## j2025-5 — JUDGMENT No. 2025-5 (“YY” v. International Monetary Fund) ## Source details **Canonical URL:** [j2025-5 — JUDGMENT No. 2025-5 (“YY” v. International Monetary Fund)](https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/imfat/j2025-5.pdf) ## Other formats - [Markdown version](/-/media/files/imfat/j2025-5.pdf.md) - [Structured JSON version](/-/media/files/imfat/j2025-5.pdf.json) --- ### Case overview - Tribunal: Administrative Tribunal of the International Monetary Fund. - Judgment No.: 2025-5. - Parties: “YY”, Applicant (retired Fund staff member) v. International Monetary Fund, Respondent. - Composition of Tribunal: Judge Nassib G. Ziadé (President), Judges Maria Vicien Milburn and Andrew K.C. Nyirenda. - Applicant’s counsel: Messrs. Peter C. Hansen, J. Michael King, and Francis E. Waliczek. - Respondent’s counsel: Ms. Evelyn Kachaje; Ms. Melissa Su Thomas (oral proceedings). - Subject of dispute: challenge to an April 13, 2021 decision banning Applicant’s entry to Fund Headquarters (“HQ”) following an allegation of sexual harassment by a Fund staff member (“Ms. A”). - Principal claims (Applicant): lack of due process, improper publicity of entry ban within a Fund department, adverse effects on Applicant’s post-Fund career. - Principal defenses (Respondent): jurisdictional objections; operative act is July 20, 2022 entry protocol; security justification; retirees have no legitimate expectation of HQ access; no misconduct investigation required for former staff; notice and opportunity to respond were provided. ### Procedural history & timeline - January 10, 2023: Application filed; transmitted January 12, 2023. - February 10 and 16, 2023: Respondent filed Motion for Summary Dismissal (Rule XII). - June 7, 2024: Tribunal denied Motion for Summary Dismissal (admissibility Judgment). Key holdings: - Jurisdiction ratione materiae: “administrative act” includes decisions impacting a Fund retiree’s access to Fund premises; both current and former staff have basic due process rights including the right to be heard. - Jurisdiction ratione temporis: April 13, 2021 entry ban set events in motion; July 20, 2022 communication was the “final formulation” and served as the dies a quo for timeliness. - Parties submitted merits directly after admissibility Judgment. - Oral proceedings held June 11, 2025. - Tribunal rendered Judgment: Administrative Tribunal of the International Monetary Fund, Washington, D.C., October 27, 2025. ### Factual background (key points and dates) - Applicant’s Fund service: joined 1982; retired 2008. - Post-retirement roles: professor in one country and Advisor to the Governor of the National Bank of another country (the “Member Country”). - Alleged relationship: consensual affair with Ms. A between 2010 and 2020; last communication claimed November 2020. - April 13, 2021 communication: Chief of HQ Security notified Applicant Ms. A had reported Applicant had “repeatedly sexually harassed her” and Applicant was barred from entering Fund HQ “for any reason, including as a guest or member of a delegation.” Notification warned further reports could lead to providing contact information for Metropolitan Police Department of Washington, DC, Federal Bureau of Investigation, the [Member Country] Police, and UN security officials covering [the Member Country]. No request for Applicant’s response; record shows no response at that time. - Key subsequent communications: - March 17, 2022: Applicant emailed Managing Director requesting restoration of entry as a Member Country delegate. - April 6, 2022: CSF Director denied Applicant’s request citing “credible concerns” warranting continued access restriction. - June 7, 2022: Applicant’s counsel proposed a six-point protocol for entry requests. - July 20, 2022: then Assistant General Counsel rejected proposal and issued two approaches for entry requests; July 20, 2022 protocol did not explicitly mention the sexual harassment allegation. - September 5, 2022: Governor of the National Bank requested expedited arrangements for Applicant’s entry for the 2022 Annual Meetings. - November 10, 2022: Fund’s Secretary replied restrictions remain in place; Communications Department staff member copied. - Early December 2022: Applicant learned Ms. A had been appointed to another Fund office and scheduled to return to HQ end-2025; Respondent confirmed Ms. A’s 2022 appointment and scheduled return end-2025. ### Requests for document production and Annex under seal - Applicant’s Document Requests included: - No. 1: all non-privileged preparatory or final work product connected with imposition and maintenance of Applicant’s entry ban. - No. 2: all Fund announcements/communications about him linked to his entry ban or any restriction on access. - Respondent submitted an Annex under seal and requested non-disclosure to Applicant; Tribunal directed redaction or withdrawal. Respondent withdrew the Annex. - Tribunal denied Document Request No. 2 after finding Applicant presented no evidence that the entry ban had been publicized within his former Department and Respondent stated no such documents exist. ### Parties’ principal claims (summary and remedies sought) - Applicant sought: - Rescission or Fund review conforming to WBAT jurisprudential rules. - Compensation of $300,000, plus any related tax allowance, for compensatory, moral and intangible damages. - Reimbursement of all fees and costs; other relief. - Respondent maintained: - Only July 20, 2022 protocol is properly before Tribunal. - Retirees have no legitimate expectation of access. - Ban was a reasonable security measure; disciplinary investigation not available for former staff. - Notice and opportunity to respond were provided; entry ban not communicated within Applicant’s former Department. ### Issues considered by the Tribunal - Whether the entry ban is reviewable despite April 13, 2021 being supplanted by July 20, 2022. - Whether retirees have a legitimate expectation of access to Fund HQ. - Whether the entry ban was a disciplinary measure requiring a misconduct investigation. - Whether the entry ban was justified and whether the Fund complied with due process, including: - Whether there was a reasonable and observable basis for the entry ban. - Whether Applicant was provided sufficient information to defend himself. - Whether the Fund made clear the nature, duration, and rationale for the entry ban. - Whether the Fund abused its discretion in imposing and maintaining the ban. - Whether the Fund inappropriately communicated the entry ban within Applicant’s former Department. - Whether WBAT jurisprudence and other international administrative tribunal guidance are applicable. ### Applicable legal guidance and standards - Article III of the Tribunal’s Statute: Tribunal applies Fund internal law and generally recognized principles of international administrative law. - Commentary: right to be heard (audi alteram partem) is generally applicable to decisions by international organizations, including the Fund. - WBAT jurisprudence considered applicable where reflecting generally recognized principles and not dependent on unique World Bank rules; given institutional proximity, WBAT standards on entry flags and due process are instructive. ### Tribunal findings and analysis — reviewability and retirees’ access - Reviewability: - July 20, 2022 communication is the “final formulation” of the April 13, 2021 entry ban and a separate administrative act for admissibility; Tribunal concludes the entry ban is subject to review. - Do retirees have a legitimate expectation of access? - Fund Administrative Manual “FAQs on IMF Building Access (for staff and visitors)”, paragraph 9: “[r]etiring staff may apply for a retiree badge which grants them access to the Fund during business hours.” - Tribunal conclusion: - A retired staff member has neither a right nor a legitimate expectation to access Fund HQ; access for retirees is a privilege. - Removal of a retiree’s access privilege is within the Fund’s discretion but must be based on valid security interests or other justifiable needs. - Differential treatment of a retiree without legitimate reason could raise discrimination concerns. - When the institution alleges a legitimate basis (e.g., security), the retiree must be afforded basic due process. ### Tribunal findings and analysis — disciplinary vs. security measure - Staff Handbook review: - Definitions and misconduct procedures apply to “staff” as employees; express references to former or retired staff are limited and misconduct investigations presuppose continuing employment. - Tribunal conclusion: - The entry ban was a security measure, not a disciplinary measure. - Applicant, as a former staff member, could not be subject to a misconduct investigation and was not entitled to one. ### Tribunal findings and analysis — abuse of discretion and due process (paras. 