration 2
Extract:
The Tribunal has stated the basic principles which guide it, where a decision such as this is challenged, [...] in Judgment 3652, consideration 7. [...]
A complainant is required to demonstrate that there was a serious defect in the selection process which impacted on the consideration and assessment of her or his candidature. It is not enough simply to assert that one is better qualified than the selected candidate (see Judgment 3669, consideration 4).
However, when an organization conducts a competition to fill a post, the process must accord with the relevant rules and the case law (see Judgment 1549, considerations 11 and 13, and the case law cited therein).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1549, 3652, 3669
Keywords:
appointment; competition; discretion; judicial review; selection procedure;
Judgment 4001
126th Session, 2018
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to confirm the appointment of Ms S. to the post of Head of the Caribbean Section.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
appointment; case sent back to organisation; complaint allowed; decision quashed; selection procedure;
Judgment 3938
125th Session, 2018
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to confirm her appointment due to the rejection of her application for a work visa by the authorities of the country of her duty station.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
appointment; competence of tribunal; complaint dismissed; contract; host state; non official; offer withdrawn; ratione personae; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 3701
122nd Session, 2016
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the calculation of his reckonable previous experience upon recruitment.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
appointment; complaint allowed; decision quashed; professional experience;
Judgment 3669
122nd Session, 2016
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to select him for a post of Director.
Consideration 4
Extract:
It is convenient, at the outset, to describe the general legal framework in which the complaint is to be considered. Firstly and fundamentally, the Tribunal accepts that the appointment by an international organisation of a candidate to a position is a decision that lies within the discretion of its executive head. It is subject only to limited review and may be set aside only if it was taken without authority or in breach of rule of form or 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. This formulation is found in many judgments of the Tribunal including, for example, Judgment 3209, consideration 11, and is intended to highlight the need for a complainant to establish some fundamental defect in the selection process. Those defects can include the appointment of a candidate who did not meet one of the conditions stipulated in the vacancy announcement (see, for example, Judgment 2712, consideration 8). However, as the Tribunal observed in Judgment 1827, consideration 6: “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.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1827, 2712, 3209
Keywords:
appointment; competition; discretion; judicial review; selection procedure;
Judgment 3652
122nd Session, 2016
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns two appointment decisions by the Director-General.
Consideration 7
Extract:
The Tribunal’s case law has it that a staff appointment by an international organisation is a decision that lies within the discretion of its executive head. Such a decision is subject to only limited review 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 Judgment 3537, under 10). Nevertheless, anyone who applies for a post to be filled by some process of selection is entitled to have her or his application considered in good faith and in keeping with the basic rules of fair and open competition. That is a right which every applicant must enjoy, whatever her or his hope of success may be (see, inter alia, Judgment 2163, under 1, and the case law cited therein, and Judgment 3209, under 11). It was also stated that an organisation must abide by the rules on selection and, when the process proves to be flawed, the Tribunal can quash any resulting appointment, albeit on the understanding that the organisation must ensure that the successful candidate is shielded from any injury which may result from the cancellation of her or his appointment, which she or he accepted in good faith (see, for example, Judgment 3130, under 10 and 11).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2163, 3130, 3209, 3537
Keywords:
appointment; competition; organisation's duties; selection procedure;
Judgment 3644
122nd Session, 2016
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge the procedural and substantive regularity of an appointment.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
appointment; complaint dismissed; joinder; selection procedure;
Judgment 3643
122nd Session, 2016
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge the lawfulness of the procedure followed to appoint another person to a P4 position.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
appointment; complaint dismissed; joinder; selection procedure;
< previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 | next >
|
