## IMFAT Judgment No. 2024-5 (December 30, 2024) ## Source details **Canonical URL:** [IMFAT Judgment No. 2024-5 (December 30, 2024)](https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/imfat/j2024-5-summary.pdf) ## Other formats - [Markdown version](/-/media/files/imfat/j2024-5-summary.pdf.md) - [Structured JSON version](/-/media/files/imfat/j2024-5-summary.pdf.json) --- ### Case background and procedural history - Applicant: a Fund staff member who had served as an Assistant to an IMF Executive Director (ED) and who, following termination of her Board appointment in May 2021, resumed Grade A6 status on Fund staff rather than retaining Grade A8 and its salary. - Applicant’s employment timeline: - Initially employed in 2007 as an Assistant in the Fund. - Transferred to Board staff 2008–2014. - Served on Fund staff 2014–2015. - Returned to Board employment 2015–May 2021. - Re-entered Fund staff in early June 2021 at Grade 6. - Central dispute: whether the Fund wrongfully denied Applicant the opportunity to retain her Board grade and salary upon transfer to Fund staff in 2021 by applying the six continuous years of Board service requirement in EBAP/86/169 and by denying requests to bridge to the six-year mark using accrued annual leave. - Procedural note: The Fund’s Motion for Summary Dismissal asserting lack of jurisdiction ratione temporis was denied in IMFAT Judgment No. 2024-2 (June 7, 2024), permitting the merits to proceed. ### Legal issues and standard of review - Distinct employment frameworks: The Tribunal recognized separate frameworks for “Board staff” and “Fund staff” and divided review accordingly: - Challenges to ED decisions arose under Article II(2)(c)(ii) of the Tribunal’s Statute as relating to a “current or former assistant to an Executive Director.” - Challenges to HRD decisions arose under Article II(2)(c)(i) of the Tribunal’s Statute as relating to a “member of the staff.” - Standard for ED employment decisions: The Tribunal concluded that in reviewing challenges to employment decisions taken by EDs, it will take account of the distinct Board staff framework while applying generally recognized principles of international civil service law. (Para. 65) ### Findings concerning the ED’s decisions - Applicant did not challenge the ED’s termination of her Board employment. - Applicant challenged the ED’s denial of post-termination requests to extend Board employment by using accrued annual leave to meet the six-year requirement of EBAP/86/169. - Tribunal conclusions regarding the ED: - Applicant failed to show that the ED had authority to grant leave requests after the Board appointment had ceased. - Applicant failed to show that the ED had any obligation to reverse the termination decision for the purpose of granting those requests. - No evidence that other assistants had benefited from similar accommodations by the ED. - Result: no abuse of discretionary authority by the ED. ### Findings concerning HRD (and then HRD Director) decisions - Interpretation of EBAP/86/169: - Applicant argued she met six years of “continuous service” because she had served the Board for a total of 13 years with a single brief involuntary break in 2014–2015. - Tribunal noted Applicant had consistently referred to failure to meet a six-year “continuous service” requirement prior to her Reply and had not previously asked HRD to interpret EBAP/86/169 in the manner now advanced. - Tribunal concluded Applicant did not establish that HRD erred in construing the rule as it did. (Para. 83) - Additional arguments that Applicant had fulfilled six years of continuous Board service were rejected. - Authority to grant post-termination leave bridging: - Given the Fund’s governance structure, the then HRD Director did not have authority to require the ED to grant Applicant’s request to use accrued annual leave to extend her Board appointment. - Similarly, after re-entry to Fund staff, the then HRD Director did not have authority to grant such leave requests. - Alleged disparate treatment and exceptions: - Applicant alleged a longstanding practice of reintegrating Board staff with less than six years’ service while preserving Board grade and salary. - Tribunal found Applicant failed to provide evidence of differential treatment compared to other assistants not meeting the six-year requirement. - The earlier exception in Applicant’s own 2014 case was found to be made in “materially different” circumstances. ### Regulatory challenge and Article XX time bar - Applicant challenged the six-year continuous service requirement of EBAP/86/169 as a “regulatory decision.” - Article XX of the Tribunal’s Statute bars challenges to decisions taken before October 15, 1992. - The six-year requirement had been part of EBAP/86/169 since 1986, and no evidence was presented that the rule had been reviewed or revised within the Tribunal’s jurisdictional period. - Result: the regulatory challenge was barred by Article XX of the Tribunal’s Statute. ### Fair treatment analysis and remedial conclusions - Principles: The Tribunal observed an “uneasy fit” between Board and Fund employment frameworks and emphasized that coordination and consultation are required to ensure transfers conform to principles of fair treatment. (Para. 121) - Tribunal’s assessment of conduct: - The Fund had a responsibility to engage proactively with Applicant to seek approaches to cushion the effects of the abrupt change in employment status, particularly as Applicant’s Board service was approaching the six-year threshold. (Para. 122) - The record did not show any proactive effort by Board or Fund officials to consider consequences of the transfer or approaches such as use of accrued annual leave that might have softened the transfer’s effects. (Para. 123) - Remedy for breach of fair treatment: - The Tribunal found Applicant entitled to relief for the lapse of fair treatment and awarded compensation for the intangible injury resulting from that lapse. ### Awards and apportionment of costs - Compensation awarded for intangible injury: $20,000 - Legal fees and costs awarded: - 70% of legal fees and costs incurred in pleading the case on the merits. - 100% of legal fees and costs incurred in responding to the Motion for Summary Dismissal. --- _Source: https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/imfat/j2024-5-summary.pdf_