## JUDGMENT No. 2016-3 — Interpretation of Judgment No. 2006-6 (Ms. “M” and Dr. “M” (No. 2) v. International Monetary Fund)

## Source details

**Canonical URL:** [JUDGMENT No. 2016-3 — Interpretation of Judgment No. 2006-6 (Ms. “M” and Dr. “M” (No. 2) v. International Monetary Fund)](https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/imfat/j2016-3.pdf)

## Other formats

- [Markdown version](/-/media/files/imfat/j2016-3.pdf.md)
- [Structured JSON version](/-/media/files/imfat/j2016-3.pdf.json)

---

### Case overview and parties’ positions
- Administrative Tribunal of the International Monetary Fund met on October 31, 2016, to adjudge the Application by Ms. “M” and Dr. “M” (Applicants) v. International Monetary Fund (Respondent), Interpretation of Judgment No. 2006-6.
- Applicants seek interpretation of IMFAT Judgment No. 2006-6 (November 29, 2006) concerning enforcement under Section 11.3 of the Staff Retirement Plan (SRP) and claim amounts they received were reduced by bank fees such that the debtor’s obligation was not fully discharged.
- Respondent maintains it paid the amounts ordered by Judgment No. 2006-6 and is not responsible for bank fees charged when payments were credited to Applicants’ German bank account.
- Representation:
  - Applicants were represented by Dr. “M”.
  - Respondent was represented by Ms. Diana Benoit, Senior Counsel, and Ms. Juliet Johnson, Counsel, IMF Legal Department.
  - Applicants were afforded anonymity in proceedings.

### Operative facts from Judgment No. 2006-6 and implementation
- Judgment No. 2006-6 ordered a 16⅔ percent deduction from prospective monthly pension payments to Mr. “N”, to be paid over to Applicants, to discharge total sums owing by reason of Darmstadt Court Orders of 1991, 1994, and 1995, as confirmed and totaled by the Superior Court of the District of Columbia in Orders of April 30, 2002, November 25, 2002, and June 21, 2006.
- The ordered total included:
  - $71,905.81 plus $27,904.81 in interest, plus interest at the prevailing rate compounded quarterly on the total sum from November 25, 2002 until the date on which each monthly pension payment is made.
  - An additional liability provision referred to 227,03 Euros monthly under a January 20, 2003 Order of the Frankfurt Court, with interest compounded quarterly, to be added to the total liability for the period specified.
- Parties agree the Tribunal ordered payments totaling $209,171.25 and that the Fund made the required 16⅔ percent deductions from Mr. “N”’s monthly pension payments beginning January 31, 2007 until the total was reached on October 27, 2015.
- The dispute centers on bank fees charged to Applicants when Respondent deposited the payments to their German bank account.

### Applicants’ claims and amounts sought
- Relief sought by Applicants:
  - Payment by the Fund of the differential amount required to discharge the total owed under the child support orders as awarded in Judgment No. 2006-6 and reimbursement of bank fees incurred.
  - Legal fees and costs.
- Applicants’ specific monetary claims (preserved exactly as stated):
  - (a) difference between total amount due pursuant to Judgment No. 2006-6 and amount credited to their account: $529.89;
  - (b) bank transfer fees January 2007 to March 2011: $851.45;
  - (c) bank transfer fees April 2011 to October 2015: €825,00;
  - (d) legal fees and costs: €1.719,69.
- Applicants first raised the alleged shortfall to the Fund on November 10, 2015, asserting the payments received “. . . amount only to $208.641.25.” and describing monthly transfer fees of €12 (from April, 2011 €15) plus an account maintenance fee of around $5 each month, and a recurring $10 “fee of foreign bank” charge from May 2012 onward.
- Applicants later stated they would “only claim compensation for transfer fees concerning the amounts transferred by the IMF and not to claim any account maintenance fees.”

### Procedural history and timeline
- December 17, 2015: Applicants filed the Application with the Administrative Tribunal.
- January 4, 2016: Application supplemented pursuant to Rule VII, para. 6; transmitted to Respondent same date.
- January 5, 2016: Registrar circulated a notice within the Fund summarizing the issues pursuant to Rule IV, para. (f).
- February 18, 2016: Respondent filed its Answer.
- March 14, 2016: Applicants submitted their Reply.
- April 14, 2016: Fund filed its Rejoinder.
- Tribunal decided oral proceedings were not warranted; neither party requested them.

