## Administrative Tribunal of the International Monetary Fund — JUDGMENT No. 2025-2: C. de Resende v. International Monetary Fund (Admissibility of the Application)

## Source details

**Canonical URL:** [Administrative Tribunal of the International Monetary Fund — JUDGMENT No. 2025-2: C. de Resende v. International Monetary Fund (Admissibility of the Application)](https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/imfat/j2025-2.pdf)

## Other formats

- [Markdown version](/-/media/files/imfat/j2025-2.pdf.md)
- [Structured JSON version](/-/media/files/imfat/j2025-2.pdf.json)

---

### Parties, tribunal composition, and procedural posture
- Applicant: Carlos de Resende, a staff member of the Fund.
- Respondent: International Monetary Fund (“Fund”).
- Tribunal composition: Judge Nassib G. Ziadé, President, and Judges Deborah Thomas-Felix and Kieran Bradley.
- Applicant’s counsel: Peter C. Hansen, J. Michael King, and Francis E. Waliczek (Law Offices of Peter C. Hansen, LLC).
- Respondent’s counsel: Cynthia Colaiacovo and Morana Vucinic (Senior Consulting Counsel, Administrative Law Unit, IMF Legal Department).
- Procedural motion: Respondent filed a Motion for Summary Dismissal on February 7, 2024, arguing the Application was untimely; the motion suspends the period for answering the Application and limits the Tribunal’s deliberation to admissibility.

### Applicant’s principal claims and relief sought
- Principal claims:
  - Challenge to adequacy of the housing allowance provided at an overseas post.
  - Allegation Fund failed to inform him properly of the expected housing allowance and failed to answer queries prior to relocation, misleading him into accepting the overseas position to his detriment.
  - Allegation that the housing allowance compared unfavorably with colleagues at his assigned location and Fund staff worldwide in comparable overseas positions.
  - Assertion that the housing allowance contravened the Fund’s duty to provide compensation that is “internally equitable,” “comparator-based,” and “rules-based.”
  - Claim that the Grievance Committee wrongfully dismissed his Grievance as outside its jurisdiction and untimely, depriving him of due process.
- Relief sought:
  - Retroactive, upward, and full adjustment of his housing allowance to comport with housing allowances of similarly situated peers worldwide.
  - Compensation in the amount of three years’ salary as compensatory, moral and intangible damages.
  - Legal fees and costs in accordance with Article XIV(4) of the Tribunal’s Statute if the Application is found well-founded in whole or in part.

