## Judgment No. 1996-1

## Source details

**Canonical URL:** [Judgment No. 1996-1](https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/imfat/j1996-1.pdf)

## Other formats

- [Markdown version](/-/media/files/imfat/j1996-1.pdf.md)
- [Structured JSON version](/-/media/files/imfat/j1996-1.pdf.json)

---

### The procedure
- Tribunal composition and hearing dates:
  - The Administrative Tribunal of the International Monetary Fund, composed of Judge Stephen M. Schwebel, President, and Judges Michel Gentot and Agustín Gordillo, Associate Judges, met on April 1 and 2, 1996 to adjudge the case brought by Mr. Michel D'Aoust against the International Monetary Fund.
- Applicant filing and claims:
  - On October 11, 1995, Mr. D'Aoust filed an Application challenging:
    - (i) the individual administrative decision setting his initial grade and salary; and
    - (ii) the regulatory decision concerning the procedure for setting the salary of non-economist staff upon appointment.
  - Relief requested by the Applicant included:
    - Quash the administrative decision setting his salary at $65,800 and his grade at A12, and order a retroactive salary adjustment at a minimum of $76,000;
    - Find the disparate treatment of economists and non-economists in salary setting on appointment to be illegal;
    - Order that his starting salary be further adjusted by some $2,000 to offset the lower salary resulting from the application of the non-economist matrix.
- Procedural history and filings:
  - The Grievance Committee recommended rejection of the Applicant's complaint under (i); the Managing Director acted in accordance with that recommendation.
  - The second part of the complaint (regulatory decision) was brought directly to the Tribunal because it was outside the Grievance Committee’s jurisdiction.
  - The Fund filed an Answer on December 4, 1995. A Reply and Rejoinder were filed on December 22, 1995 and February 1, 1996 respectively.
  - Neither party requested oral hearings; the Tribunal used a transcript of the Grievance Committee hearings.

### Agreed facts and recruitment background
- Appointment and contract terms:
  - Mr. D'Aoust was appointed on December 6, 1993 for a 2-year fixed-term period as Personnel Officer in the Administration Department at grade A12, at a starting salary of $65,800.
- Comparator and recruitment history:
  - In 1992 a position advertised internally at grade A13/A14 was filled by Mr. "X", who was offered and accepted grade A12 at a starting salary of $63,000, and after his initial two-year fixed-term was promoted to grade A13.
  - In 1993 a vacancy was advertised internally at grade A10/A11; when no suitable internal candidates applied, a recruitment officer inquired of Mr. D'Aoust whether he would still be interested without mentioning grade.
  - The hiring official concluded the 1993 vacancy should be set at A12; the Fund offered the Applicant grade A12 with a salary of $64,000; after negotiation the Applicant accepted $65,800.
- Methodology element disclosed:
  - One element of the methodology gives a maximum of ten years weight to relevant professional experience for applicants who are not economists; that cap is not applied to applicants engaged to fill positions as economists.
- Subsequent administrative actions:
  - Mr. D'Aoust commenced work on December 6, 1993.
  - On February 28, 1994 he requested a salary increase; he pursued administrative review up to the Director of Administration.
  - On January 31, 1995 he submitted a grievance to the Grievance Committee; on June 13, 1995 the Committee recommended denial; on July 21, 1995 the Managing Director accepted that recommendation.
  - On February 3, 1995 the Director of Administration denied the substantive request but authorized a $1,000 salary increase effective January 20, 1995, based on the outside consultant's observation of possible misunderstanding concerning "the exact status" of the job.
  - The Applicant was promoted to grade A13 as of May, 1995 under an unusual acceleration of normal promotion procedures.

### Facts in dispute and parties' positions
- Principal disputed fact:
  - Whether the Applicant was considered for "the same job" twice (1992 and 1993); the Applicant contends they were the same in substance, the Fund disputes this.
- Applicant's assertions:
  - He understood salary would be set on the basis of total years of relevant previous experience and by comparison with multiple similarly situated staff.
  - Only ten years of prior experience were counted (per Fund practice for non-economists), and only the grade and salary of a single comparator (Mr. "X") were weighed.
  - Alleged "factual errors" included mistaken use of the economist matrix and "procedural anomalies" such as lack of a new job description and internal advertisement requirements.
  - He concluded his grade and salary were inappropriately set.
- Respondent's position:
  - The Fund maintained the grade and salary were set in accordance with normal procedures and internal law, within reasonable discretionary authority.
  - Computational errors, if any, were irrelevant because internal relativities made Mr. "X"'s salary a ceiling for the Applicant's salary.
  - No general principles of law were infringed.

