## “XX”, Applicant v. International Monetary Fund, Respondent (Admissibility of the Application), IMFAT Judgment No. 2024-2 (June 7, 2024) ## Source details **Canonical URL:** [“XX”, Applicant v. International Monetary Fund, Respondent (Admissibility of the Application), IMFAT Judgment No. 2024-2 (June 7, 2024)](https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/imfat/j2024-2-summary-b.pdf) ## Other formats - [Markdown version](/-/media/files/imfat/j2024-2-summary-b.pdf.md) - [Structured JSON version](/-/media/files/imfat/j2024-2-summary-b.pdf.json) --- ### Background and procedural posture - Applicant: a staff member who returned to Fund staff after termination of an appointment with the IMF Executive Board as an Assistant to an IMF Executive Director. - Employment terms contested: Applicant resumed Grade A6 status on Fund staff rather than retaining Grade A8 attained during Board employment; Applicant alleged wrongful application of a requirement to complete six years of Board service to maintain the higher grade and salary and denial of the opportunity to use annual leave accrued during Board service to bridge to the six-year mark. - Respondent action: Fund filed a Motion for Summary Dismissal pursuant to Rule XII of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, alleging lack of jurisdiction. - Procedural effect: Filing of the Motion suspended the exchange of pleadings on the merits while the Tribunal determined the jurisdictional question. ### Jurisdiction ratione personae — competing statutory bases and subject-matter focus - Statutory provisions at issue: - Article II, Section 2(c)(ii): jurisdiction over “any current or former assistant to an Executive Director.” - Article II, Section 2(c)(i): jurisdiction over “any person whose current or former letter of appointment . . . provides that he shall be a member of the staff.” - Fund’s position: Tribunal’s jurisdiction over Applicant was based exclusively on Article II, Section 2(c)(ii), limiting review to the ED’s termination decision and implying no channels of administrative review applied. - Applicant’s position: Brought the Application as Fund staff, invoked hybrid status and claims, and relied on Article II, Section 2(c)(i) given the dispute concerned transition between employment regimes and affected her status as a member of Fund staff. - Tribunal finding on personae jurisdiction: - The Tribunal noted Applicant was both a “current or former assistant to an Executive Director” and a “person whose current or former letter of appointment . . . provides that [s]he shall be a member of the staff.” (Para. 52.) - The Tribunal concluded that, because the challenged administrative acts determine Applicant’s grade and salary upon re-entry to Fund staff, it may exercise jurisdiction ratione personae on the basis of Article II, Section 2(c)(i). (Para. 59.) ### Jurisdiction ratione temporis — timeliness questions and divergent remedies - Fund’s timeliness argument: If jurisdiction were based on Article II, Section 2(c)(ii), the Application should have been filed directly with the Tribunal within three months of the ED’s termination of the Applicant’s Board employment, per Article VI, Section 1 of the Statute. - If jurisdiction were based on Article II, Section 2(c)(i), Applicant was required to file a Grievance with the Fund’s Grievance Committee. - Factual timing: - Applicant filed a Grievance with the Fund’s Grievance Committee, but it was filed beyond six months from the date of her re-entry to Fund staff on the contested terms (grade and salary). - The extent of delay was “little more than one month” beyond the six-month time limit. (Para. 70.) ### Exceptional circumstances and equitable tolling considerations - Tribunal’s authority: The Tribunal has authority to consider the presence and impact of exceptional circumstances at anterior stages of the dispute resolution process, assessing extent and nature of delay. - Factors the Tribunal considered excusing delay: - The “complications consequent to the Fund’s bifurcated approach to resolving disputes arising from Board staff employment in contrast to Fund staff employment—in the singular context of a dispute centering on an applicant’s entitlements in moving between the two employment regimes.” (Para. 70.) - The Fund’s various communications to Applicant that may reasonably have led her to seek review as Fund staff by filing a Grievance rather than proceeding directly to the Tribunal. - Applicant’s decision to file a Grievance “evidenced a good faith effort at seeking review, especially in light of the Fund’s communications and Applicant’s theory of the case.” (Para. 77.) - Tribunal conclusions on exceptional circumstances: - Navigating the Fund’s system in these novel circumstances constituted an exceptional circumstance that reasonably excused Applicant’s moderate delay in filing her Grievance. (Para. 70–71.) - The Fund’s communications and Applicant’s reasonable reliance on them constituted an exceptional circumstance excusing delay in filing directly with the Tribunal where Article II, Section 2(c)(ii) jurisdiction might have applied. (Para. 77.) ### Disposition and procedural outcome - The Tribunal determined that reliance on Article II, Section 2(c)(i) was appropriate given the subject matter (grade and salary upon re-entry to Fund staff) and that jurisdiction ratione personae could be based on that provision. (Para. 59.) - The Tribunal further determined that, whether jurisdiction was based on Article II, Section 2(c)(i) or on Article II, Section 2(c)(ii), the Fund had not shown the Application was “clearly inadmissible” for lack of jurisdiction ratione temporis. - Final ruling on the Motion: Motion for Summary Dismissal denied; pleadings on the merits resumed. --- _Source: https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/imfat/j2024-2-summary-b.pdf_