86–109) - WBAT standards applied (due process elements for access flags): - Reasonable and observable basis for access restriction. - Applicant must be given sufficient information to defend himself. - Nature, duration and rationale of the flag must be made clear. - Good-faith effort to solicit applicant’s informed response if flags are to be maintained. - (a) Reasonable and observable basis: - Respondent relied on an Annex (security risk assessment) it declined to submit redacted; Tribunal warned it might draw conclusions from withdrawal. - Absent the Annex, record was “devoid of evidence supporting the allegation” underlying the ban. - Tribunal concluded entry ban lacked a reasonable and observable basis and constituted an abuse of discretion, while leaving open that a future reasonable basis could be established after full review. (paras. 95–98) - (b) Sufficient information to defend: - April 13, 2021 notice named Ms. A and summarized allegation but provided no dates or context. - Subsequent communications did not clarify particulars; Applicant offered to meet and received no direct response. - Tribunal found Applicant was not provided sufficient information to meaningfully defend himself; this violated due process and was an abuse of discretion. (paras. 99–107) - (c) Nature, duration and rationale: - Nature and rationale were stated (do-not-admit list, badge deactivated) but duration was unspecified. - Tribunal found silence on duration “constitutes a violation of due process” and assumed guilt; failure to specify duration was an abuse of discretion. (paras. 108–113) - Maintenance of the ban: - Fund did not make a “good-faith effort” to solicit Applicant’s response; Fund adopted a “wait and see” posture leaving burden on Applicant. - Tribunal concluded maintenance without objective review and solicitation of Applicant’s response violated due process and was an abuse of discretion. (paras. 114–118) ### Tribunal findings — communication within Applicant’s former Department - Witness testimony suggested the ban was known in the first half of 2022 by at least one staff member; testimony was hearsay and afforded less weight. - Tribunal found Applicant did not demonstrate the staff member lacked a need to know and did not show compensable harm from alleged internal communications. - Conclusion: Applicant did not show the Fund inappropriately communicated the entry ban within his former Department. (paras. 119–126) ### Remedies, compensation, and costs - Remedial powers: Article XIV, Section 1 authorizes rescission and corrective measures; Tribunal interprets remedial powers to include rescission plus corrective measures, compensation for intangible injury due to procedural failure, and compensation where no rescission is ordered. (para. 134) - Rescission and review: - Tribunal did not order immediate rescission of the entry ban because it could not rule out that a fuller review might establish a reasonable and observable basis. - Tribunal invited Respondent to promptly solicit Applicant’s response “for the purpose of providing an objective decision-maker with sufficient evidence” to determine whether access flags should be maintained or removed. - Pending that review, both parties should adhere in good faith to the July 20, 2022 entry protocol. (para. 135) - Compensation for intangible injury: - Applicant sought $300,000 plus related tax allowance. - Tribunal accepted Applicant suffered intangible injury from assumption of guilt and procedural failures but found some claimed harms speculative and mitigable. - Award: compensation of $80,000 to Applicant. (para. 141) - Legal fees and costs: - Applicant sought $53,093.35 in legal fees and costs. - Tribunal found fees submitted were neither unreasonable nor disproportionate to counsel’s contribution and applied Article XIV, Section 4. - Award: Respondent shall pay Applicant legal fees and costs in the sum of $53,093.35, including fees for the successful Objection to Respondent’s Motion for Summary Dismissal. (para. 146) ### Decision (enumerated outcomes) - The Tribunal unanimously decides: 1. “YY” prevailed on claim that the entry ban is subject to review. 2. “YY” did not prevail on claim that retirees have a legitimate expectation of access to Fund HQ; such access is a privilege removable for valid security interests or justifiable needs; absent legitimate reason, differential treatment could raise discrimination concerns; where Fund alleges a legitimate basis, basic due process must be afforded. 3. “YY” did not prevail on claim that the entry ban constituted a disciplinary measure requiring a misconduct investigation. Claims under items (2) and (3) are dismissed. 4. “YY” prevailed on claim that imposition and maintenance of the entry ban lack an observable and reasonable basis and violate due process; these decisions constitute an abuse of discretion. Rescission is not ordered; Fund invited to solicit Applicant’s response and conduct fuller review; pending outcome, July 20, 2022 protocol to be followed in good faith. 5. “YY” did not prevail on claim that Fund inappropriately communicated the entry ban within his former Department. Claim dismissed. 6. Award of compensation to “YY”: $80,000 for intangible injury. 7. Respondent shall pay “YY” legal fees and costs: $53,093.35. 8. All other claims for relief are denied. - Procedural direction: Respondent permitted to conduct fuller review and solicit Applicant’s response; pending review parties to adhere in good faith to the July 20, 2022 entry protocol. *Administrative Tribunal of the International Monetary Fund, JUDGMENT No. 2025-5 (“YY”, Applicant v. International Monetary Fund, Respondent), Washington, D.C., October 27, 2025.* ### INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... ### INTRODUCTION ### Case overview - Tribunal: Administrative Tribunal of the International Monetary Fund. - Judgment No.: 2025-5. - Parties: “YY”, Applicant (retired Fund staff member) v. International Monetary Fund, Respondent. - Composition of Tribunal: Judge Nassib G. Ziadé (President), Judges Maria Vicien Milburn and Andrew K.C. Nyirenda. - Applicant’s counsel: Messrs. Peter C. Hansen, J. Michael King, and Francis E. Waliczek, Law Offices of Peter C. Hansen, LLC. - Respondent’s counsel: Ms. Evelyn Kachaje, Counsel, Administrative Law Unit, IMF Legal Department; Ms. Melissa Su Thomas, Assistant General Counsel (oral proceedings). ### Nature of the dispute - Subject: challenge to an April 13, 2021 decision to ban Applicant’s entry to Fund Headquarters (“HQ”) buildings following an allegation of sexual harassment by a Fund staff member (“Ms. A”). - Applicant’s principal claims: lack of due process, improper publicity of the entry ban within a Fund department, and adverse effects on Applicant’s post-Fund career. - Respondent’s principal defenses: jurisdictional objections (Motion for Summary Dismissal), characterization of the operative administrative act as the July 20, 2022 entry protocol, security justification for the ban, denial that retirees have a legitimate expectation of HQ access, assertion that no misconduct investigation was required for a former staff member, and that notice and opportunity to respond were provided. ### Procedural history highlights - Application filed: January 10, 2023. - Respondent filed Motion for Summary Dismissal (grounds: lack of jurisdiction ratione materiae and ratione temporis). - Parties agreed to stay Grievance Committee proceedings pending Tribunal decision on the Motion for Summary Dismissal. - Tribunal Judgment on admissibility: June 7, 2024 — denied Motion for Summary Dismissal as not “clearly inadmissible” under Rule XII of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. - Jurisdiction ratione materiae: Tribunal held that the term “administrative act” under Article II of the Tribunal’s Statute includes decisions impacting a Fund retiree’s access to Fund premises; both current and former staff have basic due process rights including the right to be heard. - Jurisdiction ratione temporis: Tribunal held the April 13, 2021 entry ban set in motion subsequent acts; the July 20, 2022 communication constituted “the final formulation” of the initial entry ban and thus served as the dies a quo for timeliness of Applicant’s Grievance to the Grievance Committee. - Parties agreed to submit the merits directly to the Tribunal following the admissibility Judgment. ### Scope of contested acts - Applicant challenges: “Entry Ban, Refusal to Grant Entry Request, Denial of Due Process, Publication of Entry Ban, inter alia.” - Respondent’s position on what is properly before the Tribunal: the July 20, 2022 entry protocol is the operative act and was a reasonable exercise of discretion. --- ### FACTUAL BACKGROUND - Applicant’s Fund service: joined 1982; retired 2008. - Post-retirement roles claimed by Applicant: professor in one country and Advisor to the Governor of the National Bank of another country (the “Member Country”). - Alleged relationship: consensual “on-again-off-again romantic affair” with IMF staff member Ms. A between 2010 and 2020; last communication claimed by Applicant with Ms. A was in November 2020. - April 13, 2021 communication: Chief of HQ Security notified Applicant that Ms. A had reported Applicant had “repeatedly sexually harassed her” and that Applicant was barred from entering Fund HQ “for any reason, including as a guest or member of a delegation.” The notification stated that further reports could lead to provision of contact information for Metropolitan Police Department of Washington, DC, Federal Bureau of Investigation, the [Member Country] Police, and UN security officials covering [the Member Country]. The notification did not request Applicant’s response; the record does not show any response from Applicant at that time. - Respondent’s testimony at oral proceedings: no formal complaints had been raised against Applicant during his employment; had the allegation been raised while Applicant was staff, an Office of Internal Investigations investigation would have been conducted; because Applicant was a former staff member, a security assessment was conducted instead. Key communications and dates: - March 17, 2022: Applicant emailed Managing Director attaching letter requesting restoration of his “right” to enter Fund HQ as a Member Country delegate; asserted surprise and lack of due diligence, offered virtual meeting with Ethics Officer and/or Ombudsperson. - April 1, 2022: Applicant forwarded March 17 letter to Ethics Advisor and Ombudsperson. - April 4, 2022: Ethics Advisor replied by e-mail that “[t]he matter is currently under consideration.” Copy to Managing Director and Ombudsman. - April 6, 2022: Director for Corporate Services and Facilities (“CSF Director”) denied Applicant’s request, citing “credible concerns” warranting continued access restriction. - April 22, 2022: Applicant’s counsel wrote to HRD Director, Internal Investigator, and Chief of HQ Security requesting removal of entry flag or at least a fair investigation; stated OII had never contacted Applicant. - May 12, 2022: then Assistant General Counsel responded emphasizing that “[m]aintaining security” is “a fundamental duty of the Fund, and entry into the Fund’s premises is not a right,” and that “in the event there are compelling circumstances that may warrant granting [Applicant] exceptional access to the buildings, the Fund will make an assessment based on the Fund’s business needs and security considerations.” - June 7, 2022: Applicant’s counsel sent a proposed six-point protocol for entry requests with specific timelines, criteria, right of response, and provision for administrative review. - July 10 and July 20, 2022: applicant’s counsel reiterated request for Respondent’s response. - July 20, 2022: then Assistant General Counsel rejected the proposed protocol and set out two different approaches (with specific criteria) for entry requests depending on whether the request was from a Member Country or from Applicant “should there be compelling circumstances”; emphasized decisions are at “the sole discretion of the Fund, based on its business needs and security considerations at the relevant time.” The July 20, 2022 protocol did not specifically mention the sexual harassment allegation. - August 18, 2022: Applicant’s counsel stated Fund’s position “is not acceptable” because it treats Applicant as a wrongdoer without proper review and treats Member State requests with disdain. - Summer 2022: Applicant asserts he learned through contacts that staff in Applicant’s former Department had been informed that Applicant had been banned from entering Fund premises. At oral proceedings, a witness testified he heard about the ban (but not the basis) in the first half of 2022 from another IMF staff member in Applicant’s former Department; the witness understood the ban had been communicated within the Department either orally or in writing; the staff member had not told him the information was confidential; the witness declined to disclose the identity of the staff member. - September 5, 2022: Governor of the National Bank of the Member Country wrote to Managing Director requesting expedited arrangements for Applicant’s entry to Fund HQ ahead of the 2022 Annual Meetings; the request did not address the criteria in the July 20, 2022 protocol for Member Country requests. - Fund response to Governor’s request: November 10, 2022 letter from the Fund’s Secretary on behalf of the Managing Director stating restrictions remain in place and that “this matter was handled fully in accordance with how the Fund addresses such cases.” A staff member from Respondent’s Communications Department was copied on the letter. - Early December 2022: Applicant reportedly learned Ms. A had been appointed to a position in another Fund office outside of HQ in a different region and that she is scheduled to return to Fund HQ at the end of 2025. Respondent confirmed Ms. A’s 2022 appointment and scheduled return end-2025. --- ### PROCEDURE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL - Application filed: January 10, 2023. - Grievance committee: Applicant filed a Grievance simultaneously with the Application; proceedings stayed pending Tribunal’s admissibility decision. - Admissibility Judgment: June 7, 2024 — Tribunal denied Respondent’s Motion for Summary Dismissal. - Parties agreed to submit merits directly to the Tribunal after the admissibility Judgment. - The Tribunal composed the case pursuant to Article VII, Section 4 of the Tribunal’s Statute. --- ### PARTY CONTENTIONS (SUMMARY) - Applicant’s principal contentions (summarized): - The April 13, 2021 entry ban was imposed without due process and without investigation; OII never contacted Applicant. - The ban was publicized within Applicant’s former Department, causing reputational harm. - The ban impedes Applicant’s role with the Member Country and post-Fund career. - Applicant requested procedures and an opportunity to respond; proposed a six-point protocol (June 7, 2022) which was rejected; challenged the Fund’s final July 20, 2022 protocol as inadequate. - Respondent’s principal contentions (summarized): - The only properly contested administrative act is the July 20, 2022 entry protocol; the Fund exercised reasonable discretion. - Retirees have no legitimate expectation of access to Fund HQ. - The entry ban was imposed for security reasons to protect staff and was therefore an appropriate exercise of discretion. - As a former staff member, Applicant was not entitled to a misconduct investigation; a security assessment was the appropriate procedure. - Applicant was provided notice of the ban, the reason for it, and an opportunity to respond. - Denies that the entry ban was communicated within Applicant’s former Department. --- ### ISSUES CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL (OUTLINE) - Whether the entry ban is subject to review despite the April 13, 2021 ban being supplanted by the July 20, 2022 final formulation. - Whether retirees have a legitimate expectation of access to Fund HQ. - Whether the entry ban constituted a disciplinary measure requiring a misconduct investigation. - Whether the entry ban was justified and whether the Fund complied with due process, including consideration of: - Relevant WBAT jurisprudence. - Whether the Fund abused its discretion in imposing the entry ban in its final formulation, including: - Whether there was a reasonable and observable basis for the entry ban. - Whether Applicant was provided sufficient information to defend himself. - Whether the Fund made clear to Applicant the nature, duration and rationale for the entry ban. - Whether the Fund abused its discretion in maintaining the entry ban. - Whether the Fund inappropriately communicated the entry ban within Applicant’s former Department. --- ### CONCLUSIONS, REMEDIES, AND DECISION (STRUCTURE) - The Tribunal’s full findings, conclusions, and remedies are set out in the Judgment and include: - Conclusions of the Tribunal (starting at paragraph indicated in source). - Remedies sections addressing: - Remedies for intangible injury. - Legal fees and costs. - Final Decision. *Administrative Tribunal of the International Monetary Fund, JUDGMENT No. 2025-5 (“YY”, Applicant v. International Monetary Fund, Respondent).