### Procedural relief requested
- Applicants sought reimbursement for the alleged shortfall and bank fees and an award of legal fees and costs pursuant to Article XIV, Section 4 of the Statute if the Application were found well-founded in whole or in part.

### Respondent’s principal contentions
- The Application is inadmissible because Applicants do not challenge the legality of an “administrative act” of the Fund within Article II and because Judgment No. 2006-6 is not “obscure or incomplete”; Applicants seek amendment contrary to Article XIII declaring judgments final.
- Alternatively, Application should be dismissed as untimely on equitable grounds.
- On the merits, internal Fund law assigns the cost of transfers in the context of SRP Section 11.3 to the recipient; therefore Applicants’ claim should be denied.

### Relevant provisions of the Staff Retirement Plan and SRP Administration Committee Rules
- SRP Section 11.3 (preserved exactly in principal elements) authorizes a participant or retired participant, pursuant to a court order, to direct that a benefit payable during life under the Plan be paid to one or more former spouses, a current spouse from whom there is a decree of legal separation, his child or children under 22 years of age, or the court approved guardian of such child or children.
  - (a) The benefit payable shall not exceed:
    - i. when payable to the spouse or former spouse, 50 percent of the portion of the participant's or retired participant's benefit that is attributable to his eligible service during the period of the couple's marriage whenever the obligation or obligations to which the court order relates are for support of the spouse or former spouse or division of marital property or both, and
    - ii. when payable to a child or children or their parents or guardians, 16 2/3 of the benefit payable to the participant or retired participant whenever the court ordered obligation is for support of his child or children. The sum of payments to two or more children, or their parents or guardians on their behalf, shall not exceed 16 2/3 percent of the benefit payable to the participant or retired participant; such payments shall be made in equal shares unless otherwise allocated by decision of the Administration Committee pursuant to rules adopted by it.
  - (b) If a participant or retired participant fails to submit a timely written direction in compliance with a court order, a spouse/former spouse or a child/parents/guardians may request that the Administration Committee give effect to such court order; pending consideration the Administration Committee may withhold payments otherwise payable.
  - (c) A direction or accepted request shall not convey an interest in the Retirement Fund or give elective rights; directions/requests are irrevocable except under specified conditions; payments cease on death of participant/retired participant.
- SRP Administration Committee Rules (key procedural provisions preserved exactly):
  - A participant or retired participant must submit a direction within thirty (30) working days of the issuance of a relevant court order or decree; the Administration Committee may accept a spouse/former spouse request if the participant fails to do so.
  - The Secretary will give at least thirty (30) working days to consent or object to a spouse’s request; the Administration Committee will decide within forty-five (45) working days after response or expiry of response time.
  - If satisfied there is a bona fide dispute as to the application, interpretation, effectiveness, finality or validity of the court order or decree, no action will be taken pending resolution.
  - The Administration Committee will not interpret agreements between spouses or resolve bona fide disputes about efficacy, finality or meaning of an order; activation of a direction may be suspended until settled.
  - Payments: direct deposit in an account of the former spouse in a bank in the Washington locality or, at that person's expense, to another account by wire transfer.
- Staff Bulletin No. 02/5 (February 26, 2002) broadened child support provision under Section 11.3: the Administration Committee may give effect to a court order for child support whether or not in conjunction with spousal support; no more than 16 2/3 percent of a participant's SRP benefit may be paid for support of one or more children; child support payments end as specified by the court order but not later than the child's reaching age 22.

### Admissibility analysis
- Article II argument (administrative act):
  - Respondent: implementation of a judgment is not an “administrative act” under Article II.
  - Precedent: IMFAT Judgment No. 2007-7 (November 16, 2007) held that implementation of a judgment is not an “administrative act” under Article II; individual and regulatory decisions taken to implement a judgment do not fall within Article II because Tribunal judgments are final and binding and res judicata applies.
  - Tribunal conclusion: Applicants have not brought an admissible Application under Article II of the Statute.
- Article XVII argument (interpretation of judgment):
  - Article XVII permits interpretation or correction of any judgment whose terms appear obscure or incomplete, or contains a typographical or arithmetical error.
  - Rule XX, para. 2 requires applications for interpretation to state with sufficient particularity in what respect operative provisions appear obscure or incomplete.
  - Tribunal found Applicants satisfied Rule XX, para. 2 and raised an admissible request for interpretation of Judgment No. 2006-6.

