## ORDER No. 2018-1

## Source details

**Canonical URL:** [ORDER No. 2018-1](https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/imfat/o2018-1.pdf)

## Other formats

- [Markdown version](/-/media/files/imfat/o2018-1.pdf.md)
- [Structured JSON version](/-/media/files/imfat/o2018-1.pdf.json)

---

### Background and Procedural History
- Applicant: Ms. “NN”; Respondent: International Monetary Fund.
- Applicant filed a submission on December 28, 2017, seeking reconsideration of the quantum of compensation awarded in IMFAT Judgment No. 2017-2 (December 11, 2017).
- The President of the Administrative Tribunal, in consultation with the other Judges on the panel, treated the submission as a request for revision of judgment governed by Article XVI of the Tribunal’s Statute and Rule XIX of its Rules of Procedure; the parties were notified of that determination.
- Respondent filed its response on January 29, 2018.
- Further submissions were filed by Applicant on March 1, 2018, and by Respondent on March 9, 2018.

### Applicable Legal Standards
- Article XIII, Section 2, of the Tribunal’s Statute: “Judgments shall be final, subject to Article XVI and Article XVII, and without appeal.”
  - The Tribunal explains this provision as codifying the principle of res judicata.
- Article XVI (Revision of Judgment) provides that a party may request revision within six months after acquiring knowledge of a fact which by its nature might have had a decisive influence on the judgment, where that fact was unknown both to the Tribunal and to that party at the time the judgment was delivered.
- Rule XIX (Revision of Judgments) specifies:
  - Revision is permitted only if a fact or document is discovered which by its nature might have had a decisive influence on the Tribunal’s judgment and which at the time of the judgment was unknown to both the Tribunal and the party requesting revision, and such ignorance was not the responsibility of that party.
  - The revision must be requested within six months from the date on which the fact or document is discovered and, in any event, within one year from the date on which the party requesting the revision was notified of the judgment unless, upon request, the President sets another time limit.
- Article XVII (Interpretation or Correction of Judgment) permits interpretation or correction where a judgment’s terms appear obscure or incomplete, or where it contains a typographical or arithmetical error.

### Tribunal’s Analysis and Findings
- The Tribunal reiterated that judgments are final, subject only to the narrow exceptions in Articles XVI and XVII.
- Revision of judgments is a narrowly drawn exception and is permitted only where a discovered fact or document might have had a decisive influence on the Tribunal’s judgment and was unknown to both the Tribunal and the requesting party at the time of judgment.
- Review of Applicant’s post-Judgment submissions led the Tribunal to conclude:
  - Applicant’s submissions do not present any fact which might have had a decisive influence on Judgment No. 2017-2.
  - Applicant’s dissatisfaction with the quantum of compensation awarded for intangible injury (due to the Fund’s failure to afford a pre-screening interview) does not constitute a qualifying ground for revision, as the original award was grounded in the Tribunal’s remedial principles and reflected consideration of aggravating and mitigating factors (see Ms. “NN”, paras. 140-149).
  - Applicant failed to present any fact or document unknown to her and to the Tribunal at the time of the Judgment that would have had a decisive influence on that Judgment.
- The Tribunal observed that Applicant’s request would also be denied if treated as a request for interpretation or correction under Article XVII, because there is no ground to conclude that the terms of Judgment No. 2017-2 are “obscure or incomplete.”
- Applicant had referred to a complaint she attempted to raise late in the proceedings leading to Judgment No. 2017-2; the Tribunal had decided in that Judgment not to consider that complaint because it had not received prior review through dispute resolution channels (see Ms. “NN”, para. 8). That element of the Judgment is final under Article XIII, Section 2.

### Order / Disposition
- The Tribunal unanimously denies Applicant’s request for revision of Judgment No. 2017-2.

### Signatories and Date
- Catherine M. O’Regan, President
- Andrés Rigo Sureda, Judge
- Edith Brown Weiss, Judge
- Registrar: Celia Goldman
- Washington, D.C., May 1, 2018

---


_Source: https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/imfat/o2018-1.pdf_