### Jurisdiction ratione personae and legal effect of acceptance
- Jurisdictional issue:
  - At the time the Fund decided the grade and salary offered to the Applicant, he was not yet a staff member; Article II, Section 1 of the Tribunal's Statute limits competence to "a member of the staff" or enrollees/beneficiaries in Fund plans.
- Tribunal conclusion on competence:
  - Once the Applicant accepted the offer, signed the contract, and became a staff member, his grade and salary were determined by that offer; the Tribunal is competent to adjudge his case.
- Legal effect of acceptance:
  - Terms in a letter of appointment, such as grade and salary, are presumptively binding absent blatant mistake, contravention of mandatory Fund rules, or inducement by fraud or misrepresentation; this presumption is sustained but is rebuttable.
  - The fact that Mr. D'Aoust accepted his initial grade and salary does not bar him from challenging their legality.
  - The Tribunal deduced room for doubt about meeting of the minds given subsequent adjustments (the $1,000 p.a. increase and accelerated promotion).

### Tribunal's role vis-à-vis the Grievance Committee
- Nature of Grievance Committee:
  - The Committee hears cases and makes recommendations; Section 7.09 of General Administrative Order No. 31 provides the Managing Director or designee will take the final decision and transmit it in writing to the grievant.
  - The Committee's recommendations do not constitute "administrative acts" as defined in Article II, Sections 1.a. and 2.a., because the Committee cannot take final decisions.
- Tribunal competence and fact-finding:
  - The Tribunal is not an appellate body from the Grievance Committee; it is competent to judge the legality of administrative acts and to make findings of fact as well as holdings of law.
  - The Tribunal may take account of the treatment of an applicant before, during and after recourse to the Grievance Committee and may weigh the record generated by the Committee as evidence.

### Findings on the 1992 and 1993 posts and grading
- Vacancy histories and grading distinctions:
  - 1992: Vacancy for a senior compensation officer or senior personnel officer at grade A13/A14; Mr. "X" was recruited and given grade A12 because he lacked Fund-specific experience and knowledge to operate with little supervision.
  - 1993: Position initially viewed as a replacement for a personnel officer with five or six years of experience and internally advertised at grade A10/A11 to attract a candidate who would need significant training; when no qualified internal candidate appeared, the Fund decided to engage someone from outside with more relevant experience able to work without a long developmental period.
- Tribunal conclusion:
  - The Tribunal finds the 1992 and 1993 positions carried differing responsibilities from the outset and were dissimilar, supporting the Respondent's position that they were not the same job for grading purposes.
  - Therefore there was no legal obligation of the Fund to confer the same grade on both positions.

### Procedural irregularities, factual errors, and discretionary authority
- Applicant's alleged procedural irregularities and factual errors:
  - Failure internally to re-advertise the vacancy filled by him;
  - Absence of a new job description;
  - Use of a single peer-comparator (Mr. "X") to establish internal relativities;
  - Erroneous application of the economist matrix in evaluating his relevant pre-employment experience.
- Respondent's replies and Tribunal findings:
  - Starting grade and salary were consistent with the Fund's flexible employment system, where use of comparators is discretionary.
  - Computational errors were deemed irrelevant because the salary offered was just below the midpoint of the range and Mr. "X"'s salary constituted a cap.
  - Truncation of recognition of relevant previous experience at ten years for non-economists is the Fund's normal practice.
  - Procedural failures of which Mr. D'Aoust was unaware prior to accepting the position (e.g., non-re-advertisement, computational errors) could not have influenced his decision to accept.
  - The initially offered salary was re-negotiated to his advantage.
  - No evidence of deliberate misleading of Mr. D'Aoust was found.
  - The Fund acknowledged some difference in understanding regarding the job's status and made an equitable adjustment: a $1,000 p.a. increase and accelerated promotion.
  - The Tribunal did not treat truncation at ten years, by itself, as giving rise to a cause of action on grounds of inequality of treatment, noting that the Fund may not unreasonably favor economists given economics is central to the Fund's mission.
  - Overall conclusion: exercise of administrative discretion by the Fund in setting Mr. D'Aoust's grade and salary was not invalidated by the procedures followed, including the ten-year truncation and the use of a single comparator, nor by alleged procedural irregularities not shown to have influenced that exercise.

