## ORDER No. 1995-1 — Mr. “X” v. International Monetary Fund (Request for Revision of Judgment No. 1994-1)

## Source details

**Canonical URL:** [ORDER No. 1995-1 — Mr. “X” v. International Monetary Fund (Request for Revision of Judgment No. 1994-1)](https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/imfat/o1995-1.pdf)

## Other formats

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

---

### Procedural history and request
- On March 22, 1995, Mr. “X” made a request for revision of Judgment No. 1994-1, “Mr. ‘X’ v. International Monetary Fund.”
- The request invoked Article XVI of the Statute of the Administrative Tribunal, which provides: “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.”
- The Tribunal referenced Rule XIX, including the following provisions as relevant:
  - “1. A party may request revision of a judgment issued by the Tribunal, but only in the event that a fact or a document is discovered which by its nature might have had a decisive influence on the judgment of the Tribunal and which at the time of the judgment was unknown to the Tribunal and to the party to the case making application for the revision and such ignorance was not the responsibility of that party.
  - 3. The procedure set forth in Rules VIII through XI shall be applied, mutatis mutandis, to the request for revision.
  - 4. The Tribunal shall decide whether to admit the application for revision. If the application is admitted, the Tribunal shall pass judgment on the matter at issue in accordance with these Rules.”

### Applicant's asserted new fact
- Mr. “X” relied on a letter dated January 31, 1995, from the Assistant Director of the Administration Department of the Fund, which “explains the accounting modality used by the Fund in its financial settlement arrangements with Mr. ‘X.’”
- The letter concerns “the financial balance that was struck in the fiscal year immediately following Mr. ‘X’’s retirement,” a time “equally well in advance of the October 15, 1992 commencement of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.”

### Tribunal analysis and holding
- The Tribunal determined that it first must decide whether to admit the application for revision under paragraph 4 of Rule XIX; only if admitted would Rules VIII through XI be applied.
- The Tribunal found that whatever the nature of the Fund’s financial settlement arrangements or the accounting modality explained in the January 31, 1995 letter, those matters are not decisive for the judgment sought to be revised.
- The Tribunal reaffirmed that the judgment held Mr. “X”’s pension was based on a decision of the Fund adopted in 1986 and consequently pre-dating the Tribunal’s existence.
- Under Article XX, Section 1 of the Statute, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction over matters that pre-date its jurisdictional commencement.
- The Tribunal concluded that the “new information” on which Mr. “X” relied “is not of a nature that might have had a decisive influence on Judgment No. 1994-1.”

### Disposition
- For these reasons, the Administrative Tribunal of the International Monetary Fund decided not to admit the Application for revision.

### Signatories and date
- Stephen M. Schwebel, President
- Nisuke Ando, Judge
- Michel Gentot, Judge
- /s/ Stephen M. Schwebel, President
- /s/ Philine R. Lachman, Registrar
- Washington, D.C.
- May 5, 1995

---


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