## Mr. “LL”, Applicant v. International Monetary Fund, Respondent (Request for Interpretation of Judgment No. 2019-1), IMFAT Order No. 2022-1 (April 28, 2022)

## Source details

**Canonical URL:** [Mr. “LL”, Applicant v. International Monetary Fund, Respondent (Request for Interpretation of Judgment No. 2019-1), IMFAT Order No. 2022-1 (April 28, 2022)](https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/imfat/o2022-1-summary.pdf)

## Other formats

- [Markdown version](/-/media/files/imfat/o2022-1-summary.pdf.md)
- [Structured JSON version](/-/media/files/imfat/o2022-1-summary.pdf.json)

---

### Background and relief ordered in IMFAT Judgment No. 2019-1 (April 5, 2019)
- The Tribunal rescinded decisions taken by the Administration Committee of the Staff Retirement Plan (SRP).
- The Tribunal ordered that, going forward, Applicant would be paid:
  - an early retirement pension, retroactive to the date of his eligibility for such pension, paid solely by the SRP Retirement Fund; and
  - a separate workers’ compensation annuity retroactive to the date of his separation from the Fund, paid solely by the IMF.

### Subsequent actions and Applicant’s request
- The Fund implemented the remedies ordered in Judgment No. 2019-1.
- The Fund filed reports with national tax authorities relating to the payments made to Applicant consequent to implementation of the Judgment.
- Applicant disputed representations made by the Fund in those tax reports.
- Applicant filed a Request for Interpretation of Judgment seeking an instruction that the Fund not take any position with national tax authorities or make any entry on his 1099R tax form relating to the taxability of his payments.

### Legal framework on finality and exceptions
- Article XIII of the Tribunal’s Statute: “Judgments shall be final . . . and without appeal.”
- Article XVII of the Tribunal’s Statute (one of two narrowly drawn exceptions to finality): “The Tribunal may interpret or correct any judgment whose terms appear obscure or incomplete, or which contains a typographical or arithmetical error.”
- Article XVI of the Tribunal’s Statute provides the other limited exception: revision of judgment in limited circumstances.
- Procedural rule cited: Rule XX, para. 2 (requiring specification of in what respect operative provisions appear obscure or incomplete).

### Tribunal’s analysis and findings
- The Tribunal found that Applicant failed to state “in what respect the operative provisions of the judgment appear obscure or incomplete.” (Rule XX, para. 2).
- The acts contested by Applicant were acts arising subsequent to the Judgment (the Fund’s communications with national tax authorities and entries on tax forms).
- The Request for Interpretation did not fall within the narrow exception to finality provided by Article XVII because it sought relief concerning subsequent acts rather than clarification of obscure or incomplete operative provisions of the Judgment.
- The Tribunal observed that Applicant’s request would also fail if treated as a request for revision of judgment pursuant to Article XVI.

### Disposition
- The Tribunal denied Applicant’s Request for Interpretation of Judgment.

---


_Source: https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/imfat/o2022-1-summary.pdf_