### Challenge to the truncation practice as a regulatory decision
- Applicant's regulatory challenges:
  - Differential treatment of prior experience for economists versus non-economists (non-economists' experience taken into account only for a maximum of ten years) alleged to constitute unlawful inequality of treatment;
  - Allegations that the system is rooted in systemic and gender discrimination;
  - Claim that the system of determining grades is arbitrary, raising the question of abuse of discretion.
- Respondent's defenses:
  - Contests Tribunal's jurisdiction ratione temporis over the long-standing practice truncating recognition at ten years;
  - Asserts the Applicant fails to demonstrate illegality of that practice; contests illegality of other contentions.
- Tribunal's jurisdictional analysis and findings:
  - For a practice to be a regulatory decision it must be a "decision" taken by an organ authorized to take it.
  - Evidence showed the ten-year truncation practice was never decided upon by the Executive Board, the Managing Director, or the most senior officials; it was not distilled in any rule, General Administrative Order, handbook, handout, statement on conditions of employment, contract or other published official paper.
  - At the time applied to Mr. D'Aoust the practice was an unpublished practice known to and employed by a small number of Administration Department officials.
  - Conclusion: the Tribunal is unable to regard the practice as a regulatory decision and therefore lacks jurisdiction to pass upon the practice as a regulatory decision; the Tribunal is competent to consider the validity of the application of that practice to Mr. D'Aoust as an individual decision.
- Observations on notice and transparency:
  - The Tribunal observed that a practice affecting salary determination of a substantial proportion of staff but largely unknown may require consideration by the Managing Director.
  - Notice by which rights and obligations are clearly conveyed is a requirement of due process and is embedded in the Statute of the Administrative Tribunal; regulatory decisions are presumed announced for purposes of limits on challenges (Article VI, Section 2).

### Jurisprudence cited on notice and clarity
- The Tribunal referenced international administrative tribunals requiring "ample information", "ample publicity", or "reasonable notice" so employees are clearly informed of working conditions.
- Decisions must be put in a form which "clearly conveys to an official in precisely what way his rights are affected."
- Cited precedents included ILOAT decisions (In re Niesing, Peeters and Roussot, Judgment No. 963; In re Connolly-Battisti, Judgment No. 323), which the Tribunal found lent weight to its considerations on notice.

### Decision and outcome
- The Administrative Tribunal of the International Monetary Fund, unanimously, decides:
  - (A) in respect of the individual decision determining the grade and salary of Michel D'Aoust, the Application is rejected;
  - (B) in respect of the alleged regulatory decision pursuant to which such determination was made, the Tribunal finds no regulatory decision within the meaning of its Statute on which to rule.
- Signatures and date:
  - Stephen M. Schwebel, President
  - Michel Gentot, Associate Judge
  - Agustín Gordillo, Associate Judge
  - Philine R. Lachman, Registrar
  - Washington, D.C., April 2, 1996

*Decision of the Administrative Tribunal of the International Monetary Fund, Washington, D.C., April 2, 1996.*