* ### 24. On January 10, 2023, Applicant filed his Application with the Tribunal. He challenges the ### j2025-5 - 24. On January 10, 2023, Applicant filed his Application with the Tribunal. He challenges the ### Procedural history and timeline - January 10, 2023: Applicant filed his Application challenging the “Entry Ban” (April 13, 2021 decision) and the “Refusal to Grant Entry Request, Denial of Due Process, Publication of Entry Ban, inter alia.” The Application was transmitted to Respondent on January 12, 2023. - January 13, 2023: Registrar circulated a notice summarizing issues raised in the Application pursuant to Rule IV(f). - February 10, 2023: Respondent filed a Motion for Summary Dismissal pursuant to Rule XII; Respondent supplemented the Motion on February 16, 2023; Motion transmitted to Applicant on February 17, 2023. - March 20–31, 2023: Applicant filed Objection to the Motion and supplemented it following Registrar requests; Objection transmitted to Respondent on March 31, 2023. - January 12–25, 2024: Registrar requested documentation of costs; Applicant filed Request for Costs on January 17, 2024 (transmitted January 19, 2024); Respondent commented on January 25, 2024 (transmitted February 5, 2024). - June 7, 2024: Tribunal rendered Judgment on the Admissibility of the Application, denying Respondent’s Motion. - August 14–26, 2024: Respondent filed Answer and requested an Annex be placed under seal (“Seal Request”); Respondent supplemented Answer on August 23, 2024; supplemented Answer and Seal Request transmitted to Applicant on August 26, 2024. - September 3–27, 2024: Applicant filed comments on Seal Request and requested extension to file Reply; Tribunal decided on production requests and Seal Request on September 9, 2024; Respondent responded to Tribunal decision on September 13 and withdrew the Annex on September 27, 2024. - September 20, 2024: Tribunal granted a three-week extension for Applicant to file the Reply. - October 16–17, 2024: Applicant filed Reply; transmitted to Respondent on October 17, 2024. - November 18, 2024: Respondent filed Rejoinder; transmitted to Applicant the same day. - April 3, 2025: Tribunal notified parties of decision on Applicant’s request for oral proceedings. - June 4–11, 2025: Respondent sought leave to submit a witness statement (transmitted June 4, 2025); Applicant filed comments on June 6, 2025; Tribunal decided on June 9, 2025; oral proceedings held on June 11, 2025. - June 23–July 7, 2025: Applicant filed Supplementary Request for Costs (transmitted June 27, 2025); Fund filed Response on July 3, 2025 (transmitted July 7, 2025). ### Requests for production of documents and Annex under seal - Applicant’s Document Requests (pursuant to Rule XVII): - Document Request No. 1: “The Fund’s production of all non-privileged preparatory or final work product connected with the imposition and maintenance of [Applicant’s] entry ban”. - Document Request No. 2: “The Fund’s production of all Fund announcements, notices, communications, notes to file, etc., about him in any forum or media, and to any persons or groups, if these announcements are in any reasonable way linked to, or reference[], his entry ban or . . . any other restriction on his access to the Fund”. - Nexus and Annex: - Respondent asserted Applicant was “already in possession of all relevant materials and the record is complete,” but stated the Annex submitted under seal was “corroborating documentation” supporting the entry restrictions, creating a nexus to Document Request No. 1. - Respondent requested that the Annex not be shared with Applicant due to an “ongoing security risk that Applicant poses to Ms. [A], and the predictable aggravation of that risk if Applicant—the abuser—is aggrandized with details of the effect that his abuse has had on Ms. [A].” - Applicant objected, arguing: (a) the alleged “effect” is not dispositive and does not override “any duty of fairness”; (b) disclosure would not aggravate risk given Ms. A “evidently never sought a local restraining order”; (c) the Fund would have evidence on file if Applicant had acted inappropriately; and (d) due process requires more than conclusory assertions. - Tribunal directed Respondent to submit the Annex with appropriate redactions to address safety and confidentiality while ensuring comprehensibility and integrity, and allowed Respondent to withdraw the Annex if it declined redaction, warning the Tribunal may draw conclusions from such withdrawal. Respondent withdrew the Annex. - Document Request No. 2 resolution: - Applicant asserted staff in his former Department were informed that he had been banned; he sought compensation for “the Fund’s publication of his entry ban.” - Tribunal observed Applicant presented no evidence that the entry ban was disclosed to Department staff; Respondent stated “there are no such documents, as the entry ban against Applicant was not in any way publicized or distributed, other than where the ban was directly communicated to individuals with a strict-need-to-know as necessary to enact the ban.” - Tribunal applied precedent denying production where Respondent asserts no documents exist and Applicant proffers no evidence suggesting existence; Tribunal denied Document Request No. 2. ### Oral proceedings and witness testimony - Applicant requested oral proceedings, permission to appear as a fact witness, and that another named fact witness be allowed to testify; Respondent opposed as duplicative and unhelpful. - Governing provisions cited: - Article XII of the Tribunal’s Statute: Tribunal shall “decide in each case whether oral proceedings are warranted.” - Rule XIII(1): proceedings held if Tribunal “deems such proceedings useful.” - Rule XIII(3): Tribunal will decide on applications for hearing of witnesses. - Rule XIII(6): Tribunal may limit oral proceedings to oral arguments where written evidentiary record is adequate. - Tribunal practice and approach: - Recent practice: hold oral proceedings where expressly requested by applicants, limiting them to oral arguments of counsel. - Oral proceedings can clarify legal issues and probe disputes of fact even when the evidentiary record is complete. - Witness testimony is less likely where Tribunal has transcripts of Grievance Committee hearings; it will be rare to admit witness testimony in such cases absent a showing of usefulness to clarify a material point. - Tribunal decision in this case: - Case is of first impression and lacked Grievance Committee transcripts; Tribunal granted Applicant’s request and concluded oral proceedings would allow hearing from Applicant’s counsel, Respondent’s counsel, the witness proposed by Applicant, and Applicant himself. ### Respondent’s request to submit a witness statement and Tribunal’s ruling - June 4, 2025: Respondent requested to submit a witness affidavit from Ms. A to contest descriptions in the Judgment on admissibility; Applicant opposed. - Procedural background cited by Tribunal: - April 11, 2025 invitation for Respondent to confirm witnesses by April 18, 2025; on April 18, 2025 Respondent confirmed it did not intend to call any witnesses. - May 23, 2025 procedural ruling: “In the interest of the orderly conduct of the oral proceedings, no new document shall be submitted during the oral proceedings.” - Tribunal emphasized procedural rulings were to afford reasonable opportunity to prepare and avoid last-minute surprises. - Tribunal conclusion: - Respondent’s request came almost one year after the Judgment on admissibility and on the eve of the hearing on the merits; granting it would defeat procedural rulings’ purpose. Respondent’s request was denied. ### Summary of parties’ principal contentions - Applicant’s principal contentions: 1. The entry ban is subject to the Tribunal’s review; the original April 13, 2021 ban remains reviewable notwithstanding the July 20, 2022 reformulation for jurisdictional purposes. 2. As a retiree, Applicant has a legitimate expectation of access to Fund HQ. 3. Respondent wrongly treated Applicant as guilty of misconduct; Applicant expected an investigation to follow the accusations. 4. The primary question is whether the Fund owes due process to Applicant regarding the entry ban, and whether the ban has a reasonable, non-arbitrary basis. 5. Respondent barred Applicant from HQ under the pretext of “security” without a reasonable and observable basis, and maintained the ban after Ms. A’s reassignment outside HQ. 6. WBAT precedents on entry bans “present fundamental tenets of due process in international administrative law” and those standards should be adopted by Respondent and this Tribunal. 7. Respondent caused extreme harm by broadcasting his entry ban within his former Department, harming post-Fund career prospects and jeopardizing employment by the Member Country. 8. Relief sought: - rescission of the entry ban as arbitrary and capricious or an Order requiring a Fund review conforming to WBAT jurisprudential rules and principles; - compensation of $300,000, plus any related tax allowance, as compensatory, moral and intangible damages for imposition, maintenance, and publication of the entry ban and denials of due process; - reimbursement of all fees and costs incurred by Applicant; - all other relief the Tribunal deems just and appropriate. - Respondent’s principal contentions: 1. April 13, 2021 notification informed Applicant of allegations and reasons for the entry ban; Applicant chose not to respond; thus the entry ban is not subject to review and only the July 20, 2022 entry protocol is properly before the Tribunal, which was a reasonable exercise of discretion. 