### Chronology of key facts and events (selected dates and figures)
- 2012: Applicant joined the Fund.
- July 20, 2020: HRD informed Applicant management had approved his assignment to an overseas post.
- July 25, 2020: HRD shared link to Overseas Benefits Policy and scheduled a meeting; policy text included:
  - “Staff assigned overseas (and not head of Office) are entitled to receive a housing allowance to assist with accommodation costs at the new duty station. . . .”
  - “The housing allowance is calculated based on data provided by [ES] . . . on average rental cost differentials between the duty station city and Washington, D.C., taking into consideration family status (single or with family), and monthly net salary as of 1st day of assignment.”
  - “Tables provided by [ES], which are updated on February 1 and August 1, are those in effect at the time that the lease is executed.”
  - “The housing allowance is the actual lease cost up to the housing differential ceiling.”
  - “The lease cost is defined as the amount included in the rental quote per local practice based on information provided by [ES] for the duty station. HRC will do that calculation based on the lease cost at the beginning of the assignment.”
- July 29, 2020: Meeting between Applicant and HRD; HRD said they would provide the housing allowance calculation.
- September 5, 2020: Applicant departed with his family to start overseas assignment.
- September 14–18, 2020: HRD emailed details and capped Applicant’s housing allowance at an estimated USD 620 per month; HRD confirmed USD 620 would be the maximum amount based on the August 1, 2020 exchange rate and noted it could vary depending on lease signature date and exchange rate.
- September 15, 2020: Applicant characterized USD 620 as “clearly way below insufficient” and stated it was “much less than what my future subordinates currently receive” and “not at par with the policy in other [comparable overseas posts],” requesting HRD advise on “how we can proceed to fix this distortion.”
- October 1, 2020: Applicant entered into a lease agreement for a monthly rent of approximately USD 3,250.
- November 27, 2020: Applicant received a housing allowance payment of USD 1,174.78 for October and November 2020 (i.e., USD 587.39 per month).
- July 12, 2021: HRD Advisor requested review and input on “proposed reform of some of the benefits for overseas assignments” (the “July 2021 Consultation”); Applicant and colleagues were invited to comment.
- August 17, 2021 / December 2, 2021: Applicant sought “support and guidance” and requested “that a correction be applied specifically to my case” retroactive to September 2020; December 2, 2021 submission via MyHR repeated the request.
- February 2, 2022: HRD informed Applicant that Policy Experts in HRD’s Total Rewards Division had confirmed the calculation of his housing allowance was correct.
- February 5, 2022: HRD acknowledged Applicant’s experience “resulted in an unusual impact compared to others at the same location,” stated HRD intended to further review the housing allowance policy, and informed Applicant he could request an administrative review in accordance with Chapter 11.03, Section 4 of the Staff Handbook and had four months to do so.
- April 4, 2022: Applicant submitted a request for administrative review to the TR Division Chief (first time contacting TR Division Chief since HRD’s September 18, 2020 advice to escalate).
- End of April 2022: Applicant changed residence and signed a new lease for a lower monthly amount; began receiving a newly calculated housing allowance of USD 210 per month (Applicant alleges this “forms a separate dispute”).
- May 31, 2022: TR Division Chief issued decision noting untimeliness under Chapter 11.03, Section 4.4 and, on the merits, found no basis to adjust Applicant’s housing allowance.
- June 27, 2022 / July 7, 2022: Applicant filed for review by the Director of HRD; Director stated receipt on July 7.
- January 30, 2023: Director of HRD denied Applicant’s request for administrative review as filed outside the four-month time limit and, on the merits, found no basis to grant the request.
- March 30, 2023: Applicant filed his Statement of Grievance requesting retroactive and full adjustment of housing allowance, compensation of two years’ salary, and reimbursement of fees and costs.
- May 12–26, 2023: Respondent filed a Motion to dismiss the Grievance; Applicant opposed.
- October 3, 2023: Grievance Committee upheld Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss on grounds that (1) Committee lacks jurisdiction over a challenge to a Fund policy and (2) the administrative review request was untimely.
- January 3, 2024: Applicant filed his Application with the Tribunal; corrected Application transmitted January 8, 2024.
- February 5, 2024: Registrar circulated notice summarizing issues pursuant to Rule IV(f) of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure.
- March 14–25, 2024: Applicant filed Opposition to Motion to Dismiss and a supplement requesting costs; Respondent filed Comments on costs on April 5, 2024.
- June 2, 2025: Judgment issued in Washington, D.C.

### Procedural history specific to the Motion for Summary Dismissal
- February 7, 2024: Respondent filed a Motion for Summary Dismissal.
- February 13, 2024: Respondent supplemented the Motion pursuant to Rule XII, para. 3.
- February 14, 2024: Supplement transmitted to Applicant.
- March 14, 2024: Applicant filed Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss.
- March 22, 2024: Applicant supplemented Opposition with a request for costs pursuant to Rule XII, para. 6.
- March 25, 2024: Applicant’s supplemented Opposition and request for costs transmitted to Respondent.
- April 5, 2024: Respondent filed Comments on Applicant’s Request for Costs.
- April 8, 2024: Registrar transmitted Respondent’s Comments to Applicant.

### Legal standards applied (summary dismissal, admissibility, and timeliness)
- Rule XII(1): Tribunal may summarily dismiss an application that is “clearly inadmissible.”
- Tribunal applies a high bar for summary dismissal to protect applicants’ right to be heard and to avoid premature cutoff before full pleadings.
- Article II, Section 1(a): Tribunal’s competence includes applications by staff members challenging the legality of an administrative act adversely affecting them.
- Article II, Section 2(a)–(b): “Administrative act” includes individual or regulatory decisions; “Regulatory decision” covers rules concerning terms and conditions of staff employment.
- Article V, Section 1: When the Fund has established channels of administrative review, Tribunal jurisdiction requires exhaustion of available channels before filing an application.
- Staff Handbook, Chapter 11.03, Section 4.4: For decisions regarding the application of a staff benefit, the staff member must submit a request for review in writing to the division chief responsible for administration of the benefit within four months after the staff member was informed of the intended application of the benefit.
- Article VI, Section 3: Exceptional circumstances may justify delay and waiver of time limits; commentary examples include “extensive mission travel, prolonged illness, or other exigent personal circumstances.”