### Section 1

### Judgment No. 1996-1

### The procedure
- The Administrative Tribunal of the International Monetary Fund, composed of Judge Stephen M. Schwebel, President, and Judges Michel Gentot and Agustín Gordillo, Associate Judges, met on April 1 and 2, 1996 to adjudge the case brought by Mr. Michel D'Aoust against the International Monetary Fund.
- On October 11, 1995, Mr. D'Aoust filed an Application challenging:
  - (i) the individual administrative decision setting his initial grade and salary; and
  - (ii) the regulatory decision concerning the procedure for setting the salary of non-economist staff upon appointment.
- Relief requested by the Applicant:
  - Quash the administrative decision setting his salary at $65,800 and his grade at A12, and order a retroactive salary adjustment at a minimum of $76,000;
  - Find the disparate treatment of economists and non-economists in salary setting on appointment to be illegal;
  - Order that his starting salary be further adjusted by some $2,000 to offset the lower salary resulting from the application of the non-economist matrix.
- Procedural history:
  - The Grievance Committee recommended rejection of the Applicant's complaint under (i); the Managing Director acted in accordance with that recommendation.
  - The second part of the complaint (regulatory decision) is outside the Grievance Committee’s jurisdiction and was brought directly to the Tribunal.
  - The Fund filed an Answer on December 4, 1995 maintaining that the methodology was correctly applied and lawful.
  - A Reply and Rejoinder were filed on December 22, 1995 and February 1, 1996 respectively.
  - Oral hearings were not requested by either party; the Tribunal used a transcript of the Grievance Committee hearings.

### Agreed facts
- Appointment and contract terms:
  - Mr. D'Aoust was appointed on December 6, 1993 for a 2-year fixed-term period as Personnel Officer in the Administration Department at grade A12, at a starting salary of $65,800.
- Recruitment background:
  - In 1992 a position advertised internally at grade A13/A14 was filled by Mr. "X", who was offered and accepted grade A12 at a starting salary of $63,000, and after his initial two-year fixed-term was promoted to grade A13.
  - In 1993 a vacancy was advertised internally at grade A10/A11; when no suitable internal candidates applied, a recruitment officer inquired of Mr. D'Aoust whether he would still be interested without mentioning grade.
  - The hiring official concluded the 1993 vacancy should be set at A12; the Fund offered the Applicant grade A12 with a salary of $64,000; after negotiation the Applicant accepted $65,800.
- Methodology elements disclosed during the Grievance Committee hearings:
  - One element of the methodology gives a maximum of ten years weight to relevant professional experience for applicants who are not economists; that cap is not applied to applicants engaged to fill positions as economists.
- Subsequent events:
  - Mr. D'Aoust commenced work on December 6, 1993.
  - On February 28, 1994 he requested a salary increase; he pursued administrative review up to the Director of Administration.
  - On January 31, 1995 he submitted a grievance to the Grievance Committee; on June 13, 1995 the Committee recommended denial; on July 21, 1995 the Managing Director accepted that recommendation.
  - On February 3, 1995 the Director of Administration denied the substantive request but authorized a $1,000 salary increase effective January 20, 1995, based on the outside consultant's observation of possible misunderstanding concerning "the exact status" of the job.

### Facts in dispute and Applicant's contentions
- Principal disputed fact:
  - Whether the Applicant was considered for "the same job" twice (1992 and 1993); the Applicant contends they were the same in substance, the Fund disputes this.
- Applicant's assertions regarding salary calculation and process:
  - He understood salary would be set on the basis of total years of relevant previous experience and by comparison with multiple similarly situated staff.
  - Instead, only ten years of prior experience were counted (in accordance with Fund practice for non-economists), and only the grade and salary of a single comparator (Mr. "X") were weighed.
  - He alleges "factual errors" including mistaken use of the economist matrix and "procedural anomalies" such as lack of a new job description and internal advertisement requirements.
  - He concludes his grade and salary were inappropriately set.
- Respondent's position:
  - The Fund maintains the grade and salary were set in accordance with normal procedures and internal law, in lawful exercise of reasonable discretion within a flexible system.
  - Computational errors, if any, were irrelevant because internal relativities made Mr. "X"'s salary a ceiling for the Applicant's salary.
  - No general principles of law were infringed.

### Jurisdiction ratione personae
- Legal issue:
  - At the time the Fund decided the grade and salary offered to the Applicant, he was not yet a staff member; Article II, Section 1 of the Tribunal's Statute limits competence to "a member of the staff" or enrollees/beneficiaries in Fund plans.
- Tribunal's conclusion:
  - Once the Applicant accepted the offer, signed the contract, and became a staff member, his grade and salary were determined by that offer; the offer and acceptance thereafter affected him as a member of the staff.
  - Therefore the Tribunal is competent to adjudge his case.

