## JUDGMENT No. 2024-4, “UU” (No. 2), Applicant v. International Monetary Fund (Admissibility of the Application)

## Source details

**Canonical URL:** [JUDGMENT No. 2024-4, “UU” (No. 2), Applicant v. International Monetary Fund (Admissibility of the Application)](https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/imfat/j2024-4.pdf)

## Other formats

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

---

### Introduction and procedural posture
- Tribunal panel: Judge Nassib G. Ziadé, President, and Judges Deborah Thomas-Felix and Andrew K.C. Nyirenda.
- Applicant represented by Mr. Ryan E. Griffin, James & Hoffman, P.C.; Respondent represented by Ms. Cynthia Colaiacovo and Ms. Tuuli Mooney-Schindler, Administrative Law Unit, IMF Legal Department.
- This is Applicant’s second Application; Applicant’s first application was summarily dismissed in IMFAT Judgment No. 2022-3 (“UU”) (December 22, 2022).
- Applicant’s first application challenged denial of reclassification from Fungible Macroeconomist (“FM”) to Financial Sector Expert (“FSE”) and was dismissed for failure to exhaust Grievance Committee remedies.
- Present Application followed the Grievance Committee’s June 12, 2023 decision dismissing Applicant’s Grievance as out of time.

### Subject of Applicant’s challenges
- Individual decision challenged: denial of reclassification from FM to FSE.
- Regulatory claims alleged:
  - “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
  - “the informal or ad hoc rules apparently used to fill this gap” as referenced in the HRD Director’s Administrative Review decision.

### Key dates and procedural sequence
- Applicant’s written denial of January 2021 reclassification request provided on July 1, 2021.
- Administrative review to Department Director filed July 15, 2021; similar request to HRD filed August 1, 2021.
- HRD Director rejected administrative review on March 8, 2022 and advised filing a Grievance “within two months of this memorandum.”
- Applicant filed first Tribunal application on May 5, 2022; Tribunal Judgment in “UU” dated December 22, 2022.
- Applicant filed a Grievance with the Grievance Committee on January 30, 2023; Grievance Committee decision dated June 12, 2023 dismissed it as out of time.
- Present Application filed September 11, 2023; transmitted September 12, 2023.
- Respondent filed Motion for Summary Dismissal on October 12, 2023; Applicant filed Objection on November 10, 2023.
- Tribunal deferred document-production requests on April 2, 2024 and requested legal-fee submissions; Applicant filed Request on April 9, 2024; Respondent submitted Comments on April 17, 2024.
- Final Tribunal decision dated October 29, 2024.

### Factual background (reclassification requests and administrative reviews)
- Applicant submitted reclassification requests in October 2019, August 2020, and January 2021; each was denied.
  - Denials of October 2019 and August 2020 requests were oral.
  - Denial of January 2021 request was provided in writing on July 1, 2021.
- Administrative review chronology:
  - July 15, 2021: request for administrative review to Department Director; no response.
  - August 1, 2021: request to Human Resources Department (“HRD”).
  - March 8, 2022: HRD Director rejected administrative review; described Fund’s “established practice” for FM-to-Specialist reclassification as considering “performance; expertise; and business need.” HRD Director advised filing a Grievance “within two months of this memorandum.”
- Tribunal and Grievance Committee actions:
  - May 5, 2022: Applicant filed first Tribunal application (Application No. 1), acknowledging no prior Grievance but asserting Tribunal jurisdiction as the decision was “in truth a regulatory one.”
  - Fund moved to dismiss Application No. 1 for failure to exhaust Grievance Committee remedies; Tribunal granted summary dismissal on December 22, 2022.
  - January 30, 2023: Applicant filed Grievance with Grievance Committee.
  - June 12, 2023: Grievance Committee dismissed the Grievance as out of time, finding no extenuating circumstances and no entitlement to retroactive extension under Chapter 11.03, Section 5.12.2 of the Staff Handbook.

