�鶹��ý

Relevant matters were ignored. The timing and circumstances of the Applicant’s appraisals, sick leave taken, the nature of the four-month assignment in 2018 and the reasons for it, are relevant. These factors have been considered in coming to a determination that a proper exercise of the Respondent’s discretion would have been to consider an appraisal of the Applicant’s work for the four-month period in 2018. The Applicant was on sick leave for the first seven months of the year but there is no provision in the regulatory framework indicating that the appraisal for a shorter period of work...

The Tribunal finds that the Respondent has been able to minimally show that the Applicant’s candidature was given full and fair consideration, including special consideration as an internal candidate on an abolished post but that the Applicant has failed to show that she was denied a fair chance during the selection process. Accordingly, the Tribunal DECIDES that the application is rejected in its entirety.

The Tribunal found that the rebuttal panel was properly constituted. The Tribunal found that the rebuttal panel’s review of the evidence complied with the applicable norms. The Tribunal found that the Applicant’s medical condition was not an excuse for his reported poor performance. The Tribunal found that because the Applicant’s report of abuse of authority against his supervisor was only filed after the performance appraisal was completed, it had no bearing on the appraisal.

The Tribunal found that the right to know the contents of the report, although summarized, was implicit in the right of a staff member to complain against third persons because this right includes the right to know the reasons for which the Administration did not punish the accused person and the right to challenge this decision, founding the claim on specific grounds related to the Administration’s assessment of the facts. The jrusiprudence acknowleges the right of the complainant to have a summary of the report is recognized too, and it is confirmed that only under exceptional circumstances...

DSA is provided for official trips only, and these must be formally approved prior to travel. The decision to refuse DSA for the days the Applicant was in Cairo is therefore lawful, as that part of his presence in Cairo was clearly for personal purposes.

The Tribunal was satisfied that the verbal decision conveyed to the Applicant was “clear and unambiguous” enough to have met the test laid down by the Appeals Tribunal in Auda. The Applicant’s repeated emails to the Respondent to express his disagreement with the impugned decision is evidence of the clarity of the decision. Time began to run from the date the decision was conveyed to him unambiguously.

The impugned “decision” carried no “direct legal consequences” given that it was not final and remains open to challenge by way of rebuttal.