2. Respondent’s policies create no legitimate expectation of access to Fund HQ by retirees; any access is a privilege assessed against Fund interests. 3. International administrative tribunals, including WBAT, recognize former staff do not have a right to access former employers’ buildings and employers may favor current staff security over retirees’ access privileges. 4. Restricting Applicant from Fund premises was a necessary and reasonable security measure and an appropriate exercise of Respondent’s discretion. 5. Standard for establishing an entry ban for security reasons is distinct from proving misconduct; Respondent could not initiate investigation or disciplinary procedures because Applicant was no longer a staff member. 6. Due process does not require opportunity to respond to every detail of evidence; notice of allegations and summaries of evidence suffice even in disciplinary contexts. 7. The entry ban was not communicated within Applicant’s former Department. ### Tribunal’s consideration of due process principles - The Tribunal cited the Commentary on the Tribunal’s Statute that certain principles—such as the right to be heard (audi alteram partem)—are widely accepted and “regarded as generally applicable to all decisions taken by international organizations, including the Fund.” - The Tribunal has consistently emphasized the importance of the right to be heard as a component of the Fund’s internal law and general principles of international administrative law. - Precedent cited: the right to be heard applies not only in disciplinary contexts but in non-disciplinary circumstances as well; both current and former staff have basic rights to due process, including the right to be heard. *Judgment of the Tribunal (IMF Administrative Tribunal).* ### 58. The principal question to be determined on the merits concerns the contours of this right to ### 58. The principal question to be determined on the merits concerns the contours of this right to ### Applicability of other international administrative tribunals and Article III of the Statute - Article III of the Statute requires that “[i]n deciding on an application, the Tribunal shall apply the internal law of the Fund, including generally recognized principles of international administrative law concerning judicial review of administrative acts.” - The Commentary to Article III clarifies that decisions dependent on the particular law of an organization (e.g., precise language of a staff regulation) are specific to that organization and not part of the general principles of international administrative law. - Given lacunae in the Fund’s internal law and the Tribunal’s jurisprudence on the right to be heard for retired staff subject to entry bans, guidance from other international administrative tribunals may be instructive: - Such guidance is permissible only to the extent it is not dependent on a particular law of the other organization and reflects “generally recognized principles of international administrative law concerning judicial review of administrative acts.” - The guidance must be applicable to, and appropriate for, the Fund. ### Relevance of World Bank Administrative Tribunal (WBAT) jurisprudence - Parties relied principally on WBAT jurisprudence; the Tribunal previously found WBAT jurisprudence “not persuasive” where it assessed the World Bank’s unique policy framework governing access to the World Bank. - The Tribunal will consider WBAT jurisprudence where it is applicable and appropriate for the Fund and reflective of general principles of international administrative law. - Facts supporting relevance of WBAT decisions: - The Bank and Fund are Bretton Woods institutions with close physical and operational connections (shared premises during Fall and Spring Meetings; common facilities; subterranean passageway). - The Fund admits onto its premises all persons assessed and admitted by the Bank under the WBAT’s standards; a Bank security pass can gain access to IMF buildings and vice versa. - Conclusion: Close institutional connections make a common analytical due process approach to entry bans both reasonable and practical; WBAT jurisprudence will be considered to the extent appropriate. ### Issues the Tribunal will address to resolve the principal question - The Tribunal will address these issues based on decisions challenged by Applicant and party contentions: - (a) Is the entry ban subject to review even though the original entry ban of April 13, 2021 was supplanted by the July 20, 2022 final formulation of the ban? - (b) Do retirees have a legitimate expectation of access to Fund HQ? - (c) Did the entry ban constitute a disciplinary measure for which a misconduct investigation should have been conducted? - (d) Is the entry ban justified and has the Fund complied with due process? - The Tribunal will also assess Applicant’s assertion that the Fund inappropriately communicated the entry ban within his former Department. ### A. Reviewability of the entry ban (April 13, 2021 supplanted by July 20, 2022) - Background findings: - As of April 13, 2021 Applicant was apprised of the entry ban, the reason for the entry ban and the source of the complaint. - Applicant had an opportunity to respond to the April 13, 2021 entry ban but failed to do so in a timely manner. - The Tribunal characterized the July 20, 2022 communication (detailing a protocol to request access to Fund premises) as the “final formulation of the initial entry ban [of April 13, 2021,]” and a “separate administrative act for purposes of assessing admissibility.” - Using July 20, 2022 as the dies a quo, Applicant’s Grievance was timely filed and the Application was admissible. - Parties’ positions: - Fund: Applicant is precluded from challenging the original entry ban; only the July 20, 2022 “detailed protocol for Applicant to request access to Fund HQ” is properly before the Tribunal. - Applicant: The challenged entry ban is the final replacement devised by the Fund to govern the sui generis arrangement and is not an accretive set of independent decisions. - Tribunal’s factual observations: - The April 13, 2021 entry ban explicitly referenced a sexual harassment allegation: Ms. A reported that Applicant had “repeatedly sexually harassed her” and Applicant was barred from entering Fund HQ “for any reason, including as a guest or member of a delegation.” - The July 20, 2022 entry protocol did not explicitly reference the sexual harassment allegation but was grounded on that allegation; but for the sexual harassment allegation, there would be no entry protocol. - The Tribunal recognized the July 20, 2022 communication as the final formulation of the initial entry ban. - Conclusion: - The Tribunal concludes that the entry ban is subject to review. ### B. Do retirees have a legitimate expectation of access to Fund HQ? - Source material: - Fund Administrative Manual “FAQs on IMF Building Access (for staff and visitors)”, paragraph 9: “[r]etiring staff may apply for a retiree badge which grants them access to the Fund during business hours.” - Applicant’s position: - The phrase “grant . . . access” establishes “an actual entry right” and means retirees can move freely through Fund checkpoints by presenting a retiree badge. - Applicant acknowledged at oral proceedings that a retiree’s entry is a privilege, not a right, but suggested the privilege is equivalent to a legitimate expectation. - Fund’s position: - Paragraph 9 is merely procedural guidance and establishes no obligation or substantive limitation on the Fund’s authority; retirees have “no legitimate expectation of access to Fund HQ.” - Tribunal analysis: - The FAQs are informal guidance, not a policy. - “Grant . . . access” does not mean unfettered access; institutions may limit access in the interest of maintaining security. - WBAT jurisprudence aligns: former staff are not presumed to have the same access rights as present staff; access is a privilege and not always guaranteed; access limitations are grounded in security interests; even placement of access “flags” must follow due process elements (written notification and right to reply). - Findings and legal conclusion: - A retired staff member has neither a right nor a legitimate expectation to access Fund HQ; access for retirees is a privilege. - Removal of a retiree’s access privilege is within the Fund’s discretion but must be based on valid security interests or other justifiable needs. - Differential treatment of a retiree compared with other retirees, absent a legitimate reason, could raise discrimination concerns. - When the institution alleges a legitimate basis for removal of access privileges (e.g., maintaining security), the retiree must be afforded basic due process. ### C. Was the entry ban a disciplinary measure requiring a misconduct investigation? - Applicant’s assertions: - The April 13, 2021 entry ban “unmistakenly” indicated