### Tribunal’s analysis: nature of the challenged decision
- Respondent’s view: Applicant challenged the Overseas Benefits Policy (a regulatory decision).
- Applicant’s view: He challenged his individual outlier status, not the policy per se.
- Tribunal’s determination:
  - Record shows Applicant challenged both the housing allowance policy and its application in his individual case (citing Applicant’s communications of September 15, 2020; August 17, 2021; December 2, 2021).
  - Applicant’s December 2, 2021 letter requested a correction “specifically to my case” and change “effectively immediately.”
  - Whether the challenge is individual or mixed, the admissibility of the individual decision must be determined first; Tribunal concluded the individual challenge is not admissible.

### Tribunal’s analysis: timeliness and dies a quo
- Respondent asserted dies a quo was HRD’s confirmation of the ceiling on September 18, 2020 and noted Applicant received his first paycheck on November 27, 2020 showing the exact amount.
- Applicant argued dies a quo was HRD’s decision of February 5, 2022.
- Tribunal’s factual findings:
  - HRD provided detailed information and confirmed a ceiling estimate by September 18, 2020.
  - By September 18, 2020, Applicant had been informed of the intended application of his housing benefit as contemplated by Section 4.4.
  - Applicant therefore had four months from September 18, 2020 to submit a request for administrative review.
  - Applicant did not file a request within four months and instead filed on April 4, 2022—more than a year and a half later.
- Tribunal concluded Applicant’s April 4, 2022 administrative review request was manifestly out of time.

### Tribunal’s analysis: exceptional-circumstances and other excuses for delay
- Applicant advanced three excuses; Tribunal rejected all:
  1. July 2021 Consultation opened reconsideration of Applicant’s specific case
     - Tribunal found no evidence the broader reform process equated to reconsideration of his individual case; Applicant’s separate discussion occurred after the deadline to participate.
  2. Respondent’s lack of transparency prevented formulation of administrative review until February 5, 2022
     - Applicant had “objective proof” as early as July 2021 but waited almost nine months before filing; no new factor prevented filing within four months.
     - Applicant chose to discuss with colleagues rather than pursue Section 4.4 remedies.
  3. COVID-19 and taking up a new post created exceptional circumstances
     - Applicant did not specify pandemic-related circumstances; the Tribunal held the generic claim insufficient and that exceptional circumstances “should not easily be found.”
- Applicant’s contention that no “decision” existed prior to February 5, 2022 would nullify Section 4.4 and conflict with the definition of “administrative act”; Tribunal rejected this argument.
- On the “separate dispute” claim relating to the new USD 210 per month allowance after April 2022:
  - Applicant did not identify steps taken to challenge the new calculation (including requesting administrative review).
  - Alternatively, if viewed as a continuation of the existing dispute, the claim would fail for reasons given in the Judgment.

### Tribunal’s findings on opportunity to be heard and HRD responsiveness
- Tribunal found Applicant had a full opportunity to present his case once administrative review was initiated: TR Division Chief, Director of HRD, and Grievance Committee reviewed the case.
- Tribunal noted HRD responsiveness issues:
  - TR Division Chief response arrived fifty-seven days after receipt though Section 4.5 allows staff to request direct review by the Director if no response within fifteen days.
  - It took nearly seven months for the Director of HRD to issue her decision though the Staff Handbook contemplates a Director decision within 45 days.
  - HRD officials expressed apologies and sympathy for delays.
- Tribunal urged the Fund to adhere to established Staff Handbook deadlines and to provide prompter decision-making where specific deadlines are not provided.

### Costs, conclusion, and dispositive outcome
- Applicant sought “full costs for this stage”; Respondent opposed.
- Because the Application was found clearly inadmissible, Applicant’s request for costs was rejected.
- Tribunal’s conclusions:
  - Applicant was informed on September 18, 2020 of the intended application of his housing allowance; he failed to request administrative review within four months and filed instead on April 4, 2022 (over one year and a half later).
  - Applicant’s defenses to untimeliness (exceptional circumstances; absence of an “administrative act” until February 5, 2022) were not substantiated.
  - Applicant was manifestly out of time; the Application is clearly inadmissible.
- Decision (unanimous):
  - The Motion for Summary Dismissal is granted; and
  - The Application of Carlos de Resende is dismissed.
- Judgment issued in Washington, D.C., June 2, 2025.

