In May 2026, the Administrative Tribunal registered five appeals lodged against the Secretary General of the Council of Europe.

• Appeal No. 784/2026 – M. G. (II) v. Secretary General of the Council of Europe

On 7 May 2026, the Tribunal registered Appeal No. 784/2026 – M. G. (II) v. Secretary General of the Council of Europe. The appellant has been a staff member of the Council of Europe since November 1995 and is currently employed under a permanent contract at grade A6. He has submitted his resignation, which is due to take effect on 30 September 2026.

The appellant challenges the decision communicated to him by the Director of Human Resources on 22 April 2026, the subject of which was the refusal to postpone by one month the effective date of his resignation, from 1 October 2026 to 1 November 2026. 

The appellant submits that the contested decision disregards the duty of care and diligence incumbent on the Organisation. According to the appellant, in refusing that postponement, the contested decision failed to take into account the circumstances in which he submitted his resignation, or his interest in receiving a pension calculated on the basis of the step to which he would have been entitled had he continued to perform his duties until 31 October 2026.

The appellant further challenges the relevance of the reasons relied upon in the contested decision, in particular the alleged interest of the Organisation in the proper functioning of his directorate. He considers accordingly that the decision is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment.

On these grounds, the appellant seeks the annulment of the contested decision, together with compensation for the damage suffered and reimbursement of his costs.

• Appeal No. 785/2026 – A. B. v. Secretary General of the Council of Europe

On 11 May 2026, the Tribunal registered Appeal No. 785/2026 – A. B. v. Secretary General of the Council of Europe. The appellant is a former staff member who was recruited pursuant to Rule No. 1234 laying down the conditions of recruitment and employment of locally recruited staff members working in Council of Europe Duty Stations located outside France. She was employed by the Organisation as a senior project officer at grade B5 from 2019 until the end of 2025.

The appellant challenges the decision of 27 November 2025 of her direct manager, which was confirmed on 16 January and 11 March 2026 in response to her request for a management review and her administrative complaint (hereafter “the contested decision”), not to renew her contract for 2026.

The appellant submits that the contested decision is unlawful on the following grounds.

First, the appellant complains that the contested decision was communicated without any reasons. The grounds subsequently invoked during the management review and at the level of the Secretary General go beyond mere clarification and introduce new elements, including performance and conduct-related considerations not previously identified. The appellant submits that she was therefore deprived of the ability to defend herself effectively in full knowledge of the grounds relied upon in the contested decision. She also contends that these circumstances demonstrate that the reasons subsequently given to justify the non-renewal of her contract were constructed ex post facto.

The appellant submits that the Organisation failed to properly apply the rules on performance assessment in her case. She sets out several arguments to demonstrate that the alleged deficiencies in her performance and conduct were not formally communicated and addressed through the applicable process, which would have implied providing guidance, monitoring and reassessment in co-operation with the Directorate of Human Resources. Had the relevant rules been applied, the appellant argues that she would have had the opportunity to understand, address and remedy any shortcoming relied upon to justify the non-renewals of her contract.

The appellant complains further that her employment contract was terminated without prior notice, pursuant to paragraph 7 of Rule No. 1234, whereas the performance and conduct-related considerations relied upon to take the contested decision would have required instead issuing a prior warning and providing her with an opportunity to be heard, in accordance with the safeguards set out in paragraphs 8 and 9 of Rule No. 1234.

In addition, the appellant alleges that there are objective and concordant indications in the present case allowing to infer that the contested decision was taken in retaliation for her prior reporting of instances of harassment, misuse of authority and procedural irregularities, as well as her active involvement in raising issues related to staff rights, management practices and working conditions, including in field offices, in her quality as an elected member of the Staff Committee.

Lastly, the appellant contends that the contested decision is marred by a manifest error of assessment and a violation of the duty of care. She argues that not only were the performance and conduct-related grounds introduced belatedly to justify the contested decision, but they are inconsistent with the positive appraisals she received throughout her six years of service, and they remain unsupported by objective evidence. She also complains that in taking such a decision, the Organisation failed to act with the required fairness, transparency and care, having regard to her personal circumstances. The appellant emphasises that her work-related health condition at the time of the relevant events was such that the Organisation was under an enhanced duty to exercise particular care and to adapt its conduct accordingly.

On those grounds, the appellant seeks the annulment of the contested decision.

• Appeal No. 786/2026 – E. B. v. Secretary General of the Council of Europe

On 13 May 2026, the Tribunal registered Appeal No. 786/2026 – E. B. v. Secretary General of the Council of Europe. The appellant is a former staff member who was recruited pursuant to Rule No. 1234 laying down the conditions of recruitment and employment of locally recruited staff members working in Council of Europe Duty Stations located outside France. She was employed by the Organisation as a senior project officer at grade B5 from August 2016 until the end of 2025.

The appellant challenges the decision of 27 November 2025 of her direct manager, which was confirmed on 16 January and f 16 March 2026 in response to her request for a management review and to her administrative complaint (hereafter "the contested decision"), not to renew her contract for 2026.

The appellant submits that the contested decision is unlawful on several grounds.