### Timeliness
- Respondent argued the claim was untimely and should be dismissed “on equitable grounds” because Applicants’ “unreasonable delay” deprived the Fund of an opportunity to avoid disputed fees by alternate arrangements.
- Tribunal observations:
  - “The Statute does not provide a time limit for raising a request for interpretation of a judgment.”
  - Applicants “promptly following the last payment made pursuant to Judgment No. 2006-6, Alleged that the Fund had failed to give effect to that Judgment consistently with its terms.”
  - Tribunal conclusion: “it cannot be said that Applicants delayed unreasonably in bringing their Application.”

### Merits — interpretation of Judgment No. 2006-6 and responsibility for transfer fees
- Applicants’ interpretation:
  - Cited operative language: deductions “. . . shall be paid over to the Applicants, in order to discharge the total sum owing them,” and argued the Fund was condemned to pay the amounts deducted “in full, 1:1 and without any charges or deductions of any kind,” and that the Fund “has been condemned to make the money transfers happen.”
  - Invoked German law principle that a debtor bears the risk and cost of transfers.
- Respondent’s position:
  - SRP Administration Committee Rules state payment shall be effected by direct deposit in a bank in the Washington locality or, at the expense of the recipient, to another account by wire transfer.
  - Respondent argued Applicants “chose the method of payment (wire transfer to a German bank), and the Fund should not be financially liable for their decisions.”
- Tribunal’s legal determination:
  - Tribunal applies the Fund’s internal law when giving effect to orders under Section 11.3 (citing IMFAT Judgment No. 2001-2, para. 156).
  - Staff Bulletin No. 02/5 extends Section 11.3 rules to child support orders including those for children born out of wedlock.
  - Tribunal reasoned it is reasonable to assimilate SRP payment rules to the child support orders implemented in Judgment No. 2006-6.
  - Tribunal stated: “Accordingly, there is no basis for Applicants to invoke a source of law other than the Fund’s rules to decide the issue. Should there be any question as to the meaning of the Tribunal’s Judgment, that doubt must be resolved in favor of the Fund’s internal law.”
  - Conclusion on merits: “Judgment No. 2006-6 does not require that the Fund reimburse Applicants for bank fees incurred in crediting to their German bank account the sums deducted from Mr. ‘N’’s pension payments.”

### Tribunal findings and final decision
- Findings:
  - Applicants did not raise an admissible challenge under Article II of the Statute.
  - Applicants raised an admissible request for interpretation of Judgment No. 2006-6 under Article XVII.
  - On the merits, Applicants’ claim that the Fund failed to implement the Judgment consistently with its operative terms cannot be sustained.
- Decision:
  - “The Application of Ms. ‘M’ and Dr. ‘M’ is denied.”
  - Decision signed by Catherine M. O’Regan, President; Andrés Rigo Sureda, Judge; Francisco Orrego Vicuña, Judge; and Celia Goldman, Registrar.
  - Location and date: Washington, D.C., October 31, 2016.

*Administrative Tribunal of the International Monetary Fund, Decision (Washington, D.C.), October 31, 2016.*

### INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................

### INTRODUCTION

### Case overview
- Administrative Tribunal of the International Monetary Fund met on October 31, 2016, to adjudge the Application by Ms. “M” and Dr. “M” (Applicants) v. International Monetary Fund (Respondent), Interpretation of Judgment No. 2006-6.
- Applicants seek interpretation of IMFAT Judgment No. 2006-6 (November 29, 2006) concerning enforcement under Section 11.3 of the Staff Retirement Plan (SRP) and claim the amounts they received are reduced by bank fees, such that the debtor’s obligation has not been fully discharged.
- Respondent maintains it paid the amounts ordered by Judgment No. 2006-6 and is not responsible for bank fees charged when payments were credited to Applicants’ German bank account.

### Relief sought by Applicants
- Payment by the Fund of the differential amount required to discharge the total owed under the child support orders as awarded in Judgment No. 2006-6 and reimbursement of bank fees incurred.
- Legal fees and costs, which the Tribunal may award pursuant to Article XIV, Section 4 of the Statute if the Application is well-founded in whole or in part.

### Representation
- Applicants were represented by Dr. “M”. Respondent was represented by Ms. Diana Benoit, Senior Counsel, and Ms. Juliet Johnson, Counsel, IMF Legal Department.
- Applicants were afforded anonymity in proceedings.