he “was guilty of ‘sexual harassment’” and thus the entry ban was a disciplinary measure. - He contends he was entitled to an OII investigation and due process protections applicable to misconduct cases. - Record review: - April 13, 2021 notice, with subject line “[s]exual harassment allegation,” stated Ms. A had “reported” that Applicant had “repeatedly sexually harassed her” and had ignored her “numerous” pleas to stop — it reported an allegation, not a finding of guilt. - Subsequent Fund communications emphasized security considerations and the Fund’s duty to maintain security; later communications did not reference the sexual harassment allegation explicitly. - There is no indication in the record that the entry ban resulted from a disciplinary decision or that a formal investigation was conducted. - Fund’s position: - Because Applicant was no longer a staff member, the Fund could not initiate an investigation or disciplinary procedures; the case is solely about discretion to impose reasonable security measures. - Staff Handbook analysis: - Relevant versions reviewed: December 2020, July 2021, March 2022, August 2022. - Chapter 11.01 (Standards of Conduct), Section 1.1 (General) frames standards as duties and obligations “of Fund employment” and is incumbent on “staff.” - “Staff member” is defined as “a full-time or part-time employee of the Fund who has been appointed to either a regular or term position and whose letter of appointment indicates that he or she is a ‘staff member of the Fund.’” This definition recurs in Chapter 11.02 (Misconduct and Disciplinary Procedures). - Express references to former or retired staff in the Staff Handbook are limited to benefits, taxes, verification of employment, references, re-employment, and limited access to dispute mechanisms. - The Handbook indicates misconduct investigations are predicated on an ongoing employment relationship. - Comparative tribunal practice: - Recent jurisprudence (United Nations Appeals Tribunal referenced) recognizes organizations lack capacity and duty to conduct disciplinary measures once a staff member has left the organization. - Findings and legal conclusion: - The entry ban did not constitute a disciplinary measure. - Applicant, as a former staff member, could not be subject to a misconduct investigation and was not entitled to one. - The entry ban was properly characterized as a security measure. *International Monetary Fund — Tribunal findings and analysis (excerpt).* ### 86. Applicant refers to a number of WBAT cases in support of his argument that certain ### Applicant refers to a number of WBAT cases in support of his argument that certain standards and due process protections apply to retired staff regarding access restrictions ### Relevant WBAT jurisprudence - The WBAT emphasized that “the placement of any flags, for whatever purpose, must follow the basic elements of due process, including, specifically, written notification and the right to reply,” and observed that “different considerations apply depending on whether the matter is one of misconduct or of security.” The WBAT “does not make a distinction between current and former staff on the question of due process.” (paras. 87–88) - Where a flag is imposed because of misconduct, the relevant determination is whether the Bank “establish[ed] the existence of facts substantiating misconduct.” Where flags are imposed for security reasons, the question is whether “the Bank abused its discretion in placing flags in the Applicant’s personnel files as a matter of security,” with such discretion characterized as “broad.” (para. 88) - In assessing abuse of discretion for access restrictions, WBAT standards include: - The Bank “is not precluded from entering and maintaining flags as a preliminary safeguard pending due process,” but there must be a “reasonable and observable basis for the access restriction.” (para. 89) - An applicant must be “provided with sufficient information” to exercise his right to defend himself. (para. 89) - The Bank is “obliged to make expressly clear to the [a]pplicant the nature, duration and rationale of each flag placed in Bank records.” (para. 89) - To maintain flags, the Bank must engage in a “good-faith effort to garner the staff member’s informed response to the allegations” so an objective decision-maker has “sufficient evidence” to determine whether flags should be maintained or removed. (para. 89) - The Tribunal finds these WBAT standards derive from general principles of international administrative law (due process and the right to be heard), are not grounded on any particular World Bank staff rule, and are applicable and appropriate to the Fund given institutional proximity and shared access. A common analytical framework enhances confidence that access restrictions are reasonable and afford due process to current and former staff. (para. 90) - The Tribunal frames the principal questions to apply these standards as: (i) whether the Fund abused its discretion in imposing the entry ban in its final formulation; and (ii) whether the Fund abused its discretion in maintaining the entry ban. (para. 91) ### Did the Fund abuse its discretion in imposing the entry ban in its final formulation? - The Tribunal sets out three sub-questions for the first issue: (a) whether there was a reasonable and observable basis for the entry ban; (b) whether Applicant was provided with sufficient information to defend himself; and (c) whether the Fund made clear the nature, duration and rationale for the entry restriction. (para. 92) - (a) Was there a reasonable and observable basis for the entry ban? - The Fund states that IMF Security conducted a risk assessment reflecting “extensive due diligence by Security in 2021 and again in 2022,” included in an “Annex Under Seal” with the Fund’s Response on the Merits. The Fund requested that the Annex not be shared with Applicant “because of the ongoing security risk that Applicant poses to Ms. A, and the predictable aggravation of that risk if Applicant—the abuser—is aggrandized with details of the effect that his abuse has had on Ms. [A].” (para. 93) - The Tribunal directed the Fund to submit a redacted Annex; the Fund elected not to submit a redacted version, thereby implying withdrawal of the Annex. The Tribunal warned it may draw conclusions from such withdrawal. (para. 94) - Absent the Annex, the Fund asserts only that Applicant “is assessed to pose ongoing security risks to a current Fund staff member, Ms. [A],” reflected in the April 13, 2021 notice and “further corroborated” by subsequent correspondence, including an April 6, 2022 letter referencing “credible concerns raised by a current serving staff member” and stating such “concerns persist and warrant continued access restriction to Fund premises.” The Fund argues the Tribunal “should not substitute [its] own judgment for that of Fund Security.” (para. 95) - The Tribunal finds the record (absent the Annex) “devoid of evidence supporting the allegation” that served as the basis for the entry ban. The Tribunal rejects the Fund’s invitation to accept Fund Security’s conclusions without review, noting that would interfere with the Tribunal’s role in determining whether Fund Security’s assessment was reasonable and observable. (para. 96) - The Tribunal compares a WBAT case where an access restriction based on a post-employment allegation lacked a reasonable and observable basis because there was “neither evidence that the threat was substantiated nor evidence that the [a]pplicant’s [m]anager held continued concerns for her safety,” despite the manager’s statements to HR; HR “acted solely on the words of the [a]pplicant’s [m]anager and the advice of Corporate Security which did not investigate the matter.” (para. 97) - The Fund’s refusal to submit the Annex leaves the Tribunal similarly constrained and leads to the conclusion that the entry ban was based only on the complainant’s word and Fund Security advice; consequently, the entry ban “lacks a reasonable and observable basis and constitutes an abuse of discretion.” The Tribunal notes this conclusion does not preclude a future reasonable basis following a full Fund review that considers Applicant’s response. (para. 98) - (b) Was Applicant provided sufficient information to defend himself against the entry ban? - The April 13, 2021 entry ban notification named Ms. A and stated she had reported that Applicant had “repeatedly sexually harassed her” and that Ms. A had “on numerous occasions, asked [Applicant] in very clear terms to stop contacting her and [Applicant] ha[s] ignored those pleas and ha[s] continued to pursue her.” The notice did not provide dates or additional context. (para. 99) - Subsequent Fund communications did not clarify the allegation. The April 6, 2022 letter advised the entry ban remained due to “credible concerns” that “persist and warrant continued access restriction to Fund premises.” The July 20, 2022 protocol did not address duration or the alleged basis. Applicant offered three times to meet with Fund officials to discuss the allegation and received no direct response. (para. 100) - The Fund argued Applicant should have understood dates and context from the allegation itself; the Tribunal observes this assumes Applicant’s culpability and precludes due process. The Fund also argued “[d]ue process does not require the opportunity to respond to every detail of the evidence,” citing ILOAT and UNAT cases. (paras. 