## INTRODUCTION: OVERVIEW OF THE APPLICATIONS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND (o2026-2)

## Source details

**Canonical URL:** [INTRODUCTION: OVERVIEW OF THE APPLICATIONS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND (o2026-2)](https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/imfat/o2026-2.pdf)

## Other formats

- [Markdown version](/-/media/files/imfat/o2026-2.pdf.md)
- [Structured JSON version](/-/media/files/imfat/o2026-2.pdf.json)

---

### Background and subject matter of the Applications
- Applicants: Felix Várdy, Mark Griffiths, Priscilla Toffano, Jonathan Manning, and Jairo Jara (the “Applicants”).
- Challenged Decision:
  - IMF Executive Board approved the 2025 Review of Staff Compensation on April 2, 2025, with effect from May 1, 2025 (the “Challenged Decision”).
- Legal basis of challenge:
  - Applications filed under Article VI, Section 2 of the Tribunal’s Statute (three-month challenge period measured from the later of announcement or effective date).
- Core contention:
  - Applicants allege Fund Management and the Board failed to comply with the “safeguard mechanism” adopted in the 2019 Comprehensive Compensation Benefits Review (“CCBR”).
- Safeguard mechanism (as described by Applicants):
  - Keeps average staff salaries within a range of 98-102 percent of the market-adjusted pay-grade midpoints, based on the “comparatio” (the average of actual salaries for each pay grade relative to its midpoints, weighted by the number of staff members in each pay grade).
  - If the comparatio falls outside the 98-102% range, and a four-factor test under the safeguard mechanism is met, an adjustment to the salary increase would be expected to be approved by the Board to bring the comparatio back into the range.
- Applicants’ allegations:
  - Fund used flawed forecast data instead of actual data to calculate the comparatio, understating salary growth and causing salary losses to Applicants.
  - Fund relied on improper reasons (challenging Member States’ fiscal contexts and preserving the Fund’s budget), in violation of the CCBR safeguard mechanism:
    - (i) violated the rules of the CCBR;
    - (ii) violated duty to state proper and valid reasons for departing from the safeguard mechanism;
    - (iii) abused discretion and grounded decision on desire to save money at staff expense.

### Relief sought by Applicants
- Applicants request:
  - (a) annulment of the Challenged Decision and measures required to correct its effect, including a supplemental single salary increase sufficient to restore a comparatio of 100% and fully align average salaries to the payline, retroactive to May 1, 2025;
  - (b) if the Managing Director refuses implementation, payment of monetary compensation corresponding to the estimated net present value of lifetime compensation losses of each Applicant, pursuant to Article XIV, Section 2 of the Tribunal’s Statute;
  - (c) any additional relief deemed just and proper by the Tribunal;
  - (d) award of legal fees and costs under Article XIV, Section 4 of the Tribunal’s Statute if Application found well-founded in whole or in part.

### Procedural timeline and key procedural actions
- Key dates and filings:
  - April 2, 2025: Board approved 2025 Review of Staff Compensation (effective May 1, 2025).
  - July 30, 2025: Applicants filed identical Applications against the Fund.
  - August 19, 2025: Supplemented Applications transmitted to the Fund after exchanges with the Registry.
  - August 25, 2025: Registrar circulated notice summarizing issues pursuant to Rule IV(f).
  - September 24, 2025: Three joint applications for intervention (JAFI) filed by Fund employees:
    - JAFI Manning (open-ended): 100 Fund employees under open-ended appointment.
    - JAFI Jara (fixed-term): 15 Fund employees under fixed-term appointment.
    - JAFI Jara (contractual): 14 Fund employees under an employment contract.
    - All three JAFIs filed on behalf of the Prospective Intervenors by Me Rémi Cèbe (who also represents the five Applicants).
  - October 3, 2025: Fund filed its Answer; Registrar transmitted to Applicants on October 9, 2025.
  - October 9, 2025: Some Prospective Intervenors filed further documentation; two employees withdrew interest in intervention.
  - October 20, 2025: Applicants requested extension to file Reply until December 10, 2025 (the “Extension Request”).
  - October 22, 2025: Registrar requested Prospective Intervenors to supplement the Joint Applications for Intervention.
  - November 5 and 6, 2025: Prospective Intervenors supplemented JAFIs with missing Annex B Forms and payroll statements (some Annex B Forms remained outstanding).
  - October 28, 2025: Fund filed comments on Extension Request; President granted the extension.
  - December 9, 2025: Applicants filed Reply; Supplemented on December 15, 2025; Reply transmitted to Fund on December 16, 2025.
  - Deadline for Rejoinder confirmed as January 26, 2026.
  - December 12, 2025: Registrar transmitted Joint Applications for Intervention and invited views on admissibility and anonymity by January 21, 2026.
  - January 21, 2026: Fund filed Reply to Applications to Intervene; Registrar transmitted it on January 23, 2026. Applicants did not submit views on admissibility.
  - January 26, 2026: Fund filed its Rejoinder; Registrar transmitted it same day.
  - June 18, 2026: Applicant Várdy filed Rule XI Request to submit additional written statements and documents.
  - June 22–26, 2026: President invited comments on Rule XI Request; Fund filed submissions on June 26, 2026.
  - July 6, 2026: Registrar conveyed President’s decision denying the Rule XI Request.

### Prospective Intervenors’ and Respondent’s positions on admissibility — overview
- Applicants did not submit views on admissibility of JAFIs.
- Summary reflects only Prospective Intervenors’ and Fund’s positions.