### Parties’ principal contentions
- Applicant (merits and admissibility):
  - Management’s refusal to reclassify was “an abuse of discretion.”
  - Fund failed to promulgate accessible rules, policies, or procedures governing reclassification from FM to FSE.
  - Criteria were ill-defined, arbitrarily applied, discriminatory, non-transparent, and deprived Applicant of due process.
  - Relief sought: reclassification to FSE or reconsideration after promulgation of procedures and “objective substantive standards”; extension of current mobility freeze pending reconsideration; compensation “in an amount deemed just and reasonable by the Tribunal”; costs, including legal fees; and other relief the Tribunal “deems just and proper.”
  - On admissibility: “UU” is not res judicata as to the current Application; Applicant later filed a Grievance and argues exhaustion requirements are satisfied or excused by “equitable tolling”; regulatory claim is timely based on March 8, 2022 administrative-review disclosure of the Fund’s “established practice.”
- Respondent (admissibility):
  - “UU” granted summary dismissal for failure to exhaust internal remedies; that Judgment gives Applicant no reason to believe the Tribunal would hear the case if the Grievance Committee dismissed the Grievance; “UU” is res judicata on exhaustion.
  - Applicant presented no exceptional circumstances excusing untimely exhaustion.
  - Regulatory claim is inadmissible because it cannot be reviewed separately and independently from the inadmissible individual claim.
  - Absence of a rule providing a process to request an exception does not constitute a “regulatory gap”; absence of codified exceptions is not an “arbitrary gap.”

### Legal standard for summary dismissal
- Central question under Rule XII, para. 1: whether the application is “clearly inadmissible.”
- Rule XII allows summary dismissal only where inadmissibility is clear; summary dismissal must meet a “high bar” to protect applicants’ right to be heard and avoid erroneous pre-merits rulings.

### Tribunal’s analysis on exhaustion, res judicata, and exceptional circumstances
- Res judicata: “UU” did not bar the present Application because it adjudicated only that Applicant failed to pursue his individual claim with the Grievance Committee before proceeding to the Tribunal; Applicant later filed a Grievance, so the Tribunal must decide whether exceptional circumstances now excuse the untimely filing. (Mr. “R” (No. 2), IMFAT Judgment No. 2004-1 (December 10, 2004), para. 25).
- Exceptional circumstances standard: Tribunal may consider exceptional circumstances when assessing exhaustion under Article V; it evaluates “the extent and nature of the delay, as well as the purposes intended to be served by the requirement for exhaustion of administrative remedies.” (Estate of Mr. “D”, IMFAT Judgment No. 2001-1 (March 30, 2001), paras. 104 and 108).
- Applicant’s asserted grounds rejected:
  - Claim that procedure for mixed individual/regulatory claims was unclear prior to “UU”:
    - Article VI, Section 2 permits asserting illegality of a regulatory decision in support of an admissible application challenging an individual decision; Commentary clarifies the Grievance Committee should first hear issues within its jurisdiction.
    - Staff Handbook (GAO 11, Chapter 11.03, Section 7) states applications challenging individual decisions may be filed with the Tribunal only after Administrative Review and the Grievance Committee.
    - HRD Director’s March 8, 2022 decision expressly instructed filing a Grievance within two months, eliminating reasonable doubt.
    - Tribunal precedent: applicants aware of internal review requirements “may not simply choose to ignore them.” (Estate of Mr. “D”, para. 104; Mr. “QQ” (No. 2), IMFAT Judgment No. 2022-2 (October 25, 2022), para. 52).
  - Claim of “equitable tolling” due to misdirection to the Tribunal:
    - Statute already provides for tolling of time limits for regulatory challenges pending Grievance Committee consideration when a mixed claim is properly before the Grievance Committee (Commentary on Article VI, Section 2, p. 26).
    - Allowing tolling where staff bypass the Grievance Committee would circumvent exhaustion requirements; only exceptional circumstances justify failure to meet exhaustion requirements, and none exist here.
    - Distinction: applicants challenging only regulatory decisions may file directly with the Tribunal within “three months after the announcement or effective date of the decision, whichever is later[.]” (Article VI(2) of the Statute; Mr. A. Billmeier, IMFAT Judgment No. 2010-3 (February 9, 2010), para. 61).