101–102) - The Tribunal distinguishes the cited ILOAT and UNAT authorities: in those cases there were misconduct investigations and staff were “fully informed of the precise allegations” and provided with witness summaries or were “able to mount a defense and had ample opportunities to make his case.” The due process issues in those cases differ from the present case because here there was no investigator-led process providing details to Applicant. (paras. 103–105) - The Tribunal cites UNAT’s emphasis that “[d]ue process rights of a staff member are complied with as long as s/he has a meaningful opportunity to mount a defense and to question the veracity of the statements against him.” The Tribunal finds Applicant was not provided enough information to have a meaningful opportunity to defend himself or to question the veracity of the allegation. (para. 106) - Conclusion: Respondent did not provide Applicant sufficient information to defend himself against the sexual harassment allegation forming the basis of the entry ban. This was a violation of due process and an abuse of discretion. (para. 107) - (c) Did the Fund make clear to Applicant the nature, duration and rationale for the entry ban? - The April 13, 2021 notification informed Applicant his name had been placed on the “Fund Headquarters’ do not admit list,” his “retiree badge ha[d] been deactivated and [he would] not be permitted entry into Fund Headquarters for any reason, including as a guest or member of a delegation.” The notification made clear the nature and rationale of the ban but not the duration. (para. 108) - The notice conveyed a tone of finality by informing Applicant that if the Fund received “further reports from [Ms. A] that [Applicant] ha[d] attempted to contact her or continue to harass her, [the Fund would] provide her with the relevant contact information for the Metropolitan Police Department of Washington, DC, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, as well as the [Member Country] Police and the UN security officials covering [the Member Country], so that she may pursue any claims she may have against [Applicant].” Subsequent Fund communications were likewise silent on the question of duration. (para. 109) ### Key findings and implications - The Tribunal applies WBAT standards derived from due process and the right to be heard and finds those standards applicable and appropriate to the Fund given institutional linkages. (para. 90) - The Tribunal concludes the Fund abused its discretion in imposing the entry ban in its final formulation because: - The entry ban, absent the Annex, lacked a reasonable and observable basis and was based only on the complainant’s word and Fund Security advice. (paras. 95–98) - Applicant was not provided sufficient information to meaningfully defend himself or to question the veracity of the allegation; this constituted a violation of due process and an abuse of discretion. (paras. 99–107) - The Fund made clear the nature and rationale of the ban but failed to provide clarity on duration and failed to afford Applicant details necessary for defense. (paras. 108–109) - The Tribunal leaves open the possibility that a full Fund review, taking into consideration Applicant’s response to the allegation, could establish a reasonable and observable basis for an access restriction. (para. 98) *Tribunal findings and analysis as set out in paragraphs 86–109 of the document.* ### 110. It appears to the Tribunal that silence on the matter implies that the ban is of an indefinite ### 110. It appears to the Tribunal that silence on the matter implies that the ban is of an indefinite ### Due process and duration of the entry ban - The Tribunal found that silence about the duration of the entry ban "constitutes a violation of due process" because it "assumes guilt on the part of Applicant" without the Fund providing sufficient information for a defense. - The Fund referred to Applicant as “the abuser,” which the Tribunal considered reinforcing the view that the Fund had concluded culpability when the April 13, 2021 notice was issued. - The Tribunal stated that a reasonable approach would have been for the Fund to notify Applicant of the nature, rationale and duration of the ban while indicating it was imposed "as a preliminary safeguard pending due process." - The Fund testified that a temporary ban pending fuller investigation was not considered and offered no rationale; instead it would have considered any evidence Applicant submitted—placing the burden on Applicant despite Applicant not having been provided with the substance of the allegation. - Tribunal conclusion: the Fund’s failure to specify the duration of the ban was a violation of due process and an abuse of discretion. (paras. 110–113) ### Maintenance of the entry ban and the right to be heard - Standard applied (citing WBAT): whether a “good-faith effort” was made to obtain the current or former staff member’s response so an objective decision-maker could determine whether access flags should be maintained or removed. - Findings: - The record does not reflect that the Fund made any effort to obtain Applicant’s response after the imposition of the entry ban. - The Fund adopted a ‘wait and see’ approach, stating it would review any evidence Applicant chose to submit rather than proactively soliciting Applicant’s response for decision-making purposes. - During oral proceedings the Fund asserted former staff have the right to be heard but limited that right to the former staff taking the initiative to comment; the Fund distinguished this from the more robust right to be heard under disciplinary rules applicable to current staff. - Tribunal view: - The proposed distinction between current and former staff in affording due process protections is not readily apparent; imposing an access restriction requires the same basic due process protections for former staff. - Allegations of sexual harassment do not exempt the Fund from complying with due process. - The Fund’s failure to make a good-faith effort to solicit Applicant’s response was a violation of due process and an abuse of discretion because the ban was maintained without review of all relevant evidence by an objective decision-maker. (paras. 114–118) ### Communication of the entry ban within Applicant’s former Department - Applicant alleged inappropriate internal communication of the ban; he called a witness who testified he first heard about the ban in the first half of 2022 from an IMF staff member in Applicant’s former Department. - Tribunal observations: - The witness’s testimony was credible but afforded less weight because it was hearsay; the purported source did not testify. - Even if true, Applicant did not show the staff member lacked a need to know; the staff member may have been the IMF Mission Chief for the Member Country, who arguably had a need to know. - Applicant pointed to a November 10, 2022 letter from the Secretary of the IMF to the Governor of the National Bank of the Member Country that copied a Communications Department staff member, but Applicant did not show the staff member lacked a need to know. - Applicant did not demonstrate compensable harm resulting from any alleged internal communications. - Tribunal conclusion: Applicant has not shown that the Fund inappropriately communicated the entry ban within his former Department. (paras. 