### JAFI Manning (open-ended)
- Prospective Intervenors’ procedural compliance claims:
  - Signed Annex B Forms submitted on September 24, October 9, and November 5, 2025.
  - Payroll statements submitted on November 5, 2025 after Registrar’s October 22, 2025 request.
  - Counsel informed Registry that:
    - Three Prospective Intervenors under open-ended appointment (nos. 12, 51, and 90 in Annex 1) had not provided signed Annex B Forms despite repeated requests.
    - One Prospective Intervenor under open-ended appointment (no. 38 in Annex 1) no longer wished to submit an application for intervention.
    - “The requested Payroll Statements of Intervenors received to date [November 5, 2025] were filed today in the Folder ‘Payroll statements of interveners’ in the general Folder ‘Applications for Intervention.’”
- Jurisdiction and admissibility arguments:
  - Intervention submitted on ground that intervenors have a right which may be affected by the Tribunal’s judgment.
  - JAFI Manning (open-ended) asserted admissible:
    - ratione materiae: directed against a regulatory decision adversely affecting Applicant and intervenor;
    - ratione temporis: submitted within thirty days of the issuance of notice prescribed by Rule IV.
  - Prospective Intervenors rely on same facts, legal framework, grounds of challenge, and relief as Mr. Manning’s Application.
- Respondent’s position:
  - Applications for intervention by employees under open-ended appointment who failed to provide signed Annex B Form and/or payroll statement must be dismissed.
  - Submissions of Prospective Intervenors nos. 12, 51, and 90 (no signed Annex B Form) do not meet Rule VII, Paragraphs 1 and 4(a) and thus do not constitute an application for intervention (as foreshadowed in Rule VII, Paragraph 6(c)).
  - Employees under open-ended appointment who failed to provide payroll statements did not meet Rule VII, Paragraph 3 (applies by virtue of Rule XIV, Paragraph 2); their submissions should be dismissed.
  - Respondent does not otherwise challenge admissibility of JAFI Manning (open-ended).

### JAFI Jara (fixed-term)
- Prospective Intervenors’ procedural compliance claims:
  - Signed Annex B Forms submitted on September 24, October 9, and November 5, 2025.
  - Payroll statements submitted on November 5, 2025 following Registrar’s October 22, 2025 request.
  - Counsel confirmed filing of payroll statements in the designated folder.
- Jurisdiction and admissibility arguments: identical to those of Prospective Intervenors in JAFI Manning (open-ended).
- Respondent’s position:
  - Prospective Intervenors under fixed-term contract who failed to provide payroll statements (nos. 8, 10, and 15 in Annex 2) failed to meet Rule VII, Paragraph 3 (applies via Rule XIV, Paragraph 2); their submissions should be dismissed.
  - Respondent does not otherwise challenge admissibility of JAFI Jara (fixed-term).

### JAFI Jara (contractual)
- Prospective Intervenors’ procedural compliance claims:
  - Signed Annex B Forms submitted on September 24, October 9, and November 5, 2025.
  - Payroll statements submitted on November 5, 2025 following Registrar’s October 22, 2025 request.
- Substantive arguments by contractual Prospective Intervenors:
  - Rely on IMFAT Judgment No. 2023-3 to argue contractual employees “should have access to the Tribunal, and be allowed to intervene.”
  - Quoted reasoning from IMFAT Judgment No. 2023-3 (para. 33):
    - Article II, Section 1(b) does not exclude non-staff member employees;
    - Statute’s legislative history does not support exclusion of contractual employees where a right derives from Fund internal law rather than an individualized contract term;
    - GAO No. 20 channels workers’ compensation disputes through the Fund’s formal dispute resolution system.
  - Because contractual employees have a right to the “structure increase” under the CCBR Rules, they should have access to the Tribunal and be allowed to intervene.
  - Jurisdictional claims mirror those advanced by open-ended and fixed-term groups (ratione materiae and ratione temporis).
- Respondent’s position on admissibility and jurisdiction:
  - Applications for intervention by contractual employees who failed to provide signed Annex B Form and/or payroll statement must be dismissed.
  - JAFI Jara (contractual) fails admissibility requirement of Rule XIV, Paragraph 1.
  - For Prospective Intervenor no. 2 (Annex 3) who failed to submit signed Annex B Form:
    - Submission “does not constitute an application for intervention” because it fails Rule VII, Paragraphs 1 and 4(a), as foreshadowed in Rule VII, Paragraph 6(c).
  - For contractual employees who failed to provide payroll statements (nos. 1, 4, 10, and 13 in Annex 3):
    - Failed to meet Rule VII, Paragraph 3 (applies via Rule XIV, Paragraph 2); their submissions should be dismissed.
  - Jurisdictional substance:
    - Tribunal is not open to contractual employees in this case pursuant to Article II, Section 1 of the Tribunal’s Statute.
    - Two principal contentions:
      - Contractual employees are not “members of the staff” under Article II, Sections 1(a) and 2(c); Commentary on the Statute states “members of the staff” do not include “persons employed under contract to the Fund.”
      - Contractual employees cannot rely on Article II, Section 1(b) because the compensation decision challenged is unrelated to any of the Fund’s “benefit plans.” Respondent argues mere involvement of money does not convert a compensation decision into a “benefit plan” issue.
    - Respondent distinguishes benefit plans from compensation decisions (no separate eligibility criteria, enrollment processes, or additional benefit structure).
    - Respondent asserts IMFAT Judgment No. 2023-3 is inapposite because in that case the Workers’ Compensation Policy was undisputedly a “benefit plan” extending to contractual employees.
    - Respondent notes Prospective Intervenors have not argued that “salary” is a “benefit plan.”

### Exchanges with the Registry — outstanding filings
- As of November 5, 2025, counsel informed Registry:
  - (a) One prospective intervenor under an employment contract (Prospective Intervenor no. 2 in Annex 3) had not provided any signed Annex B Form.
  - (b) Another prospective intervenor under an employment contract (Prospective Intervenor no. 1 in Annex 3) no longer wished to submit an application for intervention.
  - (c) “The requested Payroll Statements of Intervenors received to date [November 5, 2025] were filed today in the Folder ‘Payroll statements of interveners’ in the general Folder ‘Applications for Intervention.’”
- A number of payroll statements for contractual prospective intervenors remained missing (see para. 47 and fn. 17 referenced).