*Administrative Tribunal of the International Monetary Fund, Judgment (June 2, 2025).*

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

### INTRODUCTION

### Parties and procedural posture
- Applicant: Carlos de Resende, a staff member of the Fund.
- Respondent: International Monetary Fund (“Fund”).
- Tribunal composition: Judge Nassib G. Ziadé, President, and Judges Deborah Thomas-Felix and Kieran Bradley.
- Applicant’s counsel: Peter C. Hansen, J. Michael King, and Francis E. Waliczek (Law Offices of Peter C. Hansen, LLC).
- Respondent’s counsel: Cynthia Colaiacovo and Morana Vucinic (Senior Consulting Counsel, Administrative Law Unit, IMF Legal Department).
- Procedural motion before the Tribunal: Motion for Summary Dismissal filed by Respondent on the ground that Applicant failed to challenge the relevant decision in a timely manner.
- Effect of Motion for Summary Dismissal: suspends the period for answering the Application and limits the Tribunal’s deliberation to the question of admissibility.

### Applicant’s principal claims
- Challenge to adequacy of the housing allowance provided at an overseas post.
- Allegation that the Fund failed to inform him properly of the expected housing allowance and failed to answer queries prior to relocation, which misled him into accepting the overseas position to his detriment.
- Allegation that the housing allowance received compared unfavorably with:
  - colleagues employed at his assigned location;
  - Fund staff worldwide employed in comparable overseas positions.
- Assertion that the housing allowance contravened the Fund’s duty to provide compensation that is “internally equitable,” “comparator-based,” and “rules-based.”
- Claim that the Grievance Committee wrongfully dismissed his Grievance as outside its jurisdiction and untimely, depriving him of due process.

### Relief sought by Applicant
- Retroactive, upward, and full adjustment of his housing allowance to comport with the housing allowances of his similarly situated peers worldwide.
- Compensation in the amount of three years’ salary as compensatory, moral and intangible damages.
- Legal fees and costs in accordance with Article XIV(4) of the Tribunal’s Statute if the Application is found well-founded in whole or in part.

