## Order No. 1999-1, Interpretation of Judgment No. 1998-1 (February 26, 1999)

## Source details

**Canonical URL:** [Order No. 1999-1, Interpretation of Judgment No. 1998-1 (February 26, 1999)](https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/imfat/o1999-1.pdf)

## Other formats

- [Markdown version](/-/media/files/imfat/o1999-1.pdf.md)
- [Structured JSON version](/-/media/files/imfat/o1999-1.pdf.json)

---

### Background
- The Administrative Tribunal of the International Monetary Fund received a request from the Fund for an interpretation of language found in paragraph 43 of Judgment No. 1998-1 (Ms. “Y”, Applicant v. International Monetary Fund, Respondent, December 18, 1998).
- The Tribunal understood the request as seeking interpretation of paragraph “Second” of the operative provisions of Judgment No. 1998-1, which states:
  - “Second, the Administrative Tribunal will reconsider the Applicant’s claim on the basis of the Application now before it, in the event that the Grievance Committee, if seized, decides that it does not have jurisdiction over that claim.”

### Fund’s request
- The Fund requested that the Tribunal interpret the term “jurisdiction” in paragraph “Second” to refer only to jurisdiction ratione materiae.

### Legal framework cited
- Article XVII of the Statute of the Administrative Tribunal: “The Tribunal may interpret or correct any judgment whose terms appear obscure or incomplete, or which contains a typographical or arithmetical error.”
- Rule XX of the Rules of Procedure on Interpretation of Judgments:
  - 1. In accordance with Article XVII of the Statute, after a judgment has been rendered, any party may apply to the Tribunal requesting an interpretation of the operative provisions of the judgment.
  - 2. The application shall be admissible only if it states with sufficient particularity in what respect the operative provisions of the judgment appear obscure or incomplete.
  - 3. The Tribunal shall, after giving the other party or parties a reasonable opportunity to present its or their views on the matter, decide whether to admit the application for interpretation. If the application is admitted, the Tribunal shall issue its interpretation, which shall thereupon become part of the original judgment.
- Article XIII, Section 2 of the Statute: “Judgments shall be final, subject to Article XVI and Article XVII, and without appeal.”

### Tribunal decision (unanimous)
- First:
  - The Tribunal decides, on the basis of Article XVII and Rule XX, not to admit the Fund’s application.
  - Ground: the term “jurisdiction” in paragraph “Second” of Judgment No. 1998-1 is neither obscure nor incomplete.
- Second:
  - The Tribunal finds that adopting the requested interpretation would constitute an amendment of the Judgment.
  - Ground: amendment of the Judgment is not within the scope of interpretation under the Statute and the Rules of Procedure because the Judgment is final and without appeal.

### Reasoning highlights
- The Tribunal applied the limited authority conferred by Article XVII and Rule XX to interpret judgments whose terms appear obscure or incomplete.
- The Tribunal construed the Fund’s request as seeking a narrowing of the operative provision’s meaning (to jurisdiction ratione materiae), which would amount to modifying the final judgment rather than interpreting an obscure or incomplete term.
- The Tribunal emphasized the finality of judgments per Article XIII, Section 2, noting that an interpretation cannot be used to effect an amendment of a final judgment.

### Signatures and date
- Decision adopted unanimously by:
  - Stephen M. Schwebel, President
  - Nisuke Ando, Associate Judge
  - Michel Gentot, Associate Judge
- Registrar: Philine R. Lachman
- Washington, D.C., February 26, 1999

---


_Source: https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/imfat/o1999-1.pdf_