### Registrar’s request and failure to provide supporting documentation
- Registrar explained prospective intervenors sought same relief as relevant Application, including compensation claim following method in Section I.B.2 of the Application.
- Applicants J. Manning and J. Jara provided a payroll statement in Section I.B.2 of their Supplemented Applications; none of the prospective intervenors provided payroll statements.
- Procedural rules cited:
  - Rule VII(3): Applicant must attach all documents cited in the application.
  - Rule XIV(1) and (2): prospective intervenors requested to provide missing supporting documentation for compensation claim.
- After Registrar’s request, 34 Prospective Intervenors failed to submit a payroll statement.
- Registrar concluded further extension of time pursuant to Rule XIV, Paragraph 2 and Rule VII, Paragraph 6(a) did not seem warranted; pursuant to Rule VII, Paragraph 6(c), their submissions do not constitute applications for intervention and cannot be admitted.

### Specific counts of Prospective Intervenors referenced
- Group composition identified: “Twenty-six Prospective Intervenors under the JAFI Manning (open-ended) (Prospective Intervenors nos. 1, 10, 12, 13, 21, 24, 26, 27, 30, 34, 35, 37, 38, 39, 46, 47, 54, 61, 64, 69, 78, 83, 84, 90, 91, and 99 in Annex 1); three Prospective Intervenors under the JAFI Jara (fixed-term) (Prospective Intervenors nos. 8, 10, and 15 in Annex 2); and five Prospective Intervenors under the JAFI Jara (contractual) (Prospective Intervenors nos. 1, 2, 4, 10, and 13 in Annex 3).”

### Admissibility requirements and jurisdiction ratione personae
- Statutory framework:
  - Article X, Section 2(b): intervention by persons to whom Tribunal is open under Section 1 of Article II, whose rights may be affected by the judgment.
  - Two statutory requirements:
    - Intervenor must be within Tribunal’s jurisdiction ratione personae.
    - Intervenor must have a right that may be affected by the Tribunal’s judgment.
  - Rule XIV, para. 1 re-affirms both requirements.
- Article II, Section 1 categories:
  1. A “member of the staff” who challenges legality of an administrative act adversely affecting him or her.
  2. An “enrollee in, or beneficiary under, any retirement or other benefit plan maintained by the Fund as employer” challenging legality of an administrative act concerning or arising under any such plan.
- Article II, Section 2(c) definition of “member of the staff” limited to:
  (i) persons whose current or former letter of appointment, whether regular or fixed-term, provides that he [or she] shall be a member of the staff;
  (ii) any current or former assistant to an Executive Director; and
  (iii) any successor in interest to a deceased member of the staff as defined in (i) or (ii) above.
- Commentary on the Statute note: “persons employed under contract to the Fund do not have access to the Tribunal.”

### Tribunal’s analysis and precedents considered
- Prospective Intervenors invoked IMFAT Judgment No. 2023-3 (“VV”) to argue contractual employees have access when rights derive from Fund internal law (workers’ compensation example).
- Tribunal observations on benefit plans:
  - Prospective Intervenors did not identify any Fund benefit plan relied on in the present case; the joint application focuses on salary adjustment and does not identify a plan analogous to the Workers’ Compensation Policy in “VV.”
  - Commentary examples of Fund benefit plans: “the Staff Retirement Plan (SRP), the Medical Benefits Plan (MBP), and the Group Life Insurance Plan.”
  - Individuals who are not staff members but have rights under Fund benefit plans may bring claims only with respect to decisions arising under or concerning those plans; they cannot challenge other types of administrative acts.
  - Precedent holds arbitral dispute resolution system for contractual employees did not qualify as a “benefit plan” under Article II, Section 1(b).

### Tribunal’s conclusions on contractual employees’ admissibility
- Tribunal found no argument or Fund rule equating “benefit plan” and “salary,” and concluded salary does not fall within “a benefit plan maintained by the Fund” for Article II, Section 1(b) purposes.
- Tribunal concluded contractual employees do not meet jurisdiction ratione personae under Article II, Section 1(b) and Rule XIV, Paragraph 1.
- Because contractual employees fail jurisdiction ratione personae, Tribunal did not determine whether the second statutory requirement (a right that may be affected by the judgment) would be satisfied.

### Jurisdiction ratione personae and contractual employees — further observations
- Tribunal observed that, insofar as contractual employees’ rights may be affected by a judgment on the Fund’s staff compensation decision, the rationale for restricting access is less clear; noted ongoing implementation of the 2022 DRS Review may provide further insights.
- Final determination: Joint Application for Intervention by Fund contractual employees in J. Jara v. IMF (JAFI Jara (contractual)) cannot be admitted and is denied.

### Requests for anonymity by Prospective Intervenors
- Prospective Intervenors sought anonymity under Rule XXII, citing possible retaliation and career consequences.
- Respondent argued Prospective Intervenors failed to show “good cause” as required under Rule XXII.
- Tribunal’s assessment and precedent:
  - Anonymity available under Rule XXII only where “good cause” shown.
  - Cited precedents rejecting unsubstantiated fear of retaliation (Mr. E. Weisman, IMFAT Judgment No. 2014-2; Mr. “HH”; Ding; Mr. “QQ”, IMFAT Judgment No. 2020-1; “XX”, IMFAT Judgment No. 2024-2).
  - Tribunal held unsubstantiated allegation of possible retaliation does not amount to “good cause.”
  - Prospective Intervenors adduced no evidence of risk of retaliation and did not explain why any asserted risk would be relevant to them and not to Applicants who did not seek anonymity.
- Decision: Requests for Anonymity denied.

