## REGISTRY’S SUMMARY: “YY”, Applicant v. International Monetary Fund, IMFAT Judgment No. 2025-5 (October 27, 2025)

## Source details

**Canonical URL:** [REGISTRY’S SUMMARY: “YY”, Applicant v. International Monetary Fund, IMFAT Judgment No. 2025-5 (October 27, 2025)](https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/imfat/j2025-5-summary.pdf)

## Other formats

- [Markdown version](/-/media/files/imfat/j2025-5-summary.pdf.md)
- [Structured JSON version](/-/media/files/imfat/j2025-5-summary.pdf.json)

---

### Case overview
- Applicant: long-serving Fund employee who retired in 2008; challenged imposition of a security entry ban to Fund Headquarters based on an allegation of sexual harassment and filed a concurrent Grievance stayed pending Tribunal decision.
- Procedural history:
  - Fund filed a Motion for Summary Dismissal asserting lack of jurisdiction.
  - IMFAT denied the Motion in IMFAT Judgment No. 2024-3 (June 7, 2024) and permitted the case to proceed on the merits.
- Central legal question: contours of the right to be heard for a retired staff member subject to an entry ban based on an allegation of inappropriate conduct.

### Applicable jurisprudence and analytical framework
- Tribunal considered jurisprudence of other international administrative tribunals only where not dependent on a particular organization’s law, reflected generally recognized principles of international administrative law, and was applicable to the Fund.
- Found World Bank Administrative Tribunal (“WBAT”) jurisprudence on access restrictions most relevant because of close IMF–World Bank connections and shared building access.
- Adopted a common analytical due process approach on entry bans where WBAT standards were applicable and appropriate for the Fund.

### Reviewability of the entry ban
- Two administrative acts at issue:
  - April 13, 2021 entry ban.
  - July 20, 2022 Protocol (final formulation of the entry ban).
- Tribunal held the July 20, 2022 Protocol was a separate administrative act challenged in a timely manner and that the entry ban was therefore subject to review.

### Legitimate expectation of access for retirees
- Internal Fund guidance and WBAT jurisprudence indicate former staff have neither a right nor a legitimate expectation of access to premises; access is a privilege.
- Removal of access privilege is within Fund discretion but must be based on valid security interests or other justifiable needs.
- If a retiree is treated differently from other retirees, absent legitimate reason, discrimination issues may arise.
- Even where removal is justified by security, the retiree must be afforded basic due process.

### Whether the entry ban required a misconduct investigation
- Staff Handbook provisions show misconduct investigations are predicated on an ongoing employment relationship.
- Tribunal concluded the entry ban did not constitute a disciplinary measure and Applicant, as a former staff member, was not entitled to a misconduct investigation.

### Due process and abuse of discretion analysis (applying WBAT standards)
- Two primary questions:
  - Whether the Fund abused its discretion in imposing the entry ban (focusing on reasonable and observable basis; sufficiency of information to defend; clarity on nature, duration, and rationale).
  - Whether the Fund abused its discretion in maintaining the entry ban (focusing on good-faith effort to obtain Applicant’s informed response and to provide an objective decision-maker sufficient evidence to decide whether to maintain or remove the restriction).
- Findings:
  - Reasonable and observable basis:
    - Fund offered a sealed Annex containing its risk assessment but declined to submit a redacted version; after withdrawal, the record lacked supporting evidence for the allegation underlying the ban.
    - Conclusion: entry ban lacked a reasonable and observable basis and constituted an abuse of discretion.
  - Sufficiency of information to defend:
    - April 13, 2021 entry ban notice did not provide dates of alleged incidents or additional context; subsequent communications provided no clarification.
    - Conclusion: Applicant was not provided sufficient information to defend himself; violation of due process and abuse of discretion.
  - Nature, duration, rationale:
    - April 13, 2021 notice made clear nature and rationale but not duration.
    - Conclusion: failure to specify duration violated due process and was an abuse of discretion; reasonable approach would notify nature, rationale, and duration and state the ban as a preliminary safeguard pending due process.
  - Maintenance of the ban:
    - Fund made no effort after imposition to obtain Applicant’s response to the allegation for the purpose of furnishing an objective decision-maker with sufficient evidence.
    - Fund did not contest this omission.
    - Conclusion: maintenance of the ban without such efforts violated due process and was an abuse of discretion.
  - Communication within Applicant’s former Department:
    - Applicant did not show improper handling or dissemination of information about the ban; no evidence of oral or written communication within the Department.
    - Applicant did not demonstrate compensable harm from two staff members knowing about the ban and did not show those staff lacked a need to know.
    - Conclusion: no inappropriate communication shown.

### Remedies ordered and directions
- Rescission of the entry ban was not ordered because Tribunal could not rule out that a reasonable and observable basis might be found after further review.
- Tribunal invited the Fund promptly to solicit Applicant’s response to the sexual harassment allegation to provide an objective decision-maker with sufficient evidence to determine whether the access flags should be maintained or removed.
- Tribunal emphasized both parties should adhere in good faith to the July 20, 2022 Protocol pending the outcome of such review.

### Compensation and legal costs
- Injury assessed as arising from:
  - (a) imposition and maintenance of the entry ban without a reasonable and observable basis and without due process; and
  - (b) Fund’s assumption of guilt without providing Applicant sufficient information to defend himself.
- Aggravating factor: Fund’s refusal to meet with Applicant to discuss the allegation.
- Mitigating factors: some claimed harms were speculative and others could be addressed if Applicant used the July 20, 2022 Protocol.
- Monetary awards:
  - Compensation for intangible harm: $80,000.
  - Legal fees and costs awarded in full: $53,093.35.
- Tribunal’s approach to legal fees: reasonableness and proportionality, weighing Applicant’s successes and partial failures, the centrality and complexity of the chief complaint, and institutional significance of unawarded claims.

---


_Source: https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/imfat/j2025-5-summary.pdf_