### Summary of facts and chronology of key events
- 2012: Applicant joined the Fund.
- July 20, 2020: HRD informed Applicant management had approved his assignment to an overseas post.
- July 25, 2020: HRD shared a link to IMF website on benefits for overseas office staff and scheduled a meeting. The posting stated, inter alia:
  - “Staff assigned overseas (and not head of Office) are entitled to receive a housing allowance to assist with accommodation costs at the new duty station. . . .”
  - “The housing allowance is calculated based on data provided by [ES] . . . on average rental cost differentials between the duty station city and Washington, D.C., taking into consideration family status (single or with family), and monthly net salary as of 1st day of assignment.”
  - “Tables provided by [ES], which are updated on February 1 and August 1, are those in effect at the time that the lease is executed.”
  - “The housing allowance is the actual lease cost up to the housing differential ceiling.”
  - “The lease cost is defined as the amount included in the rental quote per local practice based on information provided by [ES] for the duty station. HRC will do that calculation based on the lease cost at the beginning of the assignment.”
- July 29, 2020: Meeting between Applicant and HRD; HRD said they would provide the calculation of his housing allowance.
- September 3, 2020: Applicant sought assistance from a colleague outside HRD regarding unanswered inquiry.
- September 5, 2020: Applicant departed with his family to start overseas assignment.
- September 14, 2020: HRD emailed information about benefits, reminded of calculation method, and capped Applicant’s housing allowance at an estimated USD 620 per month.
- September 15, 2020: HRD confirmed USD 620 would be the maximum amount based on the August 1, 2020 exchange rate, noting the amount could vary depending on lease signature date and exchange rate.
- September 15, 2020: Applicant described USD 620 as “clearly way below insufficient” and “very disappointing,” stated it was “much less than what my future subordinates currently receive” and “not at par with the policy in other [comparable overseas posts],” and requested HRD advise on “how we can proceed to fix this distortion.”
- September 18, 2020: HRD reiterated calculation method, confirmed ceiling estimate USD 620, and advised escalation to the Total Rewards Division Chief (the “TR Division Chief”) if Applicant wished to escalate. Applicant did not contact the TR Division Chief at that time nor in the following four months.
- October 1, 2020: Applicant entered into a lease agreement for a monthly rent of approximately USD 3,250.
- November 27, 2020: Applicant received a housing allowance payment of USD 1,174.78 for October and November 2020 (i.e., USD 587.39 per month).
- July 12, 2021: HRD Advisor requested review and input on “proposed reform of some of the benefits for overseas assignments” (the “July 2021 Consultation”); Applicant and colleagues were invited to comment.
- July 13–14, 2021: Applicant copied on colleagues’ responses discussing their housing benefits; Applicant alleges that this provided “objective proof” he was differentially situated.
- July 14, 2021: Applicant responded to the HRDA regarding the July 2021 Consultation but did not raise his own case.
- July 16 and July 29, 2021: Applicant sought the OP Director’s views on a draft email addressing his own housing allowance; received no response.
- August 17, 2021: Applicant emailed HRDA, OP Director and a colleague seeking “support and guidance” and requesting “that a correction be applied specifically to my case” retroactive to September 2020; stated he had “postponed this for too long” and was “now ready to move forward.”
- December 2, 2021: Applicant submitted via MyHR the same request as his August 17, 2021 communication.
- February 2, 2022: HRD informed Applicant that Policy Experts in HRD’s Total Rewards Division had confirmed the calculation of his housing allowance was correct.
- February 5, 2022: HRD acknowledged Applicant’s experience “resulted in an unusual impact compared to others at the same location,” stated HRD intended to further review the housing allowance policy, and informed Applicant he could request an administrative review in accordance with Chapter 11.03, Section 4 of the Staff Handbook and had four months to do so.
- April 4, 2022: Applicant submitted a request for administrative review to HRD’s TR Division Chief (first time contacting TR Division Chief since HRD’s September 18, 2020 advice to escalate).
- End of April 2022: Applicant changed residence and signed a new lease for a lower monthly amount; started receiving a newly calculated housing allowance of USD 210 per month (Applicant alleges this “forms a separate dispute”).
- May 31, 2022: TR Division Chief issued decision on Applicant’s April 4, 2022 request, noting untimeliness under Chapter 11.03, Section 4.4 of the Staff Handbook, and reviewed merits concluding no basis to adjust Applicant’s housing allowance.
- June 27, 2022: Applicant filed a request for review to the Director of HRD, who said she received it on July 7, 2022 (Applicant states his June 27 email “was stuck in [his] outbox” until July 7).
- January 30, 2023: Director of HRD denied Applicant’s request for administrative review, noting it was filed outside the four-month time limit and more than a month after receipt of the TR Division Chief’s review; Director reviewed merits and found no basis to grant Applicant’s request.
- March 30, 2023: Applicant filed his Statement of Grievance requesting retroactive and full adjustment of housing allowance, compensation of two years’ salary as compensatory, moral and intangible damages, and reimbursement of fees and costs.
- May 12, 2023: Respondent filed a Motion to dismiss the Grievance before the Grievance Committee on the basis of Chapter 11.03, Sections 4.4 and 5.12 of the Staff Handbook.
- May 26, 2023: Applicant filed an Opposition to Motion to Dismiss.
- October 3, 2023: Grievance Committee upheld Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss on grounds:
  - 1) Committee lacks jurisdiction over what it found to be a challenge to a Fund policy; and
  - 2) request for administrative review was filed very late (and there was no request for an extension of time).
- January 3, 2024: Applicant filed his Application with the Tribunal; a corrected Application was transmitted to Respondent on January 8, 2024.
- February 5, 2024: Registrar circulated within the Fund a notice summarizing the issues raised in the Application pursuant to Rule IV(f) of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure.

### Channels of administrative review and jurisdictional findings
- Administrative escalation options identified by HRD:
  - Escalation to the TR Division Chief (advised September 18, 2020).
  - Request for administrative review under Chapter 11.03, Section 4 of the Staff Handbook (noted February 5, 2022; four-month time limit).
- April 4, 2022: Applicant’s administrative review request to TR Division Chief (attached December 2, 2021 letter).
- May 31, 2022: TR Division Chief decision found Applicant’s request untimely under Chapter 11.03, Section 4.4.
- June 27/July 7, 2022: Applicant sought review by Director of HRD.
- January 30, 2023: Director of HRD denied review as untimely and reviewed merits, finding no basis to grant Applicant’s request.
- Grievance Committee (October 3, 2023) dismissed Grievance for lack of jurisdiction over a challenge to Fund policy and for untimeliness of administrative review request.

### Scope of Tribunal’s consideration
- Because Respondent filed a Motion for Summary Dismissal, the Tribunal’s deliberation is limited to the admissibility of the Application (i.e., whether it is timely and properly before the Tribunal).

