This paper discusses that during 2000–2002, the Tribunal considered a number of issues of substantive law upon which it had not previously been called upon to rule. These included interpretation of a provision of the IMF’s Staff Retirement Plan that permits the IMF, pursuant to specified procedures, to give effect to orders for family support and division of marital property issued by domestic courts. Having the benefit of the extensive pleadings of all three parties, the Tribunal rendered a decision resolving the merits of the dispute. The Tribunal considered the evidence offered by the IMF in support of the differential in benefits between the two categories of staff and concluded that the distinction was rationally related to the purposes of the employment benefits at issue. Tribunal also grappled during 2000–2002 with the complexities of its relationship to other elements of the IMF’s dispute resolution system. The IMFAT addressed the question of the admissibility before the Tribunal of an Application following dismissal of the complaint as untimely by the IMF’s Grievance Committee.
This paper provides an analysis of the Tribunal’s jurisprudence for the period is provided in an introductory chapter, “Developments in the Jurisprudence of the International Monetary Fund Administrative Tribunal: 2003–2004.” The standard of review, understood as describing the relationship between the Administrative Tribunal and the decision maker responsible for the contested decision, represents the degree of deference accorded by the Tribunal to the decision maker’s judgment. The standard of review is designed to set limits on the improper exercise of power and represents a legal presumption about where the risk of an erroneous judgment should lie. In defining the Tribunal’s standard of review in disability retirement cases, the Tribunal clarified its relationship to the channels of administrative review as follows. The Tribunal confirmed its authority to make both findings of fact and conclusions of law, and therefore to review de novo the legality of an administrative act of the IMF.
Volume IV of IMF Administrative Tribunal Reports contains the Judgments and Orders of the IMF Administrative Tribunal rendered during the year 2005. An analysis of the Tribunal’s jurisprudence for the period is provided in an introductory chapter “Developments in the Jurisprudence of the IMF Administrative Tribunal: 2005.” A detailed topical Index of the Judgments and Orders is included near the end of the volume. Finally, the reader will find republished as an Appendix to this volume the Tribunal’s Statute, Rules of Procedure, and the Report of the International Monetary Fund’s Executive Board on the establishment of the Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal initially addressed the Applicant’s principal claim, that the abolition of his position represented an abuse of managerial discretion. Referring to the governing provisions of the IMF’s internal law, the Tribunal noted that the essential requirements for a lawful abolition of position are that the position has been abolished or redesigned to meet institutional needs and the incumbent is no longer qualified to fulfill its requirements.
This paper provides an analysis of the Tribunal’s jurisprudence for the period is provided in an introductory chapter “Developments in the Jurisprudence of the International Monetary Fund Administrative Tribunal: 2006.” In deciding on an application, the Tribunal shall apply the internal law of the IMF, including generally recognized principles of international administrative law concerning judicial review of administrative acts. The guidelines provide for performance assessments at prescribed intervals during the fixed term and impose obligations on both the fixed-term appointee and supervisors. The Tribunal emphasized that the provisions governing the mandatory resignation and possible subsequent reemployment of staff who serve as Advisors to Executive Directors indicate that a staff member who so resigns has no assured right to resume employment as a member of the IMF’s staff. In order to assess whether an Applicant has initiated administrative review procedures on a timely basis, the Administrative Tribunal may be required to determine when the Applicant was on notice that he had been adversely affected by an administrative act of the IMF.