In November 2025, the Administrative Tribunal registered two appeals. The following 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. The indication of the subject matter of the appeals is based on the information provided to the registry and it is not binding on the Tribunal.

• Appeal No. 774/2025 – H v. Governor of the Council of Europe Development Bank

On 6 November 2025, the Tribunal registered appeal No. 774/2024 – H v. Governor of the Council of Europe Development Bank. The appellant is a former member of staff of the Council of Europe Development Bank (“the Bank”) who has been receiving a disability pension under Article 13.1 of Appendix 2 to the Bank's Staff Regulations and Rules since 1 August 2025.

The appellant contests the decision by which the Governor informed them that, as at 15 July 2025, he was unable to rule on the possible application of Article 14.2 of such appendix, relating to invalidity resulting from a work accident or an occupational disease. They also challenge the decision of 12 September 2025 rejecting their administrative complaint and confirming the decision of 15 July 2025. According to that decision, the Invalidity Board did not comply with the regulatory framework and exceeded its powers by classifying the appellant's illness as occupational, whereas, in the absence of a prior decision by the insurer, the Bank had not recognised the existence of an event falling within the scope of Article 14.2 cited above.

The appellant submits that the contested decisions disregard Articles 13 and 14 of Appendix 2 to the Bank's Staff Regulations and Rules, insofar as those provisions do not make the recognition of an occupational illness under that scheme subject to such prior recognition by the insurer, contrary to what the Bank asserