In October, the Administrative Tribunal registered four appeals. The following information is given to enable those who so wish to exercise their right to intervene under Article 10 of the Statute of the Administrative Tribunal.

• On 5 October 2022, the Tribunal registered the appeals No. 732/2022 – Daria CHISTIAKOVA and No. 733/2022 – Zhargal BUDAEV v. Secretary General of the Council of Europe. The appellants are Russian nationals who were employed until 31 August 2022 on fixed-term contracts as assistant lawyers at the Registry of the European Court of Human Rights. Both appellants seek the annulment of the decision not to renew their contract upon its expiry alleging that the contested decision has no valid grounds and discriminates them owing to their nationality.
   
• On 6 October 2022, the Tribunal registered the appeal No. 731/2022 – Anna GORODETSKAYA v. Secretary General of the Council of Europe. The appellant is a Russian national who was employed until 31 August 2022 on a fixed-term contract as an assistant lawyer at the Registry of the European Court of Human Rights. She seeks the annulment of the decision not to renew her contract upon its expiry alleging that the contested decision has no valid grounds. The appellant also claims that the contested decision discriminates her on the ground of her nationality and of the type of contract she held.
   
• On 12 October 2022, the Tribunal registered the appeal No. 734/2022 – Paolo LOBBA v. Secretary General of the Council of Europe. The appellant is a staff member who entered into a fixed-term contract with the Council of Europe as of 1 September 2022 following his successful participation in competition No e22/2021 for the recruitment of Legal Analysts/Legal Advisors (grade A1/A2). He had previously been employed by the Organisation as an assistant lawyer (grade B3) under a fixed-term contract as of 1 September 2019. At the time of the conclusion of his second contract, the appellant was on parental leave and had relocated to a country other than the country of his duty station.
  
  The appellant claims that by determining that his place of recruitment for the purpose of his second contract coincided with his duty station under his first contract, the Organisation failed to consider the factual establishment of his residence outside the duty country, and therefore committed an error of law and fact. He challenges the decision taken on the basis of this determination not to grant him the installation allowance and not to reimburse his travel and removal expenses upon taking up his new duties. He also challenges the decision to take into account the periods of his service since 2019, including the period spent on parental leave, for the calculation of the progressive reduction of the expatriation and basic family allowances.