### Acceptance of the offer of employment and its legal effect
- Respondent's argument:
  - Terms in a letter of appointment, such as grade and salary, are explicitly accepted by the staff member and are presumptively binding absent blatant mistake, contravention of mandatory Fund rules, or inducement by fraud or misrepresentation.
- Tribunal's holdings:
  - The Tribunal sustains the presumption that accepted terms weigh against challenge but emphasizes it is only a presumption; applicants can challenge on grounds of misrepresentation or irregularity.
  - The fact that Mr. D'Aoust accepted his initial grade and salary does not bar him from challenging their legality.
  - The Director of Administration found events creating possible misunderstanding of "the exact status of the job" and therefore adjusted terms by increasing salary by $1,000 p.a. as of January 20, 1995 and by promoting him to grade A13 as of May, 1995 under an unusual acceleration of normal promotion procedures.
  - From these facts the Tribunal deduces room for doubt about meeting of the minds; absent a true meeting of minds, Mr. D'Aoust cannot be treated to his detriment as if there were.

### The individual decision and the Tribunal's review of Grievance Committee proceedings
- Applicant's approach:
  - He frames many challenges in terms of dissatisfaction with how the Grievance Committee handled his grievance and characterizes the Tribunal as an appellate body over the Committee.
- Respondent's contrary argument:
  - If the Tribunal were an appellate body over the Grievance Committee, it would be limited to questions of law and could not take evidence directly, and remedies would ordinarily remand to the Committee rather than allow the Tribunal to make findings and award damages.
- Tribunal's analysis and conclusions:
  - The Tribunal's competence is limited to judging the legality of administrative acts (individual or regulatory decisions taken in the administration of the staff) as defined by the Statute.
  - The Grievance Committee's basic function (General Administrative Order No. 31) is to hear cases and make recommendations to the Managing Director to facilitate fair and expeditious resolution of disputes and to establish hearing procedures.
  - Section 7.09 of that Order provides the Managing Director or designee will take the final decision and transmit it in writing to the grievant.
  - Therefore, the Grievance Committee's recommendations do not constitute "administrative acts" as defined in Article II, Sections 1.a. and 2.a., because the Committee cannot take final decisions.
  - The Tribunal does not function as an appellate body from the Grievance Committee; its competence is not so limited and it makes findings of fact as well as holdings of law.
  - The Tribunal may, however, take account of the treatment of an applicant before, during and after recourse to the Grievance Committee and may weigh the record generated by the Committee as evidence.

### The 1992 and 1993 posts — Tribunal findings of fact
- Vacancy histories and grading:
  - 1992: Compensation Policy Division announced a vacancy for a senior compensation officer or senior personnel officer at grade A13/A14; Mr. "X" was recruited from outside and was given grade A12 rather than A13/A14 because he lacked Fund-specific experience and knowledge to operate with little supervision.
  - 1993: The position was initially viewed as a replacement for a personnel officer with five or six years of experience and was internally advertised at grade A10/A11 to attract a candidate who would need significant training.
  - When no qualified internal candidate appeared in 1993, the Fund decided to engage someone from outside with more relevant experience able to work without a long developmental period for the review of the grading system.
- Tribunal conclusion on similarity of posts:
  - The Tribunal finds the 1992 and 1993 positions carried differing responsibilities from the outset and were dissimilar, supporting the Respondent's position that they were not the same job for grading purposes.

*The Administrative Tribunal of the International Monetary Fund adjudged the matters summarized above in Judgment No. 1996-1 (April 2, 1996).*

### Section 2

### j1996-1 - Section 2

### Perception of positions and grade assignment
- The Fund perceived that Mr. D'Aoust was recruited to fill a position clearly junior to that discussed with him in 1992; Mr. D'Aoust did not appear to share that perception.  
- The Tribunal concluded that the 1993 position offered to and accepted by Mr. D'Aoust differed from the 1992 position discussed with him (and offered to Mr. "X"), as did the qualifications to be fulfilled by the holders of these positions.  
- Conclusion: there was no legal obligation of the Fund to confer the same grade on both positions on the ground of an identity which did not exist.  
- Grade levels referenced: A12; earlier internal advertising referenced A10/A11.