_Administrative Tribunal of the International Monetary Fund — JUDGMENT No. 2025-2: C. de Resende v. International Monetary Fund (Admissibility of the Application)_

### 38. On  February  7,  2024,  Respondent  filed  a  Motion  for  Summary  Dismissal,  which  it

### j2025-2 - 38. On February 7, 2024, Respondent filed a Motion for Summary Dismissal, which it

### Procedural history (key filings and dates)
- February 7, 2024: Respondent filed a Motion for Summary Dismissal.
- February 13, 2024: Respondent supplemented the Motion pursuant to Rule XII, para. 3 of the Rules of Procedure.
- February 14, 2024: The supplemented Motion for Summary Dismissal was transmitted to Applicant.
- March 14, 2024: Applicant filed an Opposition to the Fund’s Motion to Dismiss.
- March 22, 2024: Applicant supplemented his Opposition with a request for costs pursuant to Rule XII, para. 6 of the Rules of Procedure.
- March 25, 2024: Applicant’s supplemented Opposition and request for costs were transmitted to Respondent.
- April 5, 2024: Respondent filed Comments on Applicant’s Request for Costs.
- April 8, 2024: The Registrar transmitted Respondent’s Comments to Applicant.

### Respondent’s principal contentions on admissibility
- Applicant is clearly out of time, as found by the Grievance Committee.
- Applicant is challenging a regulatory decision—the Overseas Benefits Policy—and is doing so beyond the deadline to submit a stand-alone regulatory challenge to the Tribunal.
- To the extent Applicant is challenging an individual decision, Applicant’s requests for administrative review were filed out of time, with the consequence that his Application is also out of time.
- The Grievance Committee’s finding that Applicant’s claim did not “ripen” until July 15, 2021 was wrong and the Tribunal should rectify the record as to the untimeliness of Applicant’s request for administrative review.
- Contrary to Applicant’s allegations, Applicant has exercised his right to be heard.

### Applicant’s principal contentions on admissibility
- Respondent does not meet the high standard for summary dismissal.
- Applicant is not challenging the housing allowance policy per se, but rather his individual case and “outlier status” with respect to the housing allowance.
- The Tribunal’s jurisprudence does not support Respondent’s strict approach to deadlines within which to seek administrative review, and Applicant faced exceptional circumstances.
- There was no “decision” or “administrative act” to challenge until HRD’s decision of February 5, 2022.
- Applicant’s simple case of inadequate housing allowance deserves to be “received” and “heard in full.”

### Legal standard for summary dismissal (Rule XII / Article X, Section 2(d))
- Rule XII(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.
- The Tribunal has formulated a high bar for summary dismissal: only an application that is “clearly inadmissible” (Rule XII(1)) will be summarily dismissed.
- The high bar:
  - Protects applicants against premature cutoff of the right to be heard.
  - Protects against the risk of the Tribunal taking an erroneous admissibility decision before pleadings unfold in full.
- Summary dismissal procedure also provides a mechanism to shorten 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.
- Prior to deciding whether the Application was “clearly out of time,” the Tribunal must determine whether the challenged decision is regulatory or individual, as that determines the period within which it could be challenged.

### Nature of the decision challenged (regulatory vs individual)
- The Tribunal’s competence: Article II, Section 1(a) — any application by a staff member challenging the legality of an administrative act adversely affecting him or her.
- “Administrative act” defined as any individual or regulatory decision taken in the administration of staff of the Fund (Article II, Section 2(a)).
- “Regulatory decision” defined as any rule concerning the terms and conditions of staff employment, including General Administrative Orders and the Staff Retirement Plan (Article II, Section 2(b)), excluding Board of Governors’ resolutions.
- Respondent’s position: Applicant challenges the Overseas Benefits Policy (regulatory decision) rather than its application in his case.
- Applicant’s position: He has not challenged his housing allowance per se; he challenges his outlier status with regard to the housing allowance and is agnostic as to whether it is systemic.
- Tribunal’s observation: The record shows Applicant took issue with both the housing allowance policy and its application in his individual case (see Applicant’s statements of September 15, 2020; August 17, 2021; December 2, 2021).
- Tribunal rejects Respondent’s reliance on Applicant’s February 2, 2022 statement that “the calculations [of his housing allowance] can be right, while the policy itself is still wrong or inappropriate” as proof Applicant only challenged the policy; rather, Applicant challenged both policy and application.
- Applicant’s December 2, 2021 letter requested a correction “specifically to my case” and that “the application of the HA policy for [his position] [be] changed effectively immediately.”
- Applicant’s request for administrative review to the Director of HRD asked for formal review of both the calculation under the current policy and the policy itself when applied to his position.
- Tribunal notes that whether the challenge is individual or mixed, the admissibility of the individual decision must be determined first; in this instance the Tribunal concluded the individual challenge is not admissible.