119–126) ### Tribunal conclusions on legality and discretion - The initial entry ban is subject to review by the Tribunal; the July 20, 2022 entry protocol was considered the final formulation of the initial April 13, 2021 entry ban. - The Tribunal determined: - Applicant, as a retired staff member, has neither a right nor a legitimate expectation to access Fund HQ; access is a privilege for retired staff, removable based on valid security interests or other justifiable needs, but removal must afford basic due process. (para. 128) - The entry ban did not constitute a disciplinary measure; Applicant could not be subject to, and was not entitled to, a misconduct investigation. (para. 129) - Imposition of the entry ban in its final formulation was an abuse of discretion because it lacked a reasonable and observable basis, failed to provide sufficient information for defense, and did not notify Applicant of the duration. (para. 130) - Maintenance of the ban was an abuse of discretion because the Fund did not make a good-faith effort to solicit Applicant’s response to determine whether the ban should be maintained. (para. 131) - Applicant did not show inappropriate communication within his former Department. (para. 132) ### Remedies — rescission, review, and interim conduct - Statutory authority: Article XIV, Section 1, of the Statute empowers the Tribunal to prescribe rescission of an unlawful decision and measures to correct its effects. - The Tribunal interpreted its remedial powers to include: - (i) rescission plus measures to correct effects; - (ii) compensation for intangible injury due to procedural failure; and - (iii) compensation to correct intangible injury where there may be no decision to rescind. (para. 134) - In this case: - Although Applicant prevailed on the principal claim, rescission of the entry ban was not ordered because the Tribunal could not rule out that further review might reveal a reasonable and observable basis for the ban. - The Tribunal invited Respondent to promptly solicit Applicant’s response “for the purpose of providing an objective decision-maker with sufficient evidence to be able to determine the true nature of the facts and reach a well-founded decision as to whether the [access] flags are to be maintained or removed.” Pending that review, the July 20, 2022 entry protocol should be adhered to by both parties in good faith. (para. 135) ### Remedies — compensation for intangible injury - The Tribunal treated compensation under category (ii): “compensation for intangible injury to correct the effects of procedural failure in the taking of a sustainable decision.” - Applicant sought $300,000, and any related tax allowances, for breaches and alleged publication within his former Department. (para. 137) - Applicant’s claimed harms included: - (a) people questioning why he does not attend Spring and Annual meetings at the Fund; - (b) risk of losing his job with the Member Country because the Governor said the situation cannot continue indefinitely; - (c) making excuses to students and faculty that he cannot arrange field trips to the Fund; - (d) terminating a research project with a Fund staff member; - (e) inability to meet Fund staff outside the Fund for fear they might ask him to come to the Fund; - (f) inability to risk going to the World Bank due to uncertainty about access there; and - (g) health effects from stress. (para. 138) - Tribunal observations: - Some harms were speculative; others could be mitigated by using the July 20, 2022 entry protocol, which Applicant had not used to date. - The Tribunal accepted that Applicant suffered intangible injury from the Fund’s assumption of guilt and failure to provide sufficient information to defend himself, aggravated by Fund officials’ refusal to meet despite Applicant’s efforts. (paras. 139–140) - Award: - Taking into account mitigating and aggravating factors, the Tribunal awarded compensation of $80,000 to Applicant. (para. 141) ### Legal fees and costs - Procedural history: - Applicant submitted a Request for Costs on January 17, 2024 and a Supplementary Request for Costs on June 23, 2025. - Applicant sought legal fees and costs totaling $53,093.35. The Fund opposed any award of legal fees and costs. (paras. 143–145) - The Tribunal noted that some fees related to preparation of the Grievance for the Grievance Committee; proceedings there had been stayed pending the Tribunal’s decision on the Fund’s Motion for Summary Dismissal and the Tribunal deferred decision on costs until the merits phase. The Tribunal considers compensable fees for representation in administrative review channels. (para. 145) - Statutory standard: Article XIV, Section 4, of the Statute permits awarding reasonable costs, taking into account the nature and complexity of the case, the nature and quality of work, and fees relative to prevailing rates; the Commentary warns against automatic awards where most claims are rejected or costs are disproportionate. (para. 146) *The Tribunal (International Monetary Fund Administrative Tribunal) rendered the findings, conclusions, and remedies summarized above.* ### 147. The language in the Commentary reflects a principle of proportionality, which the Tribunal ### j2025-5 - 147. The language in the Commentary reflects a principle of proportionality, which the Tribunal ### Principle of proportionality and legal standards - The Commentary reflects a principle of proportionality that takes into account the “degree to which an applicant is successful in the context of the totality of the case.” - The Tribunal considers: - Whether an applicant has prevailed in part and will “weigh the ‘relative centrality and complexity’ of the various claims and their ‘ultimate disposition’ by the Tribunal.” - The record assembled by an applicant’s counsel in pursuit of unsuccessful claims may be taken into account. ### Tribunal’s assessment of Applicant’s claims and their significance - Applicant prevailed on the central claim that the entry ban is subject to review and that the imposition and maintenance of the entry ban “lack a reasonable and observable basis and violate due process.” - This chief complaint was central and complex because it was a matter of first impression requiring assessment of WBAT jurisprudence and application of principles to the Fund. - Resolution of this complaint is of institutional significance beyond the individual case. - Three other claims: - Two unsuccessful claims were also matters of first impression and institutionally important: - Whether retired staff have a legitimate expectation of access to Fund premises. - Whether the entry ban was a disciplinary measure necessitating a misconduct investigation. - A third unsuccessful claim (whether the entry ban was publicized within Applicant’s former Department) was of lesser institutional significance and comprised only a small part of the pleadings. ### Fee award and proportionality conclusion - The Tribunal finds that the amount of fees submitted by Applicant’s counsel is “neither unreasonable nor disproportionate to the contribution” provided to adjudication of the case. - Applying the criteria in Article XIV, Section 4, of the Statute, the Tribunal concludes: - The Fund shall pay Applicant legal fees and costs in the sum of $53,093.35. - This amount includes an award of legal fees and costs for Applicant’s successful Objection to Respondent’s Motion for Summary Dismissal. ### Decision (enumerated outcomes) - The Administrative Tribunal of the International Monetary Fund unanimously decides: - 1. “YY” has prevailed on his claim that the entry ban is subject to review. - 2. “YY” has not prevailed on his claim that retirees have a legitimate expectation of access to Fund HQ; such access is a privilege that applies to retired staff members. Removal of such access must be based on valid security interests or other justifiable needs; absent a legitimate reason, different treatment could raise issues of discrimination. Where the Fund alleges a legitimate basis (e.g., maintaining security), the retiree must be afforded basic due process. - 3. “YY” has not prevailed on his claim that the entry ban constituted a disciplinary measure requiring a misconduct investigation. The claims under items (2) and (3) are therefore dismissed. - 4. “YY” has prevailed on his claim that the imposition and maintenance of the entry ban lack an observable and reasonable basis and violate due process. These decisions constitute an abuse of discretion. The Tribunal is not ordering rescission of the entry ban because there may be a reasonable and observable basis after a fuller review by Respondent. The Fund is invited promptly to solicit Applicant’s response to the allegation to provide an objective decision-maker with sufficient evidence to determine whether the access flags are to be maintained or removed. Pending the outcome of such a review, the July 20, 2022 entry protocol should be adhered to by both parties in good faith. - 5. “YY” has not prevailed on his claim that the Fund inappropriately communicated the entry ban within his former Department. This claim is dismissed. - 6. “YY” shall be awarded compensation in the amount of $80,000, consequent to the Fund’s abuse of discretion in respect of both the imposition and the maintenance of the entry ban. - 7. Respondent shall also pay “YY” $53,093.35 for legal fees and costs incurred by “YY” in this case, a sum which includes an award of legal fees and costs for Applicant’s successful Objection to the Fund’s Motion for Summary Dismissal. - 8. All other claims for relief are denied. ### Procedural and remedial directions - The Tribunal declines to order immediate rescission of the entry ban, permitting Respondent to conduct a fuller review and to solicit Applicant’s response. - Pending review, the parties should adhere in good faith to the July 20, 2022 entry protocol. --- _Source: https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/imfat/j2025-5.pdf_