### Alleged procedural irregularities and factual errors (paras. 21–24)
- Applicant's allegations of procedural irregularities and factual errors that allegedly produced a wrongful grade and salary included:
  - failure internally to re-advertise the vacancy of the position filled by him;
  - absence of a new job description;
  - use of a single peer-comparator (Mr. "X") to establish internal relativities;
  - erroneous application of the economist matrix in evaluating his relevant pre-employment experience.
- Respondent's replies:
  - starting grade and salary were consistent with the Fund's flexible employment system, where use of comparators is discretionary;
  - computational errors were irrelevant because the salary offered was just below the midpoint of the range and Mr. "X"'s salary constituted a cap on Mr. D'Aoust's;
  - truncation of recognition of relevant previous experience at 10 years for non-economists is the Fund's normal practice.
- Tribunal findings:
  - Procedural failures of which Mr. D'Aoust was unaware prior to accepting the position (e.g., non-re-advertisement, computational errors) could not have influenced his decision to accept.
  - The initially offered salary was re-negotiated to his advantage.
  - The Tribunal did not accept Mr. D'Aoust's contentions concerning the effect of the cited procedural irregularities and factual errors on his appointment decision.

### Discretionary authority in classification and grading (paras. 23, 25–30)
- Legal context:
  - Classification and grading are exercises of discretionary authority, subject to judicial review only for irregularity (cites Lyra Pinto v IBRD and others).
  - International administrative tribunals emphasize observance of procedural rules but have held procedural irregularities irrelevant where actions/omissions did not affect the complainant's financial interests.
- Applicant's assertions:
  - He was misled as to the nature of the job offered;
  - Being given A12 for a position internally advertised as A10/A11 demonstrates invalidity of the grading process and inappropriate grading.
- Respondent's assertions:
  - Job content initially set at grade A10/A11 had been redefined and duties/responsibilities augmented;
  - Applicant's experience did not justify a higher entry level than A12;
  - Grade and salary were lawfully determined per Fund system.
- Tribunal findings:
  - No evidence of deliberate misleading of Mr. D'Aoust.
  - Fund acknowledged some difference in understanding between Mr. D'Aoust and Recruitment Division personnel regarding the job's status; Fund made an equitable adjustment: a $1,000 p.a. increase in salary and an accelerated promotion.
  - The Tribunal does not equate such misunderstanding with deliberate misleading nor view the adjustment as proving the initial determination was flawed.
  - On truncation of prior experience: the Fund may not unreasonably favor economists given economics is at the heart of the Fund's mission. The application of the non-economist matrix cutting off credit at ten years did not, by itself, give rise to a cause of action on grounds of inequality of treatment.
  - Overall conclusion: exercise of administrative discretion by the Fund in setting Mr. D'Aoust's grade and salary was not invalidated by the procedures followed, including the ten-year truncation and the use of a single comparator, nor by alleged procedural irregularities not shown to have influenced that exercise.

### Challenge to the regulatory decision and Respondent's defenses (paras. 31–32)
- Applicant's challenges to the legality of the regulatory decision underlying his grade and salary alleged:
  - differential treatment of prior experience for economists versus non-economists (non-economists' experience taken into account only for a maximum of 10 years) constitutes unlawful inequality of treatment;
  - the system is rooted in systemic and gender discrimination;
  - the system of determining grades is arbitrary, raising the question of abuse of discretion.
- Respondent's defenses:
  - contests Tribunal's jurisdiction ratione temporis over the long-standing practice truncating recognition at ten years;
  - asserts the Applicant fails to demonstrate illegality of that practice;
  - contests illegality of other contentions.