### Order and attendant procedural directions (conclusions and directives)
- Admissions and denials:
  - JAFI Manning (open-ended) is admitted except for employees identified as “not admissible” in Annex 1 to the Order.
  - JAFI Jara (fixed-term) is admitted except for employees identified as “not admissible” in Annex 2 to the Order.
  - JAFI Jara (contractual) is denied.
  - Prospective Intervenors’ Requests for Anonymity are denied.
- Withdrawal and publication procedures:
  - Any Intervenor wishing to withdraw in light of denial of anonymity must inform the Tribunal by Tuesday, September 1, 2026 at the latest.
  - Order to be circulated within the Fund and published on the Tribunal’s website without Annexes 1, 2, and 3 (which identify the 129 Prospective Intervenors).
  - Any Intervenor who withdraws in accordance with the procedure shall remain anonymous.
  - Any Intervenor who fails to inform the Tribunal by Tuesday, September 1, 2026 shall not have the benefit of anonymity if withdrawing later.
  - Fund employees whose application for intervention was denied shall remain anonymous.
- Signatories and date:
  - Nassib G. Ziadé, President; Andrew K.C. Nyirenda, Judge; Kieran Bradley, Judge; Paul Jean Le Cannu, Registrar.
  - Washington, D.C., August 4, 2026.

*Administrative Tribunal of the International Monetary Fund, ORDER No. 2026-2 (Washington, D.C., August 4, 2026).*

### INTRODUCTION: OVERVIEW OF THE APPLICATIONS AND PROCEDURAL

### INTRODUCTION: OVERVIEW OF THE APPLICATIONS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

### Background and subject matter of the Applications
- On July 30, 2025, Felix Várdy, Mark Griffiths, Priscilla Toffano, Jonathan Manning, and Jairo Jara (the “Applicants”) filed identical Applications against the International Monetary Fund (the “Fund”).
- On April 2, 2025, the IMF Executive Board (“Board”) approved the 2025 Review of Staff Compensation, with effect from May 1, 2025 (the “Challenged Decision”).
- Applicants challenge elements of the 2025 Review of Staff Compensation under Article VI, Section 2 of the Tribunal’s Statute, which permits direct challenges to regulatory decisions of the Fund within three months of the later of the announcement or effective date of the decision.
- Applicants’ core contention: Fund Management and the Board did not comply with the “safeguard mechanism” adopted in the 2019 Comprehensive Compensation Benefits Review (“CCBR”).
  - The safeguard mechanism is designed to ensure average staff salaries remain within a range of 98-102 percent of the market-adjusted pay-grade midpoints, based on the “comparatio” (the average of actual salaries for each pay grade relative to its midpoints, weighted by the number of staff members in each pay grade).
  - If the comparatio falls outside the 98-102% range, and if a four-factor test under the safeguard mechanism is met, an adjustment to the salary increase would be expected to be approved by the Board to bring the comparatio back into the range.
- Applicants allege the Fund used flawed forecast data instead of actual data to calculate the comparatio, thereby understating salary growth and causing salary losses to Applicants.
- Applicants allege the Fund relied on improper reasons (challenging fiscal contexts facing Member States and preservation of the Fund’s budget) that are not valid under the safeguard mechanism, and therefore:
  - (i) violated the rules of the CCBR;
  - (ii) violated its duty to state proper and valid reasons for departing from the safeguard mechanism; and
  - (iii) abused its discretion and improperly grounded its decision on desire to save money at staff expense.

### Relief sought by Applicants
- Applicants seek:
  - (a) annulment of the Challenged Decision and all measures required to correct its effect, including a supplemental single salary increase sufficient to restore a comparatio of 100% and fully align average salaries to the payline, retroactive to May 1, 2025;
  - (b) if the Managing Director decides not to implement requested measures, payment of monetary compensation corresponding to the estimated net present value of lifetime compensation losses of each Applicant, pursuant to Article XIV, Section 2 of the Tribunal’s Statute;
  - (c) any additional relief deemed just and proper by the Tribunal;
  - (d) an award of legal fees and costs under Article XIV, Section 4 of the Tribunal’s Statute if the Application is found well-founded in whole or in part.

### Procedural timeline and key procedural actions
- August 19, 2025: Supplemented Applications transmitted to the Fund after exchanges with the Registry.
- August 25, 2025: Registrar circulated within the Fund a notice summarizing issues in the Supplemented Applications pursuant to Rule IV(f).
- September 24, 2025: Fund employees filed three joint applications for intervention (“JAFI”) under Rule XIV, Paragraph 1:
  - JAFI Manning (open-ended): 100 Fund employees under open-ended appointment in the J. Manning v. IMF case.
  - JAFI Jara (fixed-term): 15 Fund employees under fixed-term appointment in the J. Jara v. IMF case.
  - JAFI Jara (contractual): 14 Fund employees under an employment contract in the J. Jara v. IMF case.
  - All three JAFIs were filed on behalf of the Prospective Intervenors by Me Rémi Cèbe, who also represents the five Applicants.
- October 3, 2025: Fund filed its Answer; Registrar transmitted the Answer to Applicants on October 9, 2025.
- October 9, 2025: Some Prospective Intervenors filed further documentation and advised that two employees no longer wished to submit an application for intervention.
- October 20, 2025: Applicants requested extension to file their Reply until December 10, 2025 (the “Extension Request”).
- October 22, 2025: Registrar requested Prospective Intervenors to supplement the Joint Applications for Intervention.
- November 5 and 6, 2025: Prospective Intervenors supplemented Joint Applications for Intervention with missing Annex B Forms and payroll statements (some Annex B Forms remained outstanding).
- October 28, 2025: Fund filed comments on Applicants’ Extension Request; President granted the requested extension.
- December 9, 2025: Applicants filed their Reply; Supplemented on December 15, 2025; Reply transmitted to the Fund on December 16, 2025.
- Deadline for filing the Rejoinder confirmed as January 26, 2026.
- December 12, 2025: Registrar transmitted Joint Applications for Intervention to the parties and invited views on admissibility and requests for anonymity by January 21, 2026.
- January 21, 2026: Fund filed its Reply to the Applications to Intervene; Registrar transmitted it to Applicants and Prospective Intervenors on January 23, 2026. No submission on admissibility was received from Applicants.
- January 26, 2026: Fund filed its Rejoinder; Registrar transmitted it to Applicants on the same day.
- June 18, 2026: Applicant Várdy filed a request for leave to submit additional written statements and documents under Rule XI (the “Rule XI Request”).
- June 22–26, 2026: President invited comments on the Rule XI Request; other Applicants declined to comment; Fund filed written submissions on June 26, 2026.
- July 6, 2026: Registrar conveyed the President’s decision to deny the Rule XI Request.

