## Mr. “X”, Applicant v. International Monetary Fund, Respondent (Revision of Judgment No. 1994-1), IMFAT Order No. 1995-1 (May 5, 2025)

## Source details

**Canonical URL:** [Mr. “X”, Applicant v. International Monetary Fund, Respondent (Revision of Judgment No. 1994-1), IMFAT Order No. 1995-1 (May 5, 2025)](https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/imfat/o1995-1-summary.pdf)

## Other formats

- [Markdown version](/-/media/files/imfat/o1995-1-summary.pdf.md)
- [Structured JSON version](/-/media/files/imfat/o1995-1-summary.pdf.json)

---

### Legal framework: Article XVI and Rule XIX
- Article XVI of the Tribunal’s Statute: “[a] party to a case in which a judgment has been delivered may, in the event of the discovery of a fact which by its nature might have had a decisive influence on the judgment of the Tribunal, and which at the time the judgment was delivered was unknown both to the Tribunal and to that party, request the Tribunal, within a period of six months after that party acquired knowledge of such fact, to revise the judgment.”
- Rule XIX of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure amplifies Article XVI.

### Applicant’s request and asserted “new information”
- Applicant filed a request for revision of Judgment No. 1994-1 pursuant to Article XVI and Rule XIX.
- Applicant contended that a letter from the Fund contained new information that might have had a decisive influence on the judgment of the Tribunal.
- The “new information” relied upon by Applicant concerned the financial balance that was struck in the fiscal year immediately following Applicant’s retirement, at a time well in advance of the October 15, 1992 commencement of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

### Tribunal’s assessment and decision
- The Tribunal considered whether the asserted “new information” was a fact which by its nature might have had a decisive influence on Judgment No. 1994-1 and whether it was unknown both to the Tribunal and to Applicant at the time the judgment was delivered.
- The Tribunal decided not to admit the Application for revision because the “new information” on which Applicant relied was not of a nature that might have had a decisive influence on Judgment No. 1994-1.

---


_Source: https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/imfat/o1995-1-summary.pdf_