## REGISTRY’S SUMMARY 1: “UU” (No. 2), Applicant v. International Monetary Fund, Respondent (Admissibility of the Application), IMFAT Judgment No. 2024-4 (October 29, 2024)

## Source details

**Canonical URL:** [REGISTRY’S SUMMARY 1: “UU” (No. 2), Applicant v. International Monetary Fund, Respondent (Admissibility of the Application), IMFAT Judgment No. 2024-4 (October 29, 2024)](https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/imfat/j2024-4-summary.pdf)

## Other formats

- [Markdown version](/-/media/files/imfat/j2024-4-summary.pdf.md)
- [Structured JSON version](/-/media/files/imfat/j2024-4-summary.pdf.json)

---

### Procedural background
- Applicant filed a second Application before the Tribunal following a prior summary dismissal in “UU”, Applicant v. International Monetary Fund, Respondent, IMFAT Judgment No. 2022-3 (December 22, 2022).
- In the earlier “UU” judgment, Applicant had challenged denial of reclassification from Fungible Macroeconomist (“FM”) to Financial Sector Expert (“FSE”) and filed directly with the Tribunal, bypassing the Grievance Committee. The Tribunal summarily dismissed that application on the basis that challenges to individual decisions must first be pursued at the Grievance Committee pursuant to Article VI, Section 2, of the Tribunal’s Statute and its Commentary (“UU”, para. 23).
- Applicant subsequently filed a Grievance with the Grievance Committee; the Grievance was dismissed for being out of time, prompting Applicant to submit the present Application (“UU” (No. 2)).

### Claims advanced by Applicant
- Individual claim:
  - Challenge to the individual decision denying reclassification from FM to FSE.
- Regulatory claims (as asserted by Applicant):
  - (a) “a gap in the regulatory framework governing the career progression of Fund economists, specifically the absence of any formal rules or policies concerning the process for reclassification from Fungible Macroeconomist to a Specialist Economist role”; and
  - (b) “the informal or ad hoc rules apparently used to fill this gap” with respect to Applicant—namely, the “alleged ‘established practice for reconsidering reclassification from FM to Specialist Economist’ referenced by the Director, HRD, in her Administrative Review decision.” (Para. 4.)

### Fund’s Motion for Summary Dismissal — principal arguments
- (a) Applicant’s individual claim was inadmissible because he did not exhaust internal remedies in a timely manner and the Tribunal’s Judgment in “UU” was res judicata on the issue of exhaustion of internal remedies.
- (b) Applicant failed to present exceptional circumstances to excuse untimely exhaustion of internal remedies.
- (c) Applicant’s regulatory claim was inadmissible because it could not be reviewed separately and independently from his inadmissible individual claim.

### Tribunal’s analysis and findings — individual claim admissibility
- The Tribunal observed that res judicata did not preclude Applicant from pursuing his individual claim because the only issue adjudicated in “UU” was failure to pursue the individual claim before the Grievance Committee; Applicant subsequently filed a Grievance with the Grievance Committee.
- The Tribunal identified the remaining issue as whether exceptional circumstances excused Applicant’s failure to file a timely Grievance with the Grievance Committee regarding his individual claim.
- The Tribunal concluded that Applicant did not present exceptional circumstances and therefore his individual claim was inadmissible.
- The Tribunal rejected Applicant’s contentions that:
  - the procedure for review of mixed individual/regulatory claims was unclear prior to the Tribunal’s judgment in “UU”; and
  - the Tribunal should apply the principle of “equitable tolling” to toll time limits for filing the Grievance from the date Applicant filed his first application with the Tribunal.
- The Tribunal reasoned that accepting equitable tolling in such circumstances would allow staff to bypass the exhaustion of remedies requirements set out in the Tribunal’s Statute.

### Tribunal’s analysis and findings — regulatory claim admissibility
- The Tribunal recalled that in “UU” it had concluded Applicant’s individual and regulatory claims were intertwined, a conclusion based on Applicant’s own pleadings.
- Because of that intertwining, Applicant was precluded by res judicata from asserting that a regulatory challenge could be raised independently of his individual challenge.
- The Tribunal emphasized: “[t]here is no legal support for the proposition that the Tribunal can simply disregard an individual claim in a mixed individual/regulatory claim case. In such cases, the admissibility of the individual claim is a precondition for the Tribunal to entertain the regulatory claim.” (Para. 45.)
- Consequently, the Tribunal found Applicant’s regulatory claims inadmissible because the individual claim (a precondition) was inadmissible.

### Disposition
- The Motion for Summary Dismissal was granted and the Application in “UU” (No. 2) was dismissed.

---


_Source: https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/imfat/j2024-4-summary.pdf_