In March 2026, the Administrative Tribunal registered two appeals.

• Appeal No. 778/2026 – K v. Secretary General of the Council of Europe

On 6 March 2026, the Tribunal registered Appeal No. 778/2026 – K v. Secretary General of the Council of Europe. The appellant was employed by the Organisation under a fixed-term contract as a senior project officer from 1 June 2024 until 30 November 2025. They challenge the merits of the decision of the Secretary General rejecting their administrative complaint and upholding the decision of the Deputy Secretary General not to confirm their appointment at the end of their probationary period on the grounds that the probationary period had not been satisfactory.

In support of the appeal, the appellant complains that the Organisation failed to apply the rules governing the evaluation of staff members’ performance in a useful and fair manner, owing to significant delays in the implementation of the procedure and a lack of supervision. They submit that these elements were liable to cause them prejudice by depriving them of crucial information that they could have taken into account in order progressively to improve their performance and meet the expectations of their hierarchy.

The appellant further argues that the assessment of their performance lacked objectivity and rigour, insofar as the critical judgment made of their performance is not supported by the facts and is marred by bias.

According to the appellant, by relying on the position of their hierarchical superiors, without taking into account their own explanations or any other tangible element, the opinion of the Appointments Review Committee failed to take into consideration all the relevant elements for assessing their performance and, in doing so, reached erroneous conclusions. They therefore submit that the decision to terminate their employment, taken on that basis, is unjustified, if not arbitrary.

Lastly, the appellant alleges that the significant delays, as well as the lack of objectivity and fairness shown towards them during their probationary period, amounted to a breach of the duty of care and good faith which the Council of Europe owes to any person who successfully passes a competition with a view to joining the Organisation.

On these grounds, the appellant seeks the annulment of the decision terminating their employment. As they do not wish to be reinstated in the functions they held at the time their employment was terminated, the appellant primarily seeks financial compensation equivalent to one year of their last salary, in addition to the reimbursement of a sum of 500 euros in respect of procedural costs, which they undertake to pay into the account of the One Staff trade union in recognition of the legal support provided by that union in the context of the present appeal.

• Appeal No. 779/2026 – L. Y. (II) v. Secretary General of the Council of Europe

On 9 March 2026, the Tribunal also registered Appeal No. 779/2026 – L. Y. (II) v. Secretary General of the Council of Europe. The appellant is a former staff member of the Council of Europe, employed under a fixed-term contract in grade B2 until 31 December 2023, whose first appeal against the decision not to act on her formal complaint of harassment was declared well-founded by the Tribunal because of a procedural irregularity (ATCE, Appeal No. 765/2024, L. Y. v. Secretary General of the Council of Europe, judgment of 23 September 2025).

By this appeal, the appellant challenges the new decision not to act on her formal complaint of harassment that was taken following that judgment, as well as the decision rejecting her administrative complaint against that decision.

The appellant first argues that the investigation on which the contested decision is based, which concluded that there was no evidence to support the alleged harassment, was not conducted with the necessary objectivity and rigour, as it failed to examine all the relevant evidence and to corroborate the veracity of the information obtained. The appellant furthermore criticises the Organisation for failing in its duty of protection, due to the lack of an appropriate response from the various parties alerted to her situation, which allegedly allowed and reinforced the harassment she claims to have suffered. The appellant further argues that the investigators failed to draw the necessary conclusions from the evidence gathered during the investigation, which pointed to the existence of harassment; they thus committed manifest errors of assessment which vitiated both the investigation report and the decision taken on the basis thereof. 

On those grounds, the appellant asks the Tribunal to annul the contested decision, to find that she has been subjected to psychological harassment, to declare that the Organisation failed in its duty to prevent harassment and to order it to act on her formal complaint of harassment. The appellant also seeks compensation for the non-material damage suffered and reimbursement of the costs of the proceedings.

The indication of the subject matter of the appeal is established by the Registry, under its responsibility, on the basis of the information provided by the appellant; it is not binding on the Tribunal.

This information is given to enable those who so wish to exercise their right to intervene under Article XI of the Statute of the Administrative Tribunal.