### Timeliness: Applicant’s April 4, 2022 request for administrative review found manifestly out of time
- Threshold issue: identification of the individual decision (dies a quo) that started the time period to request administrative review.
- Respondent’s position: HRD’s confirmation of the ceiling of Applicant’s housing allowance on September 18, 2020 was the dies a quo.
- Applicant’s position: The time period started on HRD’s decision of February 5, 2022 (the Tribunal refers to February 5, 2022 as the dies a quo invoked by Applicant, though it concluded neither date is the dies a quo in this case).
- Exhaustion requirement: Article V, Section 1 — when the Fund has established channels of administrative review, an application may be filed with the Tribunal only after exhaustion of all available channels of administrative review.
- Staff Handbook, Chapter 11.03, Section 4.4 (“Section 4.4”): For decisions regarding the application of a staff benefit, the staff member shall first submit a request for review in writing to the division chief responsible for administration of the benefit, clearly indicating they are pursuing administrative remedies under this Chapter. The request must be submitted within four months after the staff member was informed of the intended application of the benefit.
- Determining the relevant individual decision requires identifying the date when “the staff member was informed of the intended application of the benefit.”
- Respondent’s factual assertion: By September 18, 2020 the information received by Applicant regarding his housing allowance was complete; Applicant was informed the maximum housing allowance he would be entitled to was US$620 (subject to exchange rate fluctuations until lease signing), and that exact amount would be known after signing the lease; HRD informed Applicant he could escalate the matter.
- Respondent further contends Applicant received his first paycheck on November 27, 2020 and thus was informed of the exact amount of the applicable housing allowance on that date.
- Applicant did not engage with Section 4.4’s language except to challenge the “arbitrarily tight timeframes imposed by the Staff Handbook, with APR [Annual Performance Review] and benefits cases supposedly becoming injusticiable in just four months.”
- Tribunal’s factual review:
  - July 2020: Applicant first provided general information on the Overseas Benefits Policy.
  - July 25, 2020: HRD provided Applicant a link to the Overseas Benefits Policy, including the housing allowance policy.
  - July 29, 2020: Applicant had a briefing call with HRD discussing benefits “on a general level.”
  - September 14–18, 2020: HRD provided more detailed information and email exchanges on the housing allowance policy and how it would apply to Applicant.
  - September 15, 2020: Applicant objected that his housing allowance was too low and asked HRD to “fix this distortion.”
  - September 18, 2020: HRD provided further explanations on benefits packages, purpose of housing allowance, ES methodology, confirmed the ceiling estimate consistent with September 14–15 communications, and informed Applicant he could “further escalate [his] case” to the TR Division Chief.
- Tribunal’s conclusion:
  - By September 18, 2020, Applicant had been informed of the intended application of his housing benefit as contemplated by Section 4.4.
  - Applicant therefore had four months from September 18, 2020 to submit a request for administrative review of HRD’s decision on the calculation of his housing allowance and its refusal to adjust it.
  - Applicant did not file a request for administrative review within four months; instead he filed on April 4, 2022—more than a year and a half later.
- Applicant’s arguments to excuse delay:
  - Exceptional circumstances allegedly excusing the delay.
  - Argument that there was no “decision” or “administrative act” and therefore no “actionable dispute” until HRD’s decision of February 5, 2022.
- Tribunal indicates it addresses these arguments in subsequent analysis (beyond the excerpt).

*International Monetary Fund Administrative Tribunal (IMFAT), judgment excerpt.*

### 2022. Applicant also alleges in the Application that there was a “separate dispute” as to his newly

### j2025-2 - 2022. Applicant also alleges in the Application that there was a “separate dispute” as to his newly

### Procedural and legal framework
- Article VI, Section 3 of the Tribunal’s Statute contemplates that exceptional circumstances may justify delay in filing an application and a waiver of applicable time limits.
- Commentary examples of exceptional circumstances include “extensive mission travel, prolonged illness, or other exigent personal circumstances.”
- The Tribunal has authority to consider the “presence and impact of exceptional circumstances” at anterior stages of the dispute resolution process.
- Relevant Staff Handbook provisions cited:
  - Section 4.4 (timing to request administrative review).
  - Chapter 11.03, Sections 4.5, 4.6 and 4.8 (review procedures and Director decision timeframes).
  - Section 4.1(iii) of Chapter 11.03 (declared purpose of finality of administrative review process).

