## Order No. 2005-2 (Mr. “F”, Applicant v. International Monetary Fund, Respondent) — Interpretation of Judgment No. 2005-1

## Source details

**Canonical URL:** [Order No. 2005-2 (Mr. “F”, Applicant v. International Monetary Fund, Respondent) — Interpretation of Judgment No. 2005-1](https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/imfat/o2005-2.pdf)

## Other formats

- [Markdown version](/-/media/files/imfat/o2005-2.pdf.md)
- [Structured JSON version](/-/media/files/imfat/o2005-2.pdf.json)

---

### Case background and original Judgment
- The Administrative Tribunal received an application in Mr. “F”, Applicant v. International Monetary Fund, Respondent, IMFAT Judgment No. 2005-1 (March 18, 2005).
- Applicant challenged the decision to abolish his position, alleging:
  - the abolition was motivated by religious discrimination;
  - he was subjected to a hostile work environment based on religious affiliation;
  - the abolition was a pretext to remove him from his work unit;
  - he was not given adequate notice of the abolition nor good faith assistance in finding alternative employment.
- The Tribunal’s determinations in Judgment No. 2005-1 included:
  - The Tribunal upheld the decision to abolish Applicant’s position as a reasonable exercise of the Fund’s managerial discretion and found that the decision was not motivated by religious discrimination.
  - The Tribunal awarded Applicant compensation in the sum of $100,000 for the Fund’s failures:
    - to take effective measures in response to religious intolerance and workplace harassment of which Mr. “F” was an object, and
    - to give Mr. “F” reasonable notice of the abolition of his position.
  - The Tribunal held (para. 106) in part:
    - “While the Fund’s interpretation of the Section 13.02 of GAO No. 16 is not unreasonable, the Tribunal’s view is that the fair and transparent procedures that govern or should govern the operations of the Fund require that a staff member whose position is abolished be given reasonable notice of that prospect. The staff member should be in a position when such a decision first is conveyed to him to set out any reasons that he or she may have to contest the propriety or equity of the abolition decision. [footnote omitted] The summary notice given to Mr. “F” in this case was hardly adequate for that purpose. Thus, on this ground, the Tribunal concludes that the Fund did not follow fair and reasonable procedures.”

### Request for interpretation submitted by Respondent
- Respondent filed a Request for Interpretation of Judgment on August 10, 2005, pursuant to Article XVII of the Statute and Rule XX of the Rules of Procedure.
- Applicant filed Comments on September 8, 2005.
- Respondent sought clarification of para. 106 of the Judgment, specifically requesting guidance on:
  - “the nature and purpose of the requirement of advance notice of a decision to abolish a position; and
  - how long a period of notice would be considered ‘reasonable.’”
- Respondent further elaborated proposed clarifications and questions, including:
  - Whether during the advance notice period the affected staff member may raise arguments “going to organizational development and planning, i.e., the business justification for the impending abolition decision,” and whether the Fund is obliged to take such arguments into account as part of the decision-making process, or whether the right to be heard extends only to alleged improprieties or inequities related to performance, skills, conduct and the like.
  - Whether “a minimum of 30 calendar days’ advance notice of the effective date of the abolition of a position be considered reasonable by the Tribunal” and whether that period could be deducted from the “60-120 day notice period currently provided at the end of the redundancy process, such that the total amount of notice remains the same?”

### Legal framework for interpretation of judgments
- Article XVII of the Statute provides:
  - “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 provides (inter alia):
  - An application for interpretation “shall be admissible only if it states with sufficient particularity in what respect the operative provisions of the judgment appear obscure or incomplete.”
  - If the application is admitted, the Tribunal shall issue its interpretation, which shall thereupon become part of the original judgment.
- The Commentary on the Statute clarifies that Article XVII authorizes correction of typographical or arithmetical errors and interpretation of the Tribunal’s own judgment “upon the request of a party if the terms were unclear or incomplete in some respect,” but that the Tribunal “would not be authorized to resolve hypothetical questions or to issue advisory opinions.”

### Admissibility analysis and jurisprudential context
- The Tribunal observed the limited, narrowly drawn exceptions to the finality of judgments and cited prior Orders:
  - Interpretation of Judgment No. 1997-1 (Ms. “C”, Applicant v. International Monetary Fund), IMFAT Order No. 1997-1 (December 22, 1997).
  - Interpretation of Judgment No. 1998-1 (Ms. “Y”, Applicant v. International Monetary Fund), IMFAT Order No. 1999-1 (February 26, 1999).
- The Tribunal reiterated prior holdings that requests for interpretation that would amend or revisit the legality of a final judgment or that ask for advisory guidance about future cases are inadmissible.
- The Fund acknowledged that “the operative provisions of the Judgment are clear with respect to their application in the case at hand,” but sought interpretive guidance for application to future cases to help “formulate corrective action that is consistent with the Tribunal’s views.”
- Applicant argued the Fund failed to identify any operative provisions that are “obscure or incomplete” and characterized the Request as an attempt to obtain an advisory opinion rather than a permissible interpretation.

### Tribunal’s decision on the Request for interpretation
- The Tribunal concluded:
  - The Fund did not specify in what respect the operative provisions of the Judgment are “obscure or incomplete.”
  - The Fund’s questions amount to a request for advisory guidance about future cases rather than a permissible interpretation of an unclear or incomplete operative provision.
  - “The Tribunal is not an advisory body. Its powers do not go beyond the resolution of the cases brought before it by applicants.” The Commentary’s language was invoked: “... the Tribunal would not be authorized to resolve hypothetical questions or to issue advisory opinions.”
- Final determination:
  - The Tribunal denied the Request for Interpretation of the Judgment.

### Key dates, figures, and procedural references
- IMFAT Judgment No. 2005-1: March 18, 2005.
- Respondent’s Request for Interpretation filed: August 10, 2005.
- Applicant’s Comments filed: September 8, 2005.
- Tribunal Order (denial of Request) issued: December 6, 2005.
- Compensation awarded in original Judgment: $100,000.
- Procedural provisions cited: Article XVII (interpretation), Article XVI (revision), Article XIII, Section 2 (finality), Rule XX of the Rules of Procedure.
- Specific timeframes raised by Respondent for clarification:
  - “30 calendar days’ advance notice”
  - “60-120 day notice period currently provided at the end of the redundancy process”

---


_Source: https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/imfat/o2005-2.pdf_