### Prospective Intervenors’ and Respondent’s positions on admissibility — overview
- Applicants did not submit views on admissibility of the Joint Applications for Intervention.
- The summary below reflects only the Prospective Intervenors’ and the Fund’s positions.

### JAFI Manning (open-ended) — Prospective Intervenors’ position
- Procedural compliance asserted:
  - Signed Annex B Forms submitted on September 24, October 9, and November 5, 2025.
  - Payroll statements submitted on November 5, 2025 following Registry request of October 22, 2025.
- Counsel informed Registry:
  - (a) Three Prospective Intervenors under an open-ended appointment (nos. 12, 51, and 90 in Annex 1) had not provided signed Annex B Forms despite repeated requests.
  - (b) One Prospective Intervenor under an open-ended appointment (no. 38 in Annex 1) no longer wished to submit an application for intervention.
  - (c) “The requested Payroll Statements of Intervenors received to date [November 5, 2025] were filed today in the Folder ‘Payroll statements of interveners’ in the general Folder ‘Applications for Intervention.’”
- Jurisdiction and admissibility arguments:
  - The application to intervene is submitted on the ground that all intervenors have a right which may be affected by the judgment to be given by the Tribunal.
  - JAFI Manning (open-ended) is admissible:
    - ratione materiae because it is directed against a regulatory decision which adversely affected the Applicant and the intervenor;
    - ratione temporis because it was submitted within thirty days of the issuance of the notice prescribed by Rule IV.
  - Prospective Intervenors rely on the same facts, legal framework, grounds of challenge, and seek the same relief as Mr. Manning’s Application.

### JAFI Manning (open-ended) — Respondent’s position
- Respondent argues that applications for intervention by employees under an open-ended appointment who failed to provide a signed Annex B Form and/or a payroll statement must be dismissed.
  - Submissions of Prospective Intervenors nos. 12, 51, and 90 in Annex 1 (no signed Annex B Form) do not meet Rule VII, Paragraphs 1 and 4(a) and thus do not constitute an application for intervention, as foreshadowed in Rule VII, Paragraph 6(c).
  - Employees under an open-ended appointment who failed to provide payroll statements did not meet Rule VII, Paragraph 3 (which applies by virtue of Rule XIV, Paragraph 2); their submissions should be dismissed.
- Respondent does not otherwise challenge the admissibility of JAFI Manning (open-ended).

### JAFI Jara (fixed-term) — Prospective Intervenors’ position
- Procedural compliance asserted:
  - Signed Annex B Forms submitted on September 24, October 9, and November 5, 2025.
  - Payroll statements submitted on November 5, 2025 following Registry request of October 22, 2025.
  - Counsel informed Registry: “[t]he requested Payroll Statements of Intervenors received to date were filed today in the Folder ‘Payroll statements of interveners’ in the general Folder ‘Applications for Intervention.’”
- Jurisdiction and admissibility arguments identical to those of Prospective Intervenors under an open-ended appointment in JAFI Manning (open-ended).

### JAFI Jara (fixed-term) — Respondent’s position
- Respondent contends that Prospective Intervenors under fixed-term contract who failed to provide payroll statements — specifically nos. 8, 10, and 15 in Annex 2 — failed to meet Rule VII, Paragraph 3 (which applies via Rule XIV, Paragraph 2); their submissions should be dismissed.
- Respondent does not otherwise challenge admissibility of JAFI Jara (fixed-term).

### JAFI Jara (contractual) — Prospective Intervenors’ position
- Procedural compliance asserted:
  - Signed Annex B Forms submitted on September 24, October 9, and November 5, 2025.
  - Payroll statements submitted on November 5, 2025 following Registry request of October 22, 2025.
- (Further details on the contractual group’s admissibility contentions continue beyond the supplied extract.)

*Administrative Tribunal of the International Monetary Fund, ORDER No. 2026-2*

### 2025. In the course of the exchanges between the Prospective Intervenors and the Registry, counsel

### o2026-2 - 2025. In the course of the exchanges between the Prospective Intervenors and the Registry, counsel

### Exchanges between Prospective Intervenors and the Registry — outstanding filings
- As of November 5, 2025, counsel for the Prospective Intervenors informed the Registry that:
  - (a) One prospective intervenor under an employment contract – Prospective Intervenor no. 2 in Annex 3 – had not provided any signed Annex B Form, despite repeated requests from counsel.
  - (b) Another prospective intervenor under an employment contract – Prospective Intervenor no. 1 in Annex 3 – no longer wished to submit an application for intervention.
  - (c) “The requested Payroll Statements of Intervenors received to date [November 5, 2025] were filed today in the Folder ‘Payroll statements of interveners’ in the general Folder ‘Applications for Intervention.’”
- A number of payroll statements of prospective intervenors under an employment contract remained missing (see para. 47 and fn. 17 referenced in the text).