### Key operative fact from Judgment No. 2006-6 (as applied)
- The Tribunal ordered a 16⅔ percent deduction from prospective monthly pension payments to Mr. “N”, to be paid over to Applicants, to discharge total sums owing by reason of Darmstadt Court Orders of 1991, 1994, and 1995, as confirmed and totaled by the Superior Court of the District of Columbia in its Orders of April 30, 2002, November 25, 2002, and June 21, 2006.
- The ordered total included: $71,905.81 plus $27,904.81 in interest, plus interest at the prevailing rate compounded quarterly on the total sum from November 25, 2002 until the date on which each monthly pension payment is made.
- An additional liability provision referred to 227,03 Euros monthly under a January 20, 2003 Order of the Frankfurt Court, with interest compounded quarterly, to be added to the total liability for the period specified.

### Implementation facts agreed by parties
- Parties agree the Tribunal ordered payments totaling $209,171.25 and that the Fund made the required 16⅔ percent deductions from Mr. “N”’s monthly pension payments beginning January 31, 2007 until the total was reached on October 27, 2015.
- The dispute centers on bank fees charged to Applicants when Respondent deposited the payments to their German bank account.

### First notice of alleged shortfall
- Applicants first raised the alleged shortfall to the Fund on November 10, 2015, asserting the payments received “. . . amount only to $208.641.25.” and stating monthly transfer fees of €12 (from April, 2011 €15) plus an account maintenance fee of around $5 each month, and a recurring $10 “fee of foreign bank” charge from May 2012 onward.
- Applicants attached a listing of credits to, and fees charged against, their account and asked HRD to “transfer to us the missing amounts.”

### Fund’s administrative response
- HRD supplied payment records on December 2, 2015 showing monthly payments totaling $209,171.25 and declined compensation for transfer and account maintenance fees, stating Judgment No. 2006-6 did not order the Fund to pay such fees.
- The Fund’s Legal Department confirmed the IMFAT Judgment was explicit about principal and interest payments only and that the Fund was not obliged to pay Applicants’ bank fees; it noted Applicants had received payments since April 2007 without previously raising the issue.

---

### Procedural history and timeline
- December 17, 2015: Applicants filed the Application with the Administrative Tribunal.
- January 4, 2016: Application supplemented pursuant to Rule VII, para. 6; transmitted to Respondent on same date.
- January 5, 2016: Registrar circulated a notice within the Fund summarizing the issues pursuant to Rule IV, para. (f).
- February 18, 2016: Respondent filed its Answer.
- March 14, 2016: Applicants submitted their Reply.
- April 14, 2016: Fund filed its Rejoinder.
- The Tribunal decided oral proceedings were not warranted; neither party requested them.

### Channels of administrative review
- No internal channels of administrative review were available or applicable for interpretation of a Tribunal judgment; the Tribunal alone has the power to give a final and binding interpretation of its decision.

### Applicants’ principal contentions
- The Tribunal is competent under Article XVII of the Tribunal’s Statute because the dispute concerns interpretation of Judgment No. 2006-6.
- The Tribunal also has jurisdiction under Article II, Section 1(b), because the Fund’s refusal to bear bank transfer fees constitutes an “administrative act” concerning a Fund benefit plan.
- Judgment No. 2006-6 requires the Fund to pay over to Applicants, in full, the amounts deducted from Mr. “N”’s pension, without charges or deductions; the Fund is required to make the money transfers.
- Under German law the debtor bears the risk and cost of transfers; generally the costs of money transfers are borne by the person making the transfer (debtor).
- Applicants’ specific monetary claims:
  - (a) difference between total amount due pursuant to Judgment No. 2006-6 and amount credited to their account: $529.89;
  - (b) bank transfer fees January 2007 to March 2011: $851.45;
  - (c) bank transfer fees April 2011 to October 2015: €825,00;
  - (d) legal fees and costs: €1.719,69.
- Applicants later stated they would “only claim compensation for transfer fees concerning the amounts transferred by the IMF and not to claim any account maintenance fees.”

### Respondent’s principal contentions
- The Application is inadmissible:
  - Applicants do not challenge the legality of an “administrative act” of the Fund within Article II of the Statute.
  - Applicants have not raised an admissible request for interpretation under Article XVII because Judgment No. 2006-6 is not “obscure or incomplete”; Applicants seek amendment contrary to Article XIII, which declares Judgments “final . . . and without appeal.”
- Alternatively, the Application should be dismissed as untimely on equitable grounds.
- On the merits, Fund’s internal law assigns the cost of transfers in the context of SRP Section 11.3 to the recipient; therefore Applicants’ claim should be denied.