### Tribunal’s conclusions on admissibility and final determinations
- Individual claim:
  - Applicant failed to exhaust internal remedies in a timely manner with respect to his individual claim; Applicant presented no exceptional circumstances excusing that failure; the individual claim is “clearly inadmissible.” (para. 41).
- Regulatory claim:
  - Regulatory claim is “clearly inadmissible” because the individual and regulatory challenges are intertwined and Article VI, Section 2 requires regulatory illegality to be asserted in support of an admissible individual challenge; with the individual claim inadmissible, the regulatory claim cannot be entertained.
  - Res judicata precludes asserting the regulatory claim independently where the Tribunal previously concluded the challenges are intertwined. (paras. 42–46).
- Final determinations:
  - Respondent has shown the individual decision challenge (reclassification from an FM to an FSE) is “clearly inadmissible” for failure to exhaust timely administrative review under Article V of the Statute; Applicant has not established exceptional circumstances. (Conclusion i).
  - Respondent has shown the purported regulatory decision challenge is clearly inadmissible. (Conclusion ii).
  - The Motion for Summary Dismissal is granted; the Application is dismissed in its entirety; Applicant’s request for costs is denied. (Conclusion iii).

### Formal decision and signatories
- The Administrative Tribunal of the International Monetary Fund unanimously decides that:
  - the Motion for Summary Dismissal is granted; and
  - the Application of “UU” (No. 2) is dismissed.
- Signatories:
  - Nassib G. Ziadé, President
  - Deborah Thomas-Felix, Judge
  - Andrew K.C. Nyirenda, Judge
  - Paul Jean Le Cannu, Registrar
- Location and date: Washington, D.C., October 29, 2024.

*Administrative Tribunal of the International Monetary Fund — JUDGMENT No. 2024-4, “UU” (No. 2), Applicant v. International Monetary Fund (Admissibility of the Application).*

### INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................

### INTRODUCTION

### Overview of the matter and procedural posture
- The Administrative Tribunal of the International Monetary Fund (“Tribunal”) decided the Motion for Summary Dismissal (“Motion”) of a second Application brought by “UU”, a staff member of the Fund.
- The Tribunal panel: Judge Nassib G. Ziadé, President, and Judges Deborah Thomas-Felix and Andrew K.C. Nyirenda.
- Applicant was represented by Mr. Ryan E. Griffin, James & Hoffman, P.C. Respondent was represented by Ms. Cynthia Colaiacovo and Ms. Tuuli Mooney-Schindler, Administrative Law Unit, IMF Legal Department.
- This is Applicant’s second Application; Applicant’s first application was summarily dismissed in IMFAT Judgment No. 2022-3 (“UU”) (December 22, 2022).
- Applicant’s first application challenged denial of reclassification from Fungible Macroeconomist (“FM”) to Financial Sector Expert (“FSE”) and was dismissed for failure to exhaust Grievance Committee remedies.
- Applicant thereafter filed a Grievance that was dismissed as out of time; the present Application followed.

### Subject of Applicant’s challenges
- Applicant’s claims:
  - An individual decision denying reclassification from FM to FSE.
  - Regulatory claims alleging:
    - “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
    - “the informal or ad hoc rules apparently used to fill this gap” as referenced in the HRD Director’s Administrative Review decision.

### Respondent’s procedural defense
- Respondent’s Motion for Summary Dismissal principally argues:
  - Applicant’s individual claim is inadmissible due to failure to exhaust internal remedies in a timely manner and that “UU” is res judicata on exhaustion.
  - Applicant failed to establish exceptional circumstances excusing untimely exhaustion.
  - Applicant’s regulatory claim is inadmissible because it cannot be reviewed separately and independently from the inadmissible individual claim.
- A Motion for Summary Dismissal suspends the period for answering the Application; the Tribunal’s decision at this stage is limited to admissibility.

### Key dates and sequence relevant to the Introduction
- Applicant’s written denial of January 2021 reclassification request provided on July 1, 2021.
- Applicant filed administrative review to Department Director on July 15, 2021; similar request submitted to HRD on August 1, 2021.
- HRD Director rejected administrative review on March 8, 2022 and advised filing an application with the Grievance Committee “within two months of this memorandum.”
- Applicant’s first Tribunal application filed on May 5, 2022; Tribunal Judgment in “UU” dated December 22, 2022.
- Applicant filed a Grievance with the Grievance Committee on January 30, 2023; Grievance Committee decision dated June 12, 2023 dismissed it as out of time.
- Present Application filed September 11, 2023; transmitted to Respondent on September 12, 2023.
- Respondent filed Motion for Summary Dismissal on October 12, 2023. Applicant filed Objection on November 10, 2023.
- Tribunal deferred document-production requests on April 2, 2024 and requested legal-fee submissions; Applicant filed Request on April 9, 2024; Respondent submitted Comments on April 17, 2024.