### Prospective Intervenors’ substantive arguments (contractual employees)
- Basis for access:
  - The Prospective Intervenors who are contractual employees argue they “should have access to the Tribunal, and be allowed to intervene” relying on IMFAT Judgment No. 2023-3.
  - Quoted reasoning from IMFAT Judgment No. 2023-3 (para. 33):
    - First, the plain language of Article II, Section 1(b) of the Statute “does not exclude non-staff member employees such as Applicant.”
    - Second, the Statute’s legislative history “does not support exclusion of Applicant from the Tribunal’s jurisdiction under Article II, Section 1(b), given that the Fund’s workers’ compensation policy is not an individual contract term but a feature of the Fund’s internal law.”
    - Third, GAO No. 20 provides that workers’ compensation disputes will be channeled through the Fund’s formal dispute resolution system.
  - Because contractual employees have a right to the “structure increase” under the CCBR Rules, they should have access to the Tribunal and be allowed to intervene in the case.
- Jurisdictional claims:
  - These Prospective Intervenors argue the Tribunal has jurisdiction ratione materiae and ratione temporis over their applications for intervention for the same reasons advanced by other Prospective Intervenors in the JAFI Manning (open-ended) and the JAFI Jara (fixed-term).

### Respondent’s position on admissibility and jurisdiction
- Procedural dismissals argued:
  - Respondent argues that applications for intervention filed by contractual employees who failed to provide a signed Annex B Form and/or a payroll statement must be dismissed.
  - Respondent contends the JAFI Jara (contractual) fails to meet the admissibility requirement of Rule XIV, Paragraph 1 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure.
- Specific Rule-based arguments:
  - For Prospective Intervenor no. 2 (Annex 3), who failed to submit a signed Annex B Form:
    - Respondent argues the submission “does not constitute an application for intervention” because it does not meet Rule VII, Paragraphs 1 and 4(a), and therefore cannot be filed as such, as foreshadowed in Rule VII, Paragraph 6(c).
  - For contractual employees who failed to provide payroll statements (Prospective Intervenors nos. 1, 4, 10, and 13 in Annex 3):
    - Respondent argues they failed to meet the requirement of Rule VII, Paragraph 3, which applies to the applications by virtue of Rule XIV, Paragraph 2; their submissions should therefore be dismissed.
- Jurisdictional substance arguments:
  - Respondent submits that “the Tribunal is not open to contractual employees in this case, pursuant to Article II, Section 1 of the Tribunal’s Statute,” and therefore all contractual employees’ applications for intervention should be dismissed.
  - Two principal contentions:
    - First, contractual employees are not “members of the staff” within the meaning of Article II, Sections 1(a) and 2(c) of the Tribunal’s Statute; the Commentary on the Statute states that “members of the staff” do not include “persons employed under contract to the Fund.”
    - Second, contractual employees cannot rely on Article II, Section 1(b) because the compensation decision they challenge is unrelated to any of the Fund’s “benefit plans.”
      - Respondent argues that “[t]he mere fact that money is involved does not transform the issue into one arising under a benefit plan.”
      - Respondent notes differences between benefit plans and compensation decisions: compensation decisions allegedly do not involve separate eligibility criteria and enrollment processes, nor do they introduce any additional benefit structure.
      - Respondent asserts the Prospective Intervenors’ reliance on IMFAT Judgment No. 2023-3 is misplaced because, in that case, there was no disagreement that the Workers’ Compensation Policy was a “benefit plan” and that the policy extended to contractual employees.
      - Respondent states the Prospective Intervenors have not argued that “salary” is a “benefit plan,” and that arguing the mere existence of a right suffices to fall under the Tribunal’s jurisdiction is contrary to Article II, Section 1(b) and misinterprets the jurisprudence.

### Tribunal’s approach to determination
- Two-step determination to be followed (para. 40):
  - First, whether the Prospective Intervenors have met the procedural requirements provided in the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure (A).
  - Second, whether each of the three categories of Prospective Intervenors — employees under an open-ended appointment, employees under a fixed-term appointment, and contractual employees — have met the admissibility requirements established in the Tribunal’s Statute and Rules of Procedure (B).
- Procedural requirements identified (paras. 41–43):
  - Two main procedural issues arose from the filing of the three Joint Applications for Intervention (“JAFI”):
    - (1) A number of Prospective Intervenors could not be identified and/or had failed to provide a signed Annex B Form authorizing counsel to represent them.
    - (2) Documents cited in support of the Prospective Intervenors’ alternative request for relief were missing from the filing.
  - Identity and Annex B Forms:
    - Three Fund employees under an open-ended appointment and one Fund employee under an employment contract failed to provide any signed Annex B Form to date, despite repeated requests from counsel.
    - These Fund employees therefore failed to comply with Rule XIV, Paragraph 2 and Rule VII, Paragraph 1 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure.
    - After being given an opportunity to fulfill the requirements, the Registrar could not “make the necessary corrections” to their applications for intervention as contemplated by Rule VII, Paragraph 6(b), because only the Prospective Intervenors could provide the required signed Annex B Forms and they did not.
    - The Tribunal notes compliance with this requirement was not onerous for each individual Prospective Intervenor, and none approached the Registry to elect to submit an application without representation by Me Cèbe; because of their failure to provide the necessary signed Annex B Forms, their applications were procedurally defective.

*Source: Tribunal text (2025).*

### Annex  B  Forms,  these  Prospective  Intervenors  are  hereby  notified,  pursuant  to  Rule  XIV,

### Annex  B  Forms,  these  Prospective  Intervenors  are  hereby  notified,  pursuant  to  Rule  XIV,

### Procedural notifications and withdrawals
- The Tribunal notified certain Prospective Intervenors, pursuant to Rule XIV, Paragraph 2 and Rule VII, Paragraph 6(c), that their submissions do not constitute applications for intervention within the meaning of Rule XIV and VII of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure; as a consequence, the applications for intervention of these Prospective Intervenors cannot be admitted in the present proceeding.
- Two additional Fund employees – one under an open-ended appointment and another under an employment contract – through counsel indicated they no longer wished to submit applications for intervention; the Tribunal took note that these two employees, who had also failed to submit an Annex B Form and a payroll statement, have withdrawn from the JAFI Manning (open-ended) and the JAFI Jara (contractual), respectively.
- The Registry’s letter of October 22, 2025 identified issues that were resolved, including corrections to the stated identity and Annex B Forms of Prospective Intervenors and the provision of previously missing Annex B Forms (except those specifically referred to above).