### Relevant provision of internal law (SRP Section 11.3) — principal elements preserved exactly
- Section 11.3 (notwithstanding Section 11.1) permits a participant or retired participant, pursuant to a court order, to direct that a benefit payable during life under the Plan be paid to one or more former spouses, a current spouse from whom there is a decree of legal separation, his child or children under 22 years of age, or the court approved guardian of such child or children.
- (a) The benefit payable shall not exceed:
  - i. when payable to the spouse or former spouse, 50 percent of the portion of the participant's or retired participant's benefit that is attributable to his eligible service during the period of the couple's marriage whenever the obligation or obligations to which the court order relates are for support of the spouse or former spouse or division of marital property or both, and
  - ii. when payable to a child or children or their parents or guardians, 16 2/3 of the benefit payable to the participant or retired participant whenever the court ordered obligation is for support of his child or children. The sum of payments to two or more children, or their parents or guardians on their behalf, shall not exceed 16 2/3 percent of the benefit payable to the participant or retired participant; such payments shall be made in equal shares unless otherwise allocated by decision of the Administration Committee pursuant to rules adopted by it.
- (b) If a participant or retired participant fails to submit a timely written direction in compliance with a court order, a spouse/former spouse or a child/parents/guardians may request that the Administration Committee give effect to such court order; pending consideration the Administration Committee may withhold payments otherwise payable.
- (c) A direction or accepted request shall not convey an interest in the Retirement Fund or give elective rights; directions/requests are irrevocable except under specified conditions; payments cease on death of participant/retired participant.

---

*Administrative Tribunal of the International Monetary Fund — JUDGMENT No. 2016-3 (Ms. “M” and Dr. “M” (No. 2) v. International Monetary Fund — Interpretation of Judgment No. 2006-6).*

### 22. The SRP Administration Committee has adopted Rules relating to the administration of

### 22. The SRP Administration Committee has adopted Rules relating to the administration of SRP Section 11.3

### Administration Committee Rules (SRP Section 11.3) — key procedural provisions
- A participant or retired participant must submit a direction within thirty (30) working days of the issuance of a relevant court order or decree; if the participant or retired participant fails to do so, the Administration Committee may accept a request by the participant's or retired participant's spouse or former spouse and treat it as if it were a direction from the participant or retired participant.
- The Secretary of the Administration Committee will give a participant or retired participant written notice of a spouse's or former spouse's request, and the participant or retired participant will be allowed, as specified by the Administration Committee, at least thirty (30) working days to consent or to object with a full written explanation for any objection.
- The Administration Committee will make its decision whether to accept and treat the request as a direction within forty-five (45) working days after the participant or retired participant responds or the time for a response expires.
- If the Administration Committee is satisfied that there is a bona fide dispute as to the application, interpretation, effectiveness, finality or validity of the court order or decree, no action will be taken on the request unless and until the matter is resolved to the satisfaction of the Administration Committee.
- If the Administration Committee determines there is no substantial reason for not giving effect to the court order or decree, it may accept the request and treat it as a direction under Section 11.3 of the Staff Retirement Plan.
- The Secretary will promptly notify in writing both parties of the Committee’s determination or decision.
- Any payment withheld pending the Committee’s consideration will be paid to the person determined by the Committee to be entitled to such payment; the Administration Committee may deposit withheld amounts in escrow in the Bank-Fund Staff Federal Credit Union in an interest-bearing account until payment is made.

### Limitations on Committee action and treatment of ambiguities or disputes
- The Administration Committee will not:
  - interpret agreements between spouses or former spouses, directions or accepted requests to pay or orders or decrees of courts in cases of ambiguity; or
  - resolve questions where there is a bona fide dispute about the efficacy, finality or meaning of an order or decree.
- In such cases, activation of the direction or accepted request and any associated payment may be suspended until the ambiguity or dispute is settled in the judgment of the Administration Committee.

### Presumptions regarding court orders or decrees (absent objection)
- Unless a participant, retired participant, spouse or former spouse objects, the Administration Committee may presume a court order or decree concerning payment from the Staff Retirement Plan:
  (A) Is valid by reason that:
    - (1) a reasonable method of notification has been employed and a reasonable opportunity to be heard has been afforded to the persons affected; and
    - (2) the judgment has been rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction rendition and in accordance with such requirements of the state of as are necessary for the valid exercise of power by the court;
  (B) is the product of fair proceedings;
  (C) is final and binding on the parties; and
  (D) does not conflict and is not inconsistent with any other valid court order or decree.
- If a party objects, the Administration Committee will assess adequacy based on criteria (A) through (D) and will not review the merits of the underlying court judgment. If the order or decree fails to satisfy any criterion, the order or decree will not be given effect unless and until the deficiencies are remedied.
- If there is an inconsistency or conflict under (D) with an order or decree underlying a prior direction or accepted request, the Administration Committee will notify the parties that neither order or decree will be given effect unless and until the conflict or inconsistencies are resolved.