First, the appellant complains that the contested decision was communicated without any reasons. The grounds subsequently invoked during the management review and at the level of the Secretary General go beyond mere clarification and introduce new elements, including performance and conduct-related considerations not previously identified or communicated. The appellant submits that by not stating the reasons underlying the contested decision, the Organisation deprived her of the ability to defend herself effectively in full knowledge of the grounds relied upon.

The appellant submits that the Organisation failed to properly apply the rules on performance assessment in her case. She sets out several arguments to demonstrate that the alleged deficiencies in her performance and conduct were not formally identified, communicated and addressed through the applicable process, which would have implied providing guidance, monitoring and reassessment in co-operation with the Directorate of Human Resources. The appellant therefore concludes under this ground that the Administration relied on an appraisal framework lacking the objectivity and safeguards required under Rule No. 1234.

The appellant complains further that her employment contract was terminated without prior notice, pursuant to paragraph 7 of Rule No. 1234, whereas the performance and conduct-related considerations relied upon to take the contested decision would have required instead issuing a prior warning and providing her an opportunity to be heard, in accordance with the safeguards set out in paragraphs 8 and 9 of Rule No. 1234.

In addition, the appellant alleges that the contested decision was taken in retaliation for her activities as an elected member of the Staff Committee, in particular in connection with the concerns she had raised relating to the vulnerability of locally recruited staff members employed in field offices and the reform of Rule No. 1234 for which she had advocated. She claims in this respect that another member of the Staff Committee under the same managerial line was subjected to the same retaliatory treatment under comparable circumstances.

Lastly, the appellant contends that the contested decision is marred by a manifest error of assessment and a violation of the duty of care. Having served for over nine years with continuous positive prior appraisals, she submits that the conclusions relied upon not to renew her contract are inconsistent with her service record and unsupported by objective evidence. She also complains that in taking such a decision, the Organisation failed to act with the required fairness, transparency and care, having regard to her personal circumstances.

On those grounds, the appellant seeks the annulment of the contested decision.

• Appeal No. 787/2026 – N. V. v. Secretary General of the Council of Europe

On 13 May 2026, the Tribunal registered Appeal No. 787/2026 – N. V. v. Secretary General of the Council of Europe. The appellant is a staff member of the Organisation employed at grade B4 under a contract of indefinite duration. She challenges the decision of the Director of Human Resources of 13 November 2025, confirmed by the decisions of 16 January and 18 March 2026 taken in response to her request for a management review and her administrative complaint (hereafter "the contested decision"), not to act upon her formal complaint of moral harassment against her direct line manager and of institutional harassment.

The appellant raises several grounds in support of her appeal. She complains, on the one hand, of not having benefited from an effective management review and, on the other hand, that the contested decision confined itself to asserting the serious and objective nature of the investigation and the absence of harassment, without setting out the factual and legal elements relied upon, or explaining why the documents she had submitted in support of her complaint were insufficient, thereby infringing her rights of defence and the adversarial principle. She submits that the external service provider appointed to conduct the investigation did not offer sufficient guarantees of rigour and impartiality and did not carry out a thorough and comprehensive investigation. In this regard, the appellant mentions an investigative methodology ill-suited to a global assessment of a body of converging evidence, a biased selection of witness testimonies and other items of evidence, hearing conditions prejudicial to her rights, and an investigation report vitiated by inconsistencies.

The appellant further submits that the Organisation failed to comply with its duty of care by omitting to implement adequate preventive or protective measures and by taking decisions that contributed to her isolation in the workplace. She also contends that, by characterising the alleged acts of harassment as mere oversights or shortcomings, without assessing their cumulative effect on her health and dignity, as well as on her professional reputation and private life, the Administration committed a manifest error of assessment and violated her fundamental rights.

On those grounds, the appellant seeks the annulment of the decision not to act upon her formal harassment complaint, a finding that the Organisation has failed to comply with its obligations, and compensation for the damage sustained.

• Appeal No. 788/2026 – T. J. v. Secretary General of the Council of Europe

On 15 May 2026, the Tribunal registered Appeal No. 788/2026 – T. J. v. Secretary General of the Council of Europe. The appellant was a candidate to the external recruitment procedure No. 1150/2026 for the appointment of the Executive Director of Eurimages. He challenges the decision of the Directorate of human resources of 13 March 2026 not to select him for the assessment stage carried out under this procedure.

The appellant maintains that by failing to recognise his professional qualifications and experience in the film and audiovisual sector, the contested decision is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment. He submits that the decision in question, as it was initially notified to him, should have comprised an exhaustive assessment of his professional profile against the criteria set out in the vacancy notice. He adds that the reply to his formal complaint did not remedy this deficiency, since it omitted to indicate which requirements listed in the vacancy notice he allegedly failed to satisfy and on which grounds the conclusion was drawn that he did not fulfill such requirements. The appellant also contends that his case raises broader concerns regarding the transparency and merit-based character of Council of Europe recruitment processes.

On these grounds, the appellant requests that the contested decision be annulled or withdrawn and that his application be reconsidered on the basis of a transparent and reasoned assessment, taking full account of his relevant professional background.

The indication of the subject matter of the appeals is established by the Registry, under its responsibility, on the basis of the information provided by the appellants; 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.