## “UU”, Applicant v. International Monetary Fund, Respondent (Admissibility of the Application), IMFAT Judgment No. 2022-3 (December 22, 2022)

## Source details

**Canonical URL:** [“UU”, Applicant v. International Monetary Fund, Respondent (Admissibility of the Application), IMFAT Judgment No. 2022-3 (December 22, 2022)](https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/imfat/j2022-3-summary.pdf)

## Other formats

- [Markdown version](/-/media/files/imfat/j2022-3-summary.pdf.md)
- [Structured JSON version](/-/media/files/imfat/j2022-3-summary.pdf.json)

---

### Case overview
- Applicant challenged the Fund’s decision to deny his request to be reclassified from a Fungible Macroeconomist to a Financial Sector Expert.
- Applicant was granted anonymity under Rule XXII of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure on the grounds of “good cause” given that the case involved assessment of an applicant’s professional competencies.
- The Fund filed a Motion for Summary Dismissal under Rule XII of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, which suspended exchange of pleadings on the merits and limited the Tribunal’s Judgment to the question of admissibility.

### Procedural posture and Tribunal jurisdiction
- The Tribunal considered competency to review individual decisions, regulatory decisions, or both under the Statute (Article II, Sections 1(a), 2(a) and 2(b)).
- The Tribunal noted differing statutory admissibility requirements depending on whether an applicant challenges:
  - an individual decision,
  - a regulatory decision, or
  - both an individual and a regulatory decision.

### Statutory timing and exhaustion requirements (exact statutory provisions and time limits)
- For a challenge to an individual decision:
  - An application must be filed with the Tribunal within three months after all available channels of administrative review have been exhausted or, in the absence of such channels, within three months after the notification of the decision. (Statute, Article V and Article VI, Section 1.)
- For a challenge solely to a regulatory decision:
  - An application may be filed directly with the Tribunal within three months after the announcement or effective date of the decision, whichever is later. (Statute, Article VI, Section 2.)
- For a challenge to both an individual and a regulatory decision:
  - The Grievance Committee must first hear the case and dispose of the issues over which it has jurisdiction before an application is filed with the Tribunal. (Statute, Article VI, Section 2, and Commentary on the Statute.)

### Tribunal analysis and dispositive reasoning
- Applicant had bypassed the Grievance Committee and filed directly with the Tribunal, asserting both regulatory and individual aspects to his challenge.
- The Fund contended that the Application challenged only an individual decision and that Applicant had failed to timely pursue available administrative review.
- The Tribunal held it was unnecessary to resolve whether the Applicant in fact challenged a regulatory decision because the Application involved an individual decision that must be first pursued at the Grievance Committee.
- The Tribunal stated: “What is clear and dispositive is that Applicant’s case is not admissible for review because, even if he does challenge a regulatory decision, he does so in the context of a challenge to an individual decision and such a decision must be first pursued at the Grievance Committee.” (Para. 23.)

### Outcome
- The Fund’s Motion for Summary Dismissal was granted.
- The Application was dismissed.

---


_Source: https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/imfat/j2022-3-summary.pdf_