### Scope and limits of directions / accepted requests (benefit types, ceilings, currency, payments)
- A direction or accepted request may apply to:
  - pension benefits, amounts to be commuted or withdrawn, and any other benefits payable under the Staff Retirement Plan which are payable during the life of the participant or retired participant.
- Payments to a spouse or former spouse pursuant to a direction or accepted request shall not commence prior to the effective date that payment of the participant's or retired participant's benefits under the Staff Retirement Plan commences.
- Such payments shall relate to the same type of benefits that the participant or retired participant elects to receive and shall not be payable in a manner that would apply a type of benefit to the spouse or former spouse different from that applied to the participant or retired participant.
- Support or division payments limitations:
  - Payments for support of the spouse or former spouse or for division of marital property shall not exceed 50 percent of the benefits payable under the Staff Retirement Plan that are attributable to the number of months of eligible service during which the participant or retired participant was married to such spouse or former spouses.
  - Where the court order or decree includes child support, the aggregate of payments to a spouse or any former spouses shall not exceed 66 2/3 percent of the benefit payable to the participant or retired participant under the Staff Retirement Plan.
  - Any amounts exceeding these limits must be directly related to court ordered or approved child support payments.
- A participant may exercise rights (commute, withdraw, elect reduced pension with survivor, elect/change currencies, request transfer of accrued benefits) but no such exercise shall negate a direction once made; in event of conflict, the direction or accepted request overrides a subsequent inconsistent election or transfer request.
- Directions and accepted requests may specify payment to a former spouse of:
  - (a) a percentage of the retired participant's pension (not augmented by a cost of living pension supplement);
  - (b) a fixed amount; or
  - (c) either (a) or (b) increased by the applicable annual cost of living pension supplement calculated under Section 4.11 of the Plan.
- Calculations and currency:
  - The amount of the payment will be calculated on the basis of the base amount in U.S. dollars or, if the retired participant elects another currency (or combination of currencies) in that currency (or the combination).
  - A direction or accepted request specifying (a) or (b) shall be payable in the initial currency selection made by the retired participant at the end of the 90-day period specified in Section 16.3(a) of the Staff Retirement Plan and shall continue regardless of subsequent changes.
  - If specifying (c), the currency or currencies of payment shall change in accordance with subsequent currency changes the retired participant elects.

### Currency and payment mechanics
- A payment from a withdrawal benefit or a commuted lump sum shall be paid in United States dollars.
- Other payments will be paid as described in the preceding paragraph.
- If upon or subsequent to retirement the retired participant is not entitled under Section 16 of the Staff Retirement Plan to the currency specified, payment will be made in United States dollars from the amount of dollars which the retired participant may elect under Section 16.3(a).
- If the retired participant is not entitled to United States dollars and the specified currency is other than a currency he is entitled to elect under Section 16.3, he will be informed and requested, with the written consent of his former spouse, to issue a new direction specifying an entitled currency. Failure to issue a new direction or to obtain the written consent shall result in payment being made in United States dollars which shall be deducted from the initial calculation of the payment due prior to any conversion that has been elected.
- The split currency election under Section 16 shall not be available at the option of a designee under a direction or accepted request.
- Benefit deductions shall be made on the basis of the amount of a retired participant's pension before payment of the former spouse's pension and shall be deducted solely from the portion due to the retired participant.
- Payment method: direct deposit in an account of the former spouse in a bank in the Washington locality or, at that person's expense, to another account by wire transfer.

