2022-UNAT-1220, Dzenan Viteskic
UNAT held that UNDT did not err when it held that ST/AI/2017 was the governing legal framework applicable to the case. UNAT held that joint representation by UN-Women, where the Appellant currently served, and UNMIK, where the events in dispute occurred, was justified. UNAT held that the circumstances also justified the granting of an opportunity to supplement the initial reply (and a corresponding right to reply). UNAT held that, given that the Appellant had not contested the joint representation before UNDT at the time and having been afforded the opportunity to answer the supplementary reply, the Appellant was estopped from raising the matter on appeal. UNAT held that there had not been a violation of the OIOS Investigations Manual. UNAT held that the Appellant’s contention that OIOS failed to provide rules or procedures to govern the case assessment process was baseless. UNAT held that UNDT was correct to find that the Administration’s response to the Appellant’s request for management evaluation was not a reviewable administrative decision and therefore UNDT would not review it. On the Appellant’s claim that there was a procedural irregularity related to the signature and date of completion on the OIOS assessment report, UNAT agreed with UNDT’s finding that only substantial procedural errors can render the administrative decision unlawful and the Appellant failed to explain how such a mistake affected the contested decision. UNAT held that the Appellant failed to show any error in the UNDT’s finding that the OIOS decision not to investigate the Appellant’s complaint was reasonable and lawfully taken. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT Judgment.
The Applicant contested the decision of the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) not to launch an investigation into his complaint against another staff member, in which he claimed the staff member of UNMIK had made false and malicious allegations against him. UNDT rejected the application.
Only in particular situations, such as a case of serious and reasonable accusation, does a staff member have a right to an investigation against another staff member. OIOS has a broad discretion in the appreciation of the evidence before it.