---

### FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

### Chronology of Applicant’s reclassification requests and reviews
- Applicant submitted reclassification requests in October 2019, August 2020, and January 2021; each was denied.
  - Denials of October 2019 and August 2020 requests were done orally.
  - Denial of January 2021 request was provided in writing on July 1, 2021.
- Administrative review steps:
  - July 15, 2021: Applicant filed request for administrative review to Department Director; no response received.
  - August 1, 2021: Applicant submitted similar request to Human Resources Department (“HRD”).
  - March 8, 2022: HRD Director rejected Applicant’s administrative review; described Fund’s “established practice” for FM-to-Specialist reclassification as considering “performance; expertise; and business need.” HRD Director advised Applicant could file with the Grievance Committee “within two months of this memorandum.”
- Tribunal filings and Grievance Committee proceedings:
  - May 5, 2022: Applicant filed first application with Tribunal (Application No. 1), acknowledging no prior Grievance but asserting Tribunal jurisdiction because the decision was “in truth a regulatory one.”
  - Fund moved to dismiss Application No. 1 for failure to exhaust Grievance Committee remedies; Tribunal granted summary dismissal on December 22, 2022 for failure to exhaust internal remedies.
  - January 30, 2023: Applicant filed Grievance with Grievance Committee.
  - June 12, 2023: Grievance Committee dismissed the Grievance as out of time, finding:
    - procedural pathway was apparent from Grievance Committee and Tribunal rules;
    - Commentary on Article VI, Section 2, required exhaustion by submitting to Grievance Committee first in mixed cases;
    - Applicant did not present “extenuating circumstances” to disregard Commentary and HRD Director’s guidance; and
    - Applicant was not entitled to retroactive extension under Chapter 11.03, Section 5.12.2 of the Staff Handbook because no prior request for extension was submitted.

---

### PROCEDURE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL

### Filings and preliminary rulings
- September 11, 2023: Present Application filed; transmitted September 12, 2023.
- October 3, 2023: Registrar circulated internal notice summarizing issues pursuant to Rule IV(f).
- October 12, 2023: Respondent filed Motion for Summary Dismissal pursuant to Rule XII; Motion transmitted to Applicant same day.
- November 10, 2023: Applicant filed Objection to the Motion; transmitted to Respondent same day.
- April 2, 2024: Tribunal deferred decisions on document-production requests until merits phase and requested legal-fee submissions.
- April 9, 2024: Applicant filed Request for legal fees and costs incurred in responding to the Motion.
- April 17, 2024: Respondent submitted responsive Comments on legal-fee Request.

---

### SUMMARY OF PARTIES’ PRINCIPAL CONTENTIONS

### A. Applicant’s principal contentions on the merits
- Management’s refusal to reclassify from FM to FSE was “an abuse of discretion” with respect to both the individual decision and the regulatory actions underlying it.
- The Fund failed to promulgate rules, policies, or procedures governing reclassification from FM to FSE; any such policies were not made accessible to staff.
- Criteria used to deny reclassification were ill-defined and arbitrarily applied to Applicant.
- Denials were discriminatory; Applicant was treated differently than similarly situated staff without justification.
- Denials lacked transparency and deprived Applicant of due process; absence of written standards limited Applicant’s ability to seek reclassification and prejudiced Applicant; unclear whether proper decision-makers were involved.
- Relief sought by Applicant:
  - an order requiring reclassification to FSE or, alternatively, requiring the Fund to (i) reconsider Applicant’s request after promulgation of procedures and “objective substantive standards” governing reclassification from FM to FSE, and (ii) extend Applicant’s current mobility freeze and permit Applicant to remain in current assignment pending reconsideration;
  - compensation “in an amount deemed just and reasonable by the Tribunal”;
  - costs, including legal fees;
  - any other relief the Tribunal “deems just and proper.”

### B. Respondent’s principal contentions on admissibility
- “UU” granted summary dismissal of the original application for failure to exhaust internal remedies; the “UU” Judgment gave Applicant no reason to believe the Tribunal would hear the case if the Grievance Committee dismissed the Grievance. The “UU” Judgment is res judicata; current Application should be dismissed on that basis.
- Applicant has presented no exceptional circumstances to justify failure to exhaust internal remedies timely.
- Applicant’s regulatory claim is inadmissible because it cannot be reviewed separately and independently of the inadmissible individual claim.
- Absence of a rule providing a process for staff to request an exception to an existing rule does not qualify as a “regulatory gap”; absence of codified exceptions is not an “arbitrary gap.”