---

### Staff Bulletin No. 02/5 (February 26, 2002) — changes to SRP Section 11.3 (child support)
- The Executive Board approved changes on December 27, 2001; the amended Section 11.3 authorizes the SRP Administration Committee, under certain conditions, to give effect to a court order for payment of part of a retiree's Fund pension for child support, regardless of whether a child is born within a marriage or out of wedlock.
- Broadening child support provision:
  - The Administration Committee may give effect to a court order for child support whether or not in conjunction with an order for spouse support or division of marital property.
  - Payments for child support are separated from spousal support and children born in and out of wedlock are placed on equal footing.
  - Under the amended Section 11.3, no more than 16 2/3 percent of a participant's SRP benefit may be paid for support of one or more children born either in or out of wedlock.
  - The intention is to preserve a reasonable share of the pension for the retiree.
- Administration rules:
  - In administering payments to or on behalf of children, the Administration Committee will apply its existing rules on Section 11.3 (Staff Bulletin 99/12).
  - The Committee will not resolve disputes about parentage or who properly acted for the child or the validity of the court order; parties must resolve such disputes themselves before benefits can be paid.
  - Child support payments made out of the retiree's pension will end as specified by the court order but not later than the child's reaching age 22.

---

### Tribunal consideration of admissibility and interpretation issues (Application context)
- Issues raised by the Application:
  - Is the Application admissible?
  - Have Applicants challenged an “administrative act” of the Fund in terms of Article II of the Tribunal’s Statute?
  - Alternatively, have Applicants raised an admissible request for interpretation of a judgment under Article XVII of the Tribunal’s Statute?
  - If admissible, should the Application be dismissed as untimely?
  - If admissible, does Judgment No. 2006-6 require the Fund to reimburse Applicants for bank fees incurred in crediting to their German bank account sums deducted from Mr. “N”’s pension payments?
- Admissibility under Article II (administrative act):
  - Respondent contends implementation of a judgment is not an “administrative act” under Article II.
  - Applicants contend the Fund’s refusal to pay bank fees when requested in 2015 was an “administrative act” under Article II, Section 1(b).
  - Precedent: Mr. "N", Applicant v. IMF Respondent (Admissibility), IMFAT Judgment No. 2007-7 (November 16, 2007) held that implementation of a judgment is not an “administrative act” under Article II; individual and regulatory decisions taken to implement a judgment do not fall within Article II because Tribunal judgments are final and binding and res judicata applies.
  - Conclusion: The Tribunal concludes Applicants have not brought an admissible Application under Article II of the Statute.
- Admissibility under Article XVII (interpretation of judgment):
  - Article XVII: “The Tribunal may interpret or correct any judgment whose terms appear obscure or incomplete, or which contains a typographical or arithmetical error.”
  - Commentary: Tribunal can interpret its own judgment upon request if terms are unclear or incomplete, ensuring judgments are given effect per Tribunal intent.
  - Rule XX, para. 2: application for interpretation “shall be admissible only if it states with sufficient particularity in what respect the operative provisions of the judgment appear obscure or incomplete.”
  - Respondent argues Judgment No. 2006-6 is not “obscure or incomplete” and Applicants seek amendment not interpretation; thus inadmissible.
  - Tribunal view: Applicants’ complaint contends an implicit requirement in Judgment No. 2006-6 that the Fund reimburse Applicants for bank fees incurred in crediting to their German bank account sums deducted from Mr. “N”’s pension payments.
    - Example quoted: Email from Dr. “M” to HR officer: “The Administrative Court has not explicitly ordered the IMF to pay the German transfer fees but even without explicit statement it is absolutely clear that [Mr. “N”] (and so the IMF) has to take care that [Ms. “M”] receives the full amounts . . . .”
  - The Tribunal finds Applicants have “state[d] with sufficient particularity in what respect the operative provisions of the judgment appear obscure or incomplete” (Rule XX, para. 2) and thus have raised an admissible request for interpretation of Judgment No. 2006-6.
- Procedural observation:
  - The Tribunal emphasizes Article XVII’s essential purpose: to enable it to respond when a party believes operative terms of a judgment are “obscure or incomplete,” so that judgments are given effect consistent with the Tribunal’s intent.

*Source: SRP Administration Committee Rules; Staff Bulletin No. 02/5 (February 26, 2002); excerpts from Tribunal consideration of admissibility and interpretation (IMF Administrative Tribunal).*

### 35. Respondent additionally maintains that even if Applicants’ claim is admissible, it should

### j2016-3 - 35. Respondent additionally maintains that even if Applicants’ claim is admissible, it should

### Timeliness and admissibility
- Respondent argued Applicants’ claim is untimely and should be dismissed “on equitable grounds” because Applicants’ “unreasonable delay” deprived the Fund of an opportunity to avoid the disputed fees by making alternate payment arrangements.
- The Tribunal observed:
  - “The Statute does not provide a time limit for raising a request for interpretation of a judgment.”
  - Applicants “promptly following the last payment made pursuant to Judgment No. 2006-6, Alleged that the Fund had failed to give effect to that Judgment consistently with its terms.”
  - Conclusion: “it cannot be said that Applicants delayed unreasonably in bringing their Application.”