### Registrar’s request and failure to provide supporting documentation
- The Registrar, in a letter of October 22, 2025, explained that prospective intervenors in the three joint applications sought the same relief as in the relevant Application, including a claim for compensation corresponding to the estimated net present value of lifetime compensation losses, following the method in Section I.B.2 of the Application in the relevant case.
- The Applicants J. Manning and J. Jara provided a payroll statement in Section I.B.2 of their Supplemented Applications; none of the prospective intervenors provided payroll statements.
- Pursuant to Rule VII(3), the Applicant must include as attachments all documents cited in the application; pursuant to Rule XIV(1) and (2), prospective intervenors were requested to provide the missing supporting documentation in relation to their compensation claim.
- Following the Registrar’s request, 34 Prospective Intervenors failed to submit a payroll statement.
- After an opportunity to fulfill Rule VII, Paragraph 1 requirements, the Registrar could not “make the necessary corrections” to those applications as contemplated by Rule VII, Paragraph 6(b), because only the Prospective Intervenors could provide the required payroll statements and they did not.
- No explanation was provided by these Prospective Intervenors as to why the missing payroll statements could not be submitted; no request for an extension of time was made.
- The Registrar concluded that a further extension of time pursuant to Rule XIV, Paragraph 2 and Rule VII, Paragraph 6(a) did not seem warranted on these facts; therefore, pursuant to Rule VII, Paragraph 6(c), their submissions do not constitute applications for intervention and cannot be admitted.

### Specific counts of Prospective Intervenors referenced
- The text identifies the group composition in footnote form as: “Twenty-six Prospective Intervenors under the JAFI Manning (open-ended) (Prospective Intervenors nos. 1, 10, 12, 13, 21, 24, 26, 27, 30, 34, 35, 37, 38, 39, 46, 47, 54, 61, 64, 69, 78, 83, 84, 90, 91, and 99 in Annex 1); three Prospective Intervenors under the JAFI Jara (fixed-term) (Prospective Intervenors nos. 8, 10, and 15 in Annex 2); and five Prospective Intervenors under the JAFI Jara (contractual) (Prospective Intervenors nos. 1, 2, 4, 10, and 13 in Annex 3).”

### Admissibility requirements (statutory framework)
- The Tribunal analyzed admissibility under Article X, Section 2(b) of the Tribunal’s Statute and Rule XIV, Paragraph 1 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure:
  - Article X, Section 2(b) provides for “intervention by persons to whom the Tribunal is open under Section 1 of Article II, whose rights may be affected by the judgment.” Hence there are two statutory requirements:
    - The intervenor must be a person who is within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction ratione personae.
    - The intervenor must have a right that may be affected by the judgment to be given by the Tribunal.
  - Both statutory requirements are re-affirmed in Rule XIV, para. 1 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure.

### Jurisdiction ratione personae: categories and limits
- Article II, Section 1 contemplates only two categories of employees upon whose application the Tribunal is competent to pass judgment:
  1. A “member of the staff” who challenges the legality of an administrative act adversely affecting him or her; and
  2. An “enrollee in, or beneficiary under, any retirement or other benefit plan maintained by the Fund as employer challenging the legality of an administrative act concerning or arising under any such plan which adversely affects the applicant.”
- Article II, Section 2(c) defines “member of the staff” as limited to three categories:
  (i) any person whose current or former letter of appointment, whether regular or fixed-term, provides that he [or she] shall be a member of the staff;
  (ii) any current or former assistant to an Executive Director; and
  (iii) any successor in interest to a deceased member of the staff as defined in (i) or (ii) above to the extent that he [or she] is entitled to assert a right of such staff member against the Fund.
- Contractual employees are not included in those three categories and do not appear to claim they are; the Commentary on the Statute notes that “persons employed under contract to the Fund do not have access to the Tribunal.”

### Prospective Intervenors’ asserted basis and precedent considered
- The Prospective Intervenors rely on IMFAT Judgment No. 2023-3 (“VV”), arguing that contractual employees’ right to the “structure increase” under the CCBR Rules should allow access to the Tribunal and intervention in the case; this addresses primarily the “rights that may be affected by the judgment” prong rather than jurisdiction ratione personae.
- In “VV” the Tribunal held:
  - The plain language of Article II, Section 1(b) does not exclude non-staff member employees such as contractual employees;
  - Employment benefit plans are anchored in Fund internal law rather than individualized contract terms, and an applicant’s right to seek workers’ compensation inhered in internal law rather than the contract;
  - The Fund’s workers’ compensation policy (General Administrative Order No. 20) provides that workers’ compensation disputes will be channeled through the Fund’s formal dispute resolution system.
- The Tribunal in “VV” found the workers’ compensation system qualified as a benefit plan for Article II, Section 1(b) purposes.

### Limits on what qualifies as a “benefit plan”
- The Tribunal observed that the Prospective Intervenors did not identify any Fund benefit plan they rely on in the present case; their joint application focuses on salary adjustment and does not identify a benefit plan analogous to the workers’ compensation system considered in “VV.”
- The Commentary on the Statute provides examples of Fund benefit plans: “the Staff Retirement Plan (SRP), the Medical Benefits Plan (MBP), and the Group Life Insurance Plan,” while noting the list is not exhaustive.
- The Tribunal emphasized that individuals who are not staff members but have rights under Fund benefit plans may bring claims only with respect to decisions arising under or concerning those plans; they would not have the right to challenge other types of administrative acts before the Tribunal.
- The Tribunal noted precedent where the arbitral dispute resolution system for contractual employees was held not to qualify as a “benefit plan” under Article II, Section 1(b).