### C. Applicant’s principal contentions on admissibility
- The “UU” Judgment is not res judicata as to the current Application; it was premised on Applicant not having gone to the Grievance Committee; the question is whether Applicant’s later filing with the Grievance Committee satisfies Article V exhaustion requirements.
- Applicant took steps to exhaust internal remedies and did so in a timely manner “even if one of those steps—initially lodging his mixed individual/regulatory claim with the Tribunal rather than the Grievance Committee in the first instance—was ultimately, in hindsight, a misstep.”
- The correct procedure for mixed individual/regulatory claims “was simply not clear” prior to the Tribunal’s “clarification” in “UU.”
- The Tribunal should apply “equitable tolling,” consistent with the Tribunal’s approach to regulatory challenges raised with individual challenges, whereby normal time limits for regulatory challenges are disregarded so a staff member who diligently pursues an individual grievance is not penalized.
- The Fund would not be prejudiced by a finding that Applicant satisfied exhaustion requirements.
- Even if the individual claim is untimely, the regulatory claim is timely because Applicant first learned in the March 8, 2022 administrative review denial of the Fund’s “established practice” for reconsidering reclassification; Applicant filed his original application within applicable time limits and the current Application “simply renews his original regulatory challenge.”
- The Tribunal has jurisdiction to review a failure to act (the Fund’s failure to provide an established, transparent framework for FM to FSE reclassification) where action was necessary.

---

### CONSIDERATION OF THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATION

### Legal standard for summary dismissal
- Central question: Is the application “clearly inadmissible” under Rule XII of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure?
- Rule XII, para. 1: “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.”

---

*Administrative Tribunal of the International Monetary Fund — JUDGMENT No. 2024-4, “UU” (No. 2), Applicant v. International Monetary Fund (Admissibility of the Application).*

### 22. The  Tribunal  has  emphasized  that  “Rule  XII  sets  a  high  bar  for  the  dismissal  of  an

### 22. The Tribunal has emphasized that “Rule XII sets a high bar for the dismissal of an application prior to a full airing of the merits of a case,” with such dismissals intended only for applications that the Tribunal deems “clearly irreceivable or devoid of merit.”

### Rule XII standard and purpose
- Rule XII imposes a “high bar” for summary dismissal to protect applicants’ right to be heard and to avoid erroneous admissibility rulings when pleadings have yet to unfold in full. (“VV”, Applicant v. International Monetary Fund, Respondent (Admissibility of the Application), IMFAT Judgment No. 2023-3 (March 30, 2023), para. 35; quoting Mr. “QQ”, IMFAT Judgment No. 2020-1 (November 2, 2020), para. 45).
- Summary dismissal is, however, recognized as a mechanism “to shorten the proceedings where inadmissibility is clear at the outset,” protecting the Tribunal and the Respondent from expenditure of time and resources on matters with no reasonable ground to advance beyond the threshold. (“VV”, para. 36; quoting Mr. “QQ”, para. 47).

### Facts and procedural posture relevant to exhaustion and res judicata
- HRD Director denied Applicant’s request for administrative review on March 8, 2022; absent a stay or extension, Applicant was required to file his Grievance within two months of that date. (GAO 11, Chapter 11.03, Section 5.12).
- Applicant filed an application directly with the Tribunal instead of filing a Grievance within the two-month period; he later filed a Grievance on January 30, 2023, which was more than ten months after the HRD Director’s March 8, 2022 denial.
- The Grievance Committee concluded Applicant’s individual claim was filed out of time and there were no justifications excusing the untimely Grievance.
- Tribunal’s analysis:
  - Res judicata does not bar the present Application because “UU” adjudicated only that Applicant failed to pursue his individual claim with the Grievance Committee before proceeding to the Tribunal; Applicant has since filed a Grievance, and the Tribunal must decide whether exceptional circumstances now excuse the untimely filing. (Mr. “R” (No. 2), IMFAT Judgment No. 2004-1 (December 10, 2004), para. 25).

