## REGISTRY’S SUMMARY: Elkjaer et al. (No. 2) v. International Monetary Fund — IMFAT Order No. 2023-1 (August 30, 2023)

## Source details

**Canonical URL:** [REGISTRY’S SUMMARY: Elkjaer et al. (No. 2) v. International Monetary Fund — IMFAT Order No. 2023-1 (August 30, 2023)](https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/imfat/o2023-1-summary.pdf)

## Other formats

- [Markdown version](/-/media/files/imfat/o2023-1-summary.pdf.md)
- [Structured JSON version](/-/media/files/imfat/o2023-1-summary.pdf.json)

---

### Background and procedural posture
- Applicants filed an Application for Interpretation of Elkjaer et al. (No. 2), Applicants v. International Monetary Fund, Respondent, IMFAT Judgment No. 2023-1 (January 30, 2023) pursuant to Article XVII of the Tribunal’s Statute and Rule XX of its Rules of Procedure.
- In Judgment No. 2023-1 (January 30, 2023), the Tribunal decided that Fund Management had failed to comply fully with the 2019 Comprehensive Compensation and Benefits Review (“CCBR”) decision when it calculated the comparatio for purposes of applying the safeguard mechanism using salary data that terminated before the end of the Fund’s financial year.
- The Tribunal concluded: “[g]iven Management’s flawed implementation of those rules, the Board was not in a position to exercise properly its discretionary authority in taking the FY2022 staff compensation decision.” (Id., para. 117.)
- The Tribunal’s remedy was “to place the Board in a position to exercise properly its discretionary authority in relation to the FY2022 staff compensation decision, and for the Board to take any further steps as may, in its view, be warranted.” (Id., para. 122.)

### Implementation steps taken by the Fund and subsequent Board action
- Management reran the safeguard mechanism calculation for the FY2022 compensation decision on the basis of salary data concluding at the end of the Fund’s financial year, that is, April 30, 2021.
- The recalculated comparatio fell below the safeguard threshold of 98 percent.
- Management proposed, and the Board “consider[ed] whether any adjustment to staff salaries, retroactive to FY2022, is warranted, following an analysis of the four factors set out in paragraph 21 of the 2019 CCBR decision.” (Id., Decision, Clause 5.)
- Management’s four-factor analysis yielded a proposal that no retroactive salary increase would be warranted.
- On April 20, 2023, the Board adopted Management’s proposal and the staff was so advised.

### Applicants’ request for interpretation and Fund’s response
- Applicants disputed the manner in which Management conducted the four-factor analysis and asked the Tribunal “to clarify that Clause 5 [of the Decision in Judgment No. 2023-1] requires consideration of the four-factor analysis based on all pertinent information that would have been available to the Fund in May 2021.” (Quoted at Order, Paras. 7-8.)
- The Fund contended that the Application for Interpretation sought to “amend rather than interpret Clause 5 of the Decision, because it addresses a matter that was not contested in the underlying litigation.” (Quoted at Order, Paras. 7-8.)

### Legal standard for interpretation under the Tribunal’s Statute
- Article XVII of the Tribunal’s Statute provides: “The Tribunal may interpret or correct any judgment whose terms appear obscure or incomplete, or which contains a typographical or arithmetical error.”
- The Tribunal observed that Article XVII permits interpretation only if the judgment’s operative provisions are “obscure or incomplete,” enabling the Tribunal to give effect to intended meanings where operative provisions are not clear. (Order, Para. 14.)
- The Tribunal emphasized that its authority to interpret judgments is narrow because of the finality of judgments codified by Article XIII(2) of the Tribunal’s Statute: “Judgments shall be final . . . and without appeal.”

### Tribunal’s analysis and conclusion
- The Tribunal reviewed the text of Elkjaer et al. (No. 2) and the parties’ arguments.
- The Tribunal concluded that Clause 5 of the operative provisions of Judgment No. 2023-1 was not “obscure” because the Tribunal “did not address the details of how Fund Management and the Board may conduct the four-factor analysis prescribed in paragraph 21 of the 2019 CCBR decision.”
- The Tribunal concluded Clause 5 was not “incomplete” because the Tribunal “did not intend to address the details of the implementation of the four-factor analysis.” The Tribunal noted that detailed implementation was a matter for Fund Management and the Board, subject to the usual constraints on the lawful exercise of discretionary authority. (Order, Para. 15.)
- The Tribunal concluded that Applicants had not demonstrated that the operative provisions of Judgment No. 2023-1 were either “obscure” or “incomplete.”
- The Application for Interpretation of Judgment did not fall within the narrow exception to the finality of the Tribunal’s judgments and, accordingly, it was denied.

---


_Source: https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/imfat/o2023-1-summary.pdf_