### Facts and timeline (as found by the Tribunal)
- HRD informed Applicant of the intended application of his housing benefit on September 18, 2020.
- July 14, 2021: July 2021 Consultation on overseas benefits reform completed.
- July 15–17, 2021 (record ambiguities): Applicant engaged with OP Director (draft email dated July 16, 2021) and corresponded with HRDA and others on August 17, 2021 about his housing allowance.
- Applicant did not request administrative review within “four months” of HRD’s September 18, 2020 decision and instead filed a request on April 4, 2022.
- HRD’s decision on Applicant’s reconsideration was dated February 5, 2022.
- End of April 2022: Applicant changed residences and began receiving a newly calculated housing allowance of USD 210 per month.
- HRD’s TR Division Chief responded to Applicant’s request fifty-seven days after receipt; Applicant could have requested direct review by the Director of HRD if no response within fifteen days.
- It took nearly seven months for the Director of HRD to issue her decision after appellate review was sought.
- Staff Handbook contemplates a Director decision within 45 days of submission of the written request for review.

### Tribunal’s analysis of Applicant’s delay and exceptional-circumstances arguments
- The Tribunal emphasized that time limits are not mere guidelines and that an applicant’s “own casual treatment of the relevant legal requirements” does not excuse delay.
- Applicant raised three arguments to justify delay; the Tribunal rejected all three:
  1. Argument that the July 2021 Consultation opened a reconsideration process of Applicant’s specific case
     - Tribunal found no evidence supporting Applicant’s version.
     - Proposed reforms were broader and initiated well before this case; a reform process is not equivalent to review of an individual case.
     - Applicant initiated a separate discussion about his case after the July 2021 Consultation, after the deadline to participate.
  2. Argument that Respondent’s lack of transparency prevented formulation of an administrative review request until February 5, 2022
     - Applicant obtained “objective proof” as early as July 2021 but waited almost nine months to file for review.
     - No new factor was identified that prevented filing within four months of obtaining the information in July 2021.
     - Applicant chose to discuss with colleagues rather than request administrative review, contrary to Section 4.4.
  3. Argument that COVID-19 and taking up a new post created exceptional circumstances
     - Applicant did not specify what pandemic-related circumstances delayed filing.
     - The Tribunal found the generic claim insufficient; “exceptional circumstances ‘should not easily be found.’”
- The Tribunal rejected Applicant’s argument that there was no “decision” or “administrative act” prior to February 5, 2022 because that argument would nullify the timing rule in Section 4.4 and conflict with the expansive definition of “administrative act” in the Statute and its Commentary.
- On the claimed “separate dispute” after Applicant’s April 2022 residence change and USD 210 per month allowance:
  - Applicant did not identify steps taken to challenge the newly calculated allowance (including requesting administrative review).
  - Alternatively, if the new allowance were a continuation of the existing dispute, the claim would fail for reasons given in the Judgment.

### Tribunal’s findings on opportunity to be heard and HRD responsiveness
- Applicant had four months to request administrative review from the September 18, 2020 decision but did not do so; his delay was “over one year and a half.”
- Once administrative review was initiated, Applicant’s case was heard by the TR Division Chief, the Director of HRD, and the Grievance Committee; the Tribunal found Applicant had a full opportunity to present his case.
- The Tribunal expressed concern about HRD’s timeliness in responding:
  - TR Division Chief response arrived fifty-seven days after receipt (whereas Section 4.5 provided an option to request review by the Director if no response within fifteen days).
  - It took nearly seven months for the Director of HRD to issue her decision (Staff Handbook contemplates 45 days).
  - HRD officials expressed apologies and sympathy for delays in providing information about housing allowance calculations.
- The Tribunal urged the Fund to adhere to established deadlines in the Staff Handbook and, where specific deadlines are not provided, to deliver prompter decision-making and responses to meet reasonable staff expectations.

### Costs and conclusion
- Applicant requested “full costs for this stage”; Respondent opposed.
- Because the Application was found clearly inadmissible, Applicant’s request for costs was rejected.
- Conclusions:
  - Applicant was informed on September 18, 2020; he failed to request administrative review within four months and filed instead more than a year and a half later.
  - Applicant’s two alternative defenses to untimeliness (exceptional circumstances; absence of an “administrative act” until February 5, 2022) were not substantiated.
  - Applicant was manifestly out of time; the Application is clearly inadmissible.
- Decision (unanimous):
  - The Motion for Summary Dismissal is granted; and
  - The Application of Carlos de Resende is dismissed.
- Judgment issued in Washington, D.C., June 2, 2025.

---


_Source: https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/imfat/j2025-2.pdf_