## “YY”, Applicant v. International Monetary Fund, Respondent (Admissibility of the Application), IMFAT Judgment No. 2024-3 (June 7, 2024)

## Source details

**Canonical URL:** [“YY”, Applicant v. International Monetary Fund, Respondent (Admissibility of the Application), IMFAT Judgment No. 2024-3 (June 7, 2024)](https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/imfat/j2024-3-summary.pdf)

## Other formats

- [Markdown version](/-/media/files/imfat/j2024-3-summary.pdf.md)
- [Structured JSON version](/-/media/files/imfat/j2024-3-summary.pdf.json)

---

### Facts and procedural history
- Applicant is a retiree of the Fund who alleged that the Fund unilaterally imposed an entry ban on his access to Fund Headquarters (“HQ”) based on an allegation of sexual harassment made by a current Fund staff member.
- Applicant filed a Grievance with the Grievance Committee at the time of filing his Application with the Tribunal. The parties mutually agreed to stay the proceedings of the Grievance Committee pending a decision of the Tribunal.
- The Fund filed a Motion for Summary Dismissal pursuant to Rule XII of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, asserting that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction. The filing of the Motion suspended the exchange of pleadings on the merits while the Tribunal determined the jurisdictional question.

### Fund’s jurisdictional contentions (Motion for Summary Dismissal)
- The Fund argued that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction ratione materiae because:
  - Neither the disabling of Applicant’s retiree badge nor the placement of the entry ban constituted an “administrative act” affecting the terms and conditions of Applicant’s employment with the Fund—i.e., his career, benefits, or other aspects of his Fund employment.
  - There were no binding Fund rules on providing or disabling retiree building access badges and the practice of providing or revoking retiree badges did not constitute a regulatory decision.
- The Fund argued lack of jurisdiction ratione temporis because Applicant did not file his Grievance within six months of the initial entry ban decision.
- Both parties relied on World Bank Administrative Tribunal (“WBAT”) jurisprudence on imposition of entry bans as pertinent to the case.

### Tribunal analysis — jurisdiction ratione materiae
- The Tribunal observed that “[b]oth current and former staff have basic rights to due process in their relations with the Fund”—including the right to be heard. (Para. 61.)
- The Tribunal cited the Commentary on Article II of the Tribunal’s Statute, which suggests an expansive definition of “administrative act” and provides that the definition “‘is intended to encompass all decisions affecting the terms and conditions of employment at the Fund, whether related to a staff member’s career, benefits, or other aspects of Fund appointment, . . . .’ Commentary, p. 14. (Emphasis added.)” (Para. 62.)
- The Tribunal found that the expression “other aspects of Fund appointment” is broad enough to include decisions impacting a Fund retiree’s access to Fund premises.
- The Tribunal concluded that the WBAT jurisprudence cited by the parties was not determinative of the IMFAT’s jurisdiction ratione materiae because:
  - The WBAT jurisprudence reflected a consistent approach in finding jurisdiction ratione materiae where entry bans were based at least in part on the applicant’s conduct during the course of Bank employment, but
  - The WBAT’s jurisprudence was neither binding nor persuasive for the IMFAT because it assessed the World Bank’s unique policy framework governing building access and because the WBAT’s competence differs from that of the IMFAT. The WBAT’s Statute is competent to “hear and pass judgment upon any application by which a member of the staff of the Bank Group alleges non-observance of the contract of employment or terms of appointment of such staff member,” whereas the IMFAT is competent to pass judgment upon any application “by a member of the staff challenging the legality of an administrative act adversely affecting him.” (Statute, Article II.)

### Tribunal analysis — jurisdiction ratione temporis
- The Tribunal observed that the initial entry ban “set in motion a series of subsequent acts any one of which Applicant might have sought to challenge.” (Para. 82.)
- One such subsequent act was a communication from the Fund to Applicant’s counsel that adversely affected Applicant because it was a later formulation of the initial entry ban that revised the parties’ understanding of the conditions under which Applicant would be permitted to enter Fund HQ.
- Using the date of this communication as the dies a quo, the Tribunal found that Applicant’s Grievance was timely filed.

### Decision and directions
- The Tribunal decided that the Fund had not shown that the Application was “clearly inadmissible” for lack of jurisdiction ratione materiae or lack of jurisdiction ratione temporis.
- Given the parties’ earlier agreement to stay the Grievance Committee proceedings pending a final decision of the Tribunal, the parties were invited to advise the Tribunal whether they chose to avail themselves of Article V, Section 4, of the Tribunal’s Statute, which provides: “For purposes of this Statute, all channels of administrative review shall be deemed to have been exhausted when the Managing Director and the applicant have agreed to submit the dispute directly to the Tribunal.”
- The Motion for Summary Dismissal was denied and the parties were invited to advise the Tribunal within 30 days of notification of the Judgment as to whether they agreed to submit the dispute directly to the Tribunal.

---


_Source: https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/imfat/j2024-3-summary.pdf_