### Tribunal jurisdiction ratione materiae over the truncation practice (paras. 33–37)
- Statutory basis:
  - Tribunal's jurisdiction over regulatory decisions is based on Article II, Section 2 of the Statute, including the definition that a "regulatory decision" means "any rule concerning the terms and conditions of staff employment, including the General Administrative Orders and the Staff Retirement Plan, but excluding any resolutions adopted by the Board of Governors of the Fund."
  - The Report to the Board of Governors explains the Tribunal would be competent to hear challenges to individual and regulatory decisions affecting terms and conditions of employment, and that the statute makes explicit jurisdiction to review regulatory decisions directly or in context of individual decisions based on them.
- Threshold analysis and findings:
  - For a practice to be a regulatory decision it must be a "decision" taken by an organ authorized to take it.
  - Evidence showed the ten-year truncation practice was never decided upon by the Executive Board, the Managing Director, or the most senior officials; it was not distilled in any rule, General Administrative Order, handbook, handout, statement on conditions of employment, contract or other published official paper.
  - At the time applied to Mr. D'Aoust the practice was an unpublished practice known to and employed by a small number of Administration Department officials.
  - Conclusion: the Tribunal is unable to regard the practice as a regulatory decision and therefore lacks jurisdiction to pass upon the practice as a regulatory decision; the Tribunal is competent to consider the validity of the application of that practice to Mr. D'Aoust as an individual decision.
- Observations on transparency and notice:
  - The Tribunal observed that a practice affecting salary determination of a substantial proportion of staff but largely unknown may require consideration by the Managing Director.
  - Notice by which rights and obligations are clearly conveyed is a requirement of due process and is embedded in the Statute of the Administrative Tribunal; regulatory decisions are presumed announced for purposes of limits on challenges (Article VI, Section 2), and the Report to the Board of Governors discusses the three-month challenge period for regulatory decisions and the handling of challenges to individual decisions that invoke the legality of underlying regulatory decisions.

*Source: j1996-1 - Section 2*

### Section 3

### j1996-1 - Section 3

### Background and procedural issue
- The Report stated: "An application challenging the legality of a regulatory decision shall not be admissible if filed with the Tribunal more than three months after the announcement or effective date of the decision, whichever is later; provided that the illegality of a regulatory decision may be asserted at any time in support of an admissible application challenging the legality of an individual decision taken pursuant to such regulatory decision." (Report, pp. 25-26)
- The pursuit of administrative remedies as to the issue of interpretation or application would suspend the time period for seeking review of the decision "on grounds for which no administrative review is available."
- The Tribunal observed that determining whether a statutory period is observed when a starting date cannot be determined "would either be impossible or necessitate reliance on vague concepts such as that a practice has been observed for 'many years'."

### Jurisprudence on notice, publicity, and clarity of decisions
- In other international administrative tribunals' jurisprudence, "ample information", "ample publicity", or "reasonable notice" given internally have been held requisite for actions or decisions so that employees are clearly informed of working conditions.
- Decisions are required to be put in a form which "clearly conveys to an official in precisely what way his rights are affected."
- Cited precedents:
  - In re Niesing, Peeters and Roussot, ILOAT, 66th Session, Judgment No. 963, para. 5
  - In re Connolly-Battisti, ILOAT, 39th Session, Judgment No. 323, para. 22
- The Tribunal found that this jurisprudence "lends weight to the considerations set out above in paragraph 36."

### Tribunal's findings on admissibility and regulatory decision
- The Tribunal noted that, given its conclusion in paragraph 35, it was unnecessary to consider the Respondent's argument that, "insofar as it relates to a regulatory decision, the Application is time-barred." (paragraph 38)
- The Tribunal concluded that there was "no regulatory decision within the meaning of its Statute on which to rule" with respect to the alleged regulatory decision pursuant to which the individual determination was made. (Decision, part B)

### Decision and outcome
- The Administrative Tribunal of the International Monetary Fund, unanimously, decides:
  - (A) in respect of the individual decision determining the grade and salary of Michel D'Aoust, the Application is rejected;
  - (B) in respect of the alleged regulatory decision pursuant to which such determination was made, the Tribunal finds no regulatory decision within the meaning of its Statute on which to rule.
- Signatories and officials:
  - Stephen M. Schwebel, President
  - Michel Gentot, Associate Judge
  - Agustín Gordillo, Associate Judge
  - Philine R. Lachman, Registrar
- Location and date: Washington, D.C., April 2, 1996

---


_Source: https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/imfat/j1996-1.pdf_