## Mr. “QQ”, Applicant v. International Monetary Fund, Respondent (Motion to Dismiss in Part), IMFAT Judgment No. 2020-1 (November 2, 2020)

## Source details

**Canonical URL:** [Mr. “QQ”, Applicant v. International Monetary Fund, Respondent (Motion to Dismiss in Part), IMFAT Judgment No. 2020-1 (November 2, 2020)](https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/imfat/j2020-1-summary.pdf)

## Other formats

- [Markdown version](/-/media/files/imfat/j2020-1-summary.pdf.md)
- [Structured JSON version](/-/media/files/imfat/j2020-1-summary.pdf.json)

---

### Procedural background
- Applicant challenged two Fund decisions: (i) not to promote him from Grade All to Grade A12 in 2016; and (ii) crediting only partially his earlier contractual employment in a different Fund department when setting his starting Grade at A11 upon first appointment in 2013.
- Applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of his nationality in both decisions.
- The Fund filed a Motion to Dismiss in Part seeking summary dismissal of the challenge to the 2013 starting grade decision, arguing non-exhaustion of administrative remedies under Article V of the Tribunal’s Statute.
- The Fund invoked Rule XII (Summary Dismissal) of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, which provides that the Tribunal “. . . may, on its own initiative or upon a motion by the Fund, decide summarily to dismiss the application if it is clearly inadmissible.” (Emphasis added.)
- The Tribunal had previously admitted a motion to dismiss in part in Ms. “PP”, Applicant v. International Monetary Fund, Respondent (Applicant’s Request for Provisional Relief and Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss in Part), IMFAT Order No. 2019-1 (October 10, 2019).

### Legal standard for summary dismissal (Rule XII)
- Rule XII sets a high bar: only applications that are “clearly inadmissible” may be summarily dismissed.
- The Rule protects applicants from premature cutoff of their right to be heard while allowing the Tribunal to conserve resources by dismissing matters without reasonable grounds to proceed.
- The Tribunal emphasized that the “clearly inadmissible” standard guards against erroneous admissibility rulings when full pleadings have yet to unfold.

### Motion to dismiss in part — principles and application
- The Tribunal recognized that motions to dismiss in part raise distinct difficulties compared with motions to dismiss an application in its entirety, because part-dismissal requires assessing relationships between the targeted claim and the remaining claims that would proceed on the merits.
- Where claims are closely intertwined, the Tribunal found the potential efficiency benefits of summary dismissal are reduced and the risk of an erroneous threshold decision is heightened.
- The Tribunal established that admitting a motion to dismiss in part will be the exception, not the rule. In deciding whether to admit such a motion, the Tribunal will weigh factors including:
  - efficiency;
  - fairness; and
  - the potential for the Tribunal to dispose reliably of the issue of admissibility, applying the “clearly inadmissible” standard of Rule XII.
- Only if, weighing these factors, the Tribunal concludes that taking an admissibility decision in advance of a full exchange of pleadings on the merits will serve the interests of justice will it admit a motion to dismiss in part.
- Applying these factors in Mr. “QQ”, the Tribunal concluded that the two principal claims were closely intertwined; the interrelatedness of the claims was pertinent to an argument Applicant advanced in support of admissibility of the claim targeted by the Fund’s motion; and the Tribunal would likely have to consider facts (and perhaps law) related to the connected claim when assessing the merits.
- The Tribunal therefore dismissed as inadmissible the Fund’s Motion to Dismiss in Part, without prejudice to the Fund’s right to raise admissibility challenges to part of the Application in its pleadings on the merits.
- The Tribunal cited its reasoning in paragraph 56 regarding the likely need to consider connected facts and law when claims are closely connected.

### Anonymity and related procedural rulings
- The Tribunal granted Applicant’s request for anonymity under Rule XXII of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure for two reasons:
  - to protect candor in the assessment of professional competencies in a non-promotion challenge; and
  - because Applicant alleged discriminatory treatment by Fund officials on the basis of his nationality, serious allegations not yet tested by the Tribunal.
- Granting anonymity protects the Applicant’s identity and the identities of other staff members involved in the matters under consideration.

### Outcome and next steps
- The Motion to Dismiss in Part was dismissed as inadmissible, without prejudice to admissibility arguments in the merits phase.
- Following Judgment No. 2020-1, the exchange of pleadings on the merits of the Application resumed.

---


_Source: https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/imfat/j2020-1-summary.pdf_