### Exceptional circumstances and the exhaustion requirement
- The Tribunal reaffirmed authority to consider exceptional circumstances when assessing exhaustion under Article V of the Statute. (“XX”, IMFAT Judgment No. 2024-2 (June 7, 2024), para. 68).
- In assessing exceptional circumstances, the Tribunal considers “the extent and nature of the delay, as well as the purposes intended to be served by the requirement for exhaustion of administrative remedies.” (Citing Estate of Mr. “D”, IMFAT Judgment No. 2001-1 (March 30, 2001), paras. 104 and 108).
- Applicant’s asserted grounds considered and rejected:
  - Alleged lack of clarity on procedure for mixed individual/regulatory claims prior to “UU”:
    - Article VI, Section 2, of the Tribunal’s Statute explicitly permits asserting illegality of a regulatory decision in support of an admissible application challenging an individual decision; Commentary clarifies the Grievance Committee would first hear and dispose of issues over which it has jurisdiction before a staff member proceeds to the Tribunal. (Commentary on the Statute, p. 26).
    - Staff Handbook (GAO 11, Chapter 11.03, Section 7) states applications challenging individual decisions may be filed with the Tribunal only after Administrative Review and the Grievance Committee.
    - Subsection 7.1 of the Staff Handbook notes it is “only a summary of the Tribunal’s Statute and its Rules of Procedure” and that discrepancies defer to the Statute or Rules of Procedure.
    - The HRD Director’s March 8, 2022 decision expressly instructed filing a Grievance within two months, eliminating any reasonable doubt.
    - Tribunal precedent: applicants aware of internal review requirements “may not simply choose to ignore them.” (Estate of Mr. “D”, para. 104; Mr. “QQ” (No. 2), IMFAT Judgment No. 2022-2 (October 25, 2022), para. 52).
  - Claim of “equitable tolling” because Applicant was misdirected to the Tribunal:
    - The Statute already provides for tolling of time limits for regulatory challenges pending Grievance Committee consideration when a mixed claim is properly before the Grievance Committee. (Commentary on Article VI, Section 2, p. 26).
    - Allowing tolling where staff bypass the Grievance Committee and file directly with the Tribunal would permit circumvention of exhaustion requirements; only exceptional circumstances justify failure to meet exhaustion requirements, and none are found here.
    - Distinction noted: applicants challenging only regulatory decisions may file directly with the Tribunal within “three months after the announcement or effective date of the decision, whichever is later[.]” (Article VI(2) of the Statute; Mr. A. Billmeier, IMFAT Judgment No. 2010-3 (February 9, 2010), para. 61).

### Tribunal’s conclusions on admissibility
- Applicant failed to exhaust internal remedies in a timely manner with respect to his individual claim and has presented no exceptional circumstances excusing that failure; accordingly, the individual claim is “clearly inadmissible.” (para. 41).
- Applicant’s regulatory claim is also clearly inadmissible because:
  - The individual and regulatory challenges are intertwined and Article VI, Section 2, requires the regulatory illegality to be asserted in support of an admissible application challenging an individual decision; with the individual claim inadmissible, the regulatory claim cannot be entertained.
  - Res judicata precludes asserting the regulatory claim independently where the Tribunal previously concluded the challenges are intertwined. (paras. 42–46).
- Final determinations:
  - Respondent has shown the individual decision challenge (reclassification from an FM to an FSE) is “clearly inadmissible” for failure to exhaust timely administrative review under Article V of the Statute; Applicant has not established exceptional circumstances. (Conclusion i).
  - Respondent has shown the purported regulatory decision challenge is clearly inadmissible. (Conclusion ii).
  - The Motion for Summary Dismissal is granted; the Application is dismissed in its entirety; Applicant’s request for costs is denied. (Conclusion iii).

### Decision (formal)
- The Administrative Tribunal of the International Monetary Fund unanimously decides that:
  - the Motion for Summary Dismissal is granted; and
  - the Application of “UU” (No. 2) is dismissed.
- Signatories and formalities:
  - Nassib G. Ziadé, President
  - Deborah Thomas-Felix, Judge
  - Andrew K.C. Nyirenda, Judge
  - Nassib G. Ziadé, President
  - Paul Jean Le Cannu, Registrar
  - Washington, D.C.
  - October 29, 2024
  - /s/ /s/

---


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