### Tribunal’s conclusions on contractual employees’ admissibility
- The Tribunal found no argument or Fund rule equating “benefit plan” and “salary” or suggesting that salary falls within the ambit of “a benefit plan maintained by the Fund” for Article II, Section 1(b) purposes.
- The Tribunal concluded that the Prospective Intervenors who are contractual employees do not meet the requirement of jurisdiction ratione personae provided in Article II, Section 1(b) of the Tribunal’s Statute and Rule XIV, Paragraph 1 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure.
- Because the contractual employees fail the jurisdiction ratione personae requirement, the Tribunal did not need to determine whether the second statutory requirement (a right that may be affected by the judgment) would be satisfied in their case.

*International Monetary Fund Administrative Tribunal*

### conclusion  that  the  Prospective  Intervenors  under  employment  contracts  fall  outside  of  the

### o2026-2 - conclusion that the Prospective Intervenors under employment contracts fall outside of the

### Jurisdiction ratione personae and contractual employees
- The Tribunal observed that, insofar as the rights of contractual employees may be affected by a judgment on the Fund’s staff compensation decision, the rationale for restricting access to the forum that would allow contractual employees to contest such decision is less clear.
- The Tribunal noted that the ongoing implementation of the 2022 DRS Review may provide further insights into this issue.
- The Tribunal concluded that the Joint Application for Intervention filed by Fund contractual employees in J. Jara v. IMF (referred to as the JAFI Jara (contractual)) cannot be admitted and is therefore denied.

### Requests for anonymity by Prospective Intervenors
- Prospective Intervenors’ stated ground for anonymity:
  - They requested anonymity pursuant to Rule XXII of the Rules of Procedure, asserting that, given their status within the IMF and possible retaliation in terms of career prospects, their privacy ought to be protected and their name and personal details not disclosed when the Judgment is published.
- Respondent’s position:
  - The Respondent argued that the Prospective Intervenors had not met the burden of showing “good cause” for protecting their privacy as required under Rule XXII of the Rules of Procedure.
- Tribunal’s assessment and precedent:
  - The Tribunal reiterated that anonymity may be granted under Rule XXII only where “good cause” has been shown.
  - Cited precedent: Mr. E. Weisman, Applicant v. International Monetary Fund, IMFAT Judgment No. 2014-2 (February 26, 2014), para. 14, where anonymity was rejected because the applicant’s personal circumstances were not pertinent to the Tribunal’s essential issue.
  - The Tribunal held that an unsubstantiated allegation of possible retaliation does not amount to “good cause.” The Tribunal stated that an applicant’s bare assertion that contesting a decision before the Tribunal may lead to adverse employment consequences does not, of itself, justify granting anonymity (citing Mr. “HH”, para. 40, and Ding, para. 11).
  - The Tribunal emphasized that granting anonymity must not substitute for robust enforcement of the Fund’s policy against retaliation; staff members suffering retaliation are entitled to relief through Fund procedures (citing Mr. E. Weisman, para. 16, and Mr. “QQ”, IMFAT Judgment No. 2020-1 (November 2, 2020), para. 13).
  - The Tribunal cited “XX”, Applicant v. International Monetary Fund, IMFAT Judgment No. 2024-2 (June 7, 2024), para. 33, reiterating that unsubstantiated fear of retaliation is not an accepted ground for anonymity.
- Tribunal’s decision on anonymity in the present case:
  - The Prospective Intervenors did not adduce any evidence of a risk of retaliation, whether potential or actual.
  - The Prospective Intervenors did not explain why any asserted risk would be relevant to them and not to Applicants who had not sought anonymity.
  - The Prospective Intervenors’ Requests for Anonymity are denied.

### Order and attendant procedural directions
- Admissions and denials:
  - The Joint Application for Intervention filed by Fund employees under an open-ended appointment in J. Manning v. IMF (referred to as the JAFI Manning (open-ended)) is admitted except with respect to the employees whose application for intervention is identified as “not admissible” in Annex 1 to the Order.
  - The Joint Application for Intervention filed by Fund employees under a fixed-term appointment in J. Jara v. IMF (referred to as the JAFI Jara (fixed-term)) is admitted except with respect to employees whose application for intervention is identified as “not admissible” in Annex 2 to the Order.
  - The Joint Application for Intervention filed by Fund contractual employees in J. Jara v. IMF (referred to as the JAFI Jara (contractual)) is denied.
  - The Prospective Intervenors’ Requests for Anonymity are denied.
- Withdrawal procedure and anonymity consequences:
  - Any Intervenor who wishes to withdraw from the relevant Joint Application for Intervention in light of the denial of anonymity must inform the Tribunal of his/her withdrawal by Tuesday, September 1, 2026 at the latest.
  - The present Order shall be circulated within the Fund and published on the Tribunal’s website without its Annexes 1, 2, and 3, which identify the 129 Prospective Intervenors.
  - Any Intervenor who withdraws in accordance with the procedure above shall remain anonymous.
  - Any Intervenor who fails to inform the Tribunal of his/her withdrawal by Tuesday, September 1, 2026 at the latest shall not have the benefit of anonymity if that Intervenor elects to withdraw at a later date.
  - The Fund employees whose application for intervention was denied shall remain anonymous.
- Signatories and date:
  - Nassib G. Ziadé, President; Andrew K.C. Nyirenda, Judge; Kieran Bradley, Judge; Paul Jean Le Cannu, Registrar.
  - Washington, D.C., August 4, 2026.

---


_Source: https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/imfat/o2026-2.pdf_