## Order No. 2023-1 — Administrative Tribunal of the International Monetary Fund (August 30, 2023) ## Source details **Canonical URL:** [Order No. 2023-1 — Administrative Tribunal of the International Monetary Fund (August 30, 2023)](https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/imfat/o2023-1.pdf) ## Other formats - [Markdown version](/-/media/files/imfat/o2023-1.pdf.md) - [Structured JSON version](/-/media/files/imfat/o2023-1.pdf.json) --- ### Background and procedural history - The Order arises from Applicants’ Application for Interpretation filed May 15, 2023, of Elkjaer et al. (No. 2), Applicants v. International Monetary Fund, Respondent, IMFAT Judgment No. 2023-1 (January 30, 2023). - The Application was notified to Respondent on May 18, 2023; the President of the Tribunal afforded two exchanges of written pleadings under Rule XX of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. - Respondent filed its Answer on June 6, 2023; Applicants filed a Reply on June 16, 2023; Respondent waived its opportunity to file a Rejoinder on June 21, 2023. - Judgment No. 2023-1 concluded that Management’s calculation of the comparatio for the FY2022 staff compensation decision of May 1, 2021, used salary data that terminated before the end of the Fund’s financial year (April 30), and therefore Management “failed to comply fully with the rules governing the safeguard mechanism, as prescribed by the 2019 CCBR decision.” (Decision, Clause 1; Judgment No. 2023-1, para. 115). - The Tribunal’s remedial framework in Judgment No. 2023-1 included the following operative provisions (Decision, Clauses 1–8): - Management shall rerun 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. (Clause 2) - If the recalculated comparatio falls below the safeguard threshold of 98 percent, then the Board shall consider 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. (Clause 5) - Management could consider whether to take account of the actual salary increase to Grades B4-B5 staff members of 1.8 percent in recalculating the comparatio. (Clause 4) - The Fund shall pay Applicants $28,987.50 for legal fees and costs. (Clause 8) - After Judgment No. 2023-1, Fund Management reran the safeguard mechanism calculation on the basis of salary data concluding April 30, 2021, and found the recalculated comparatio fell below the 98 percent threshold. Management proposed, and the Board considered, whether a retroactive adjustment was warranted following the four-factor analysis set out in paragraph 21 of the 2019 CCBR decision. Management’s proposal was communicated to the Board in “FY2022 Review of Staff Compensation—IMF Administrative Tribunal Judgement No. 2023-1,” EBAP/23/16 (March 16, 2023). - EBAP/23/16 stated that the four-factor analysis should relate to the data and information that would have been used at the time the FY2022 compensation decision was taken (i.e., before April 2021), noting in particular that U.S. inflation and unemployment figures “were 4.2 percent and 6.1 percent, respectively, through April 2021,” but that such data “could not have been used by the Board at the time of its decision in April 2021 because it was not published by the U.S. government until May 2021.” Management’s four-factor analysis (general salary trends; U.S. tax policy; euro- or yen dollar exchange rate developments; and recruitment and retention experience) led Management to propose no retroactive salary increase. The Board adopted Management’s proposal on April 20, 2023, and the Human Resources Director announced that “a retroactive adjustment to the FY2022 salary increase was not warranted.” ### Applicants’ interpretative request - Applicants sought clarification that Clause 5 of Judgment No. 2023-1 does not permit Management or the Board to disregard U.S. inflation data from April 2021 or other relevant, contemporaneous data in conducting the four-factor analysis required under paragraph 21 of the 2019 CCBR decision. - Applicants requested the Tribunal to clarify that Clause 5 “requires consideration of the four-factor analysis based on all pertinent information that would have been available to the Fund in May 2021,” arguing that the remedial steps are sequential and that the comparatio recalculation based on data as of April 30 should be followed by a four-factor analysis using contemporaneous information. ### Respondent’s position - Respondent contended the Application for Interpretation seeks to amend rather than interpret Clause 5 because it addresses a matter not litigated in the underlying case. - Respondent argued that inflation data and other information relevant to the four-factor analysis were not assessed by the Tribunal in the Judgment, and that changing Clause 5 as Applicants request would require a “very substantial amendment.” - Respondent requested denial of the Application on grounds that the Judgment is not obscure or incomplete, the Application challenges acts arising after the Judgment, and it seeks an advisory opinion. ### Tribunal’s legal framework for interpretation - Article XVII of the Tribunal’s Statute authorizes interpretation of a judgment whose terms appear obscure or incomplete; Rule XX(2) requires that an application state with sufficient particularity in what respect the operative provisions appear obscure or incomplete. - The Tribunal emphasized the narrowness of interpretation authority in light of the finality of judgments under Article XIII(2) and the res judicata principle; interpretation must not derogate from that finality. ### Tribunal’s findings and disposition - The Tribunal concluded Clause 5 of Judgment No. 2023-1 is neither “obscure” nor “incomplete” because the Tribunal did not intend to prescribe the detailed manner in which Management and the Board must implement the four-factor analysis in paragraph 21 of the 2019 CCBR decision. - The details of the four-factor implementation are matters for Fund Management and the Board to undertake, subject to lawful discretionary authority. - Applicants did not demonstrate that the operative provisions of Judgment No. 2023-1 are obscure or incomplete within the meaning of Rule XX(2) and Article XVII of the Statute. - Order: Applicants’ Application for Interpretation of Judgment No. 2023-1 is denied. ### Key numeric and factual points preserved exactly - Filing and procedural dates: May 15, 2023; May 18, 2023; June 6, 2023; June 16, 2023; June 21, 2023. - Relevant Judgment and decision dates: IMFAT Judgment No. 2023-1 (January 30, 2023); FY2022 staff compensation decision of May 1, 2021; salary data concluding April 30, 2021; EBAP/23/16 (March 16, 2023); Board adoption April 20, 2023. - Percentages and thresholds: safeguard threshold of 98 percent; Grades B4-B5 salary increase of 1.8 percent; U.S. inflation and unemployment “were 4.2 percent and 6.1 percent, respectively, through April 2021.” - Award of costs: $28,987.50 to Applicants. --- _Source: https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/imfat/o2023-1.pdf_