### Interpretation of Judgment No. 2006-6 and Applicants’ claim
- Applicants’ interpretation of Judgment No. 2006-6:
  - Cited text: deductions from Mr. “N”’s pension payments “. . . shall be paid over to the Applicants, in order to discharge the total sum owing them,” Ms. “M” and Dr. “M”, Decision para. 1.
  - Asserted the Judgment “. . . clearly indicates that the Court condemns the IMF to pay the amounts deducted in full, 1:1 and without any charges or deductions of any kind.”
  - Argued the Fund “has been condemned to make the money transfers happen.”
  - Relied on Respondent’s Answer comment that the Fund could avoid the contested fees by making alternative payment arrangements.
- Tribunal’s factual and legal context:
  - The support orders originated under German law, but the Tribunal noted it gives effect to such orders pursuant to SRP Section 11.3 under the Fund’s internal law.
  - Cited precedent: Mr. “P” (No. 2), Applicant v. International Monetary Fund, Respondent, IMFAT Judgment No. 2001-2 (November 20, 2001), para. 156: the Tribunal applies “the internal law of the Fund” rather than national law when giving effect to orders under Section 11.3.
  - Recalled Judgment No. 2006-6 upholding Applicants’ challenge because the Tribunal “responds to the policy of its forum, namely, the internal law of the Fund, which favors enforcement of family support orders wherever they originate and however drafted.” (Ms. “M” and Dr. “M”, para. 155).

### SRP Rules and responsibility for transfer fees
- The Fund’s relevant administrative guidance:
  - “Rules of the SRP Administration Committee under Section 11.3 of the Staff Retirement Plan” (Staff Bulletin No. 99/12 (Changes in Section 11.3 of the SRP) (June 9, 1999), Attachment) state: “Payment shall be effected by direct deposit in an account of the former spouse in a bank in the Washington locality or, at the expense of such person, to another account by wire transfer.”
- Respondent’s position based on those Rules:
  - “Applicants . . . chose the method of payment (wire transfer to a German bank), and the Fund should not be financially liable for their decisions . . . . [B]ecause Applicants directed that the child support payments be made to a bank account outside of Washington D.C., Applicants must bear the expense of the wire transfers.”
- Applicants’ counter-arguments:
  - Invoked German law principle that a debtor must transfer the money owed to the place of the creditor “at the risk and cost of the debtor.”
  - Asserted it is a “universally accepted” rule that transfer costs are borne by the person making the transfer (the debtor).
  - Maintained that if Mr. “N” had paid the support orders directly he would bear transaction costs; however, Mr. “N” did not pay and the Tribunal ordered effect through the Fund’s Staff Retirement Plan (Section 11.3).
- Tribunal’s legal determination:
  - Staff Bulletin No. 02/5 (February 26, 2002) extends Section 11.3 rules to administering payments to or on behalf of children born out of wedlock.
  - Tribunal reasoned it is reasonable to assimilate the cited SRP provision to the child support orders implemented in Judgment No. 2006-6.
  - “Accordingly, there is no basis for Applicants to invoke a source of law other than the Fund’s rules to decide the issue. Should there be any question as to the meaning of the Tribunal’s Judgment, that doubt must be resolved in favor of the Fund’s internal law.”
  - Conclusion: “Judgment No. 2006-6 does not require that the Fund reimburse Applicants for bank fees incurred in crediting to their German bank account the sums deducted from Mr. ‘N’’s pension payments.”

### Tribunal conclusions and decision
- Findings:
  - Applicants did not raise a challenge to an “administrative act” of the Fund in terms of Article II of the Statute.
  - Applicants raised an admissible request for interpretation of Judgment No. 2006-6, pursuant to Article XVII of the Statute.
  - On the merits, Applicants’ claim that the Fund failed to implement the Judgment consistently with its operative terms cannot be sustained.
- Decision:
  - “The Application of Ms. ‘M’ and Dr. ‘M’ is denied.”
  - Decision issued by The Administrative Tribunal of the International Monetary Fund, signed by Catherine M. O’Regan, President; Andrés Rigo Sureda, Judge; Francisco Orrego Vicuña, Judge; and Celia Goldman, Registrar.
  - Location and date: Washington, D.C., October 31, 2016.

---


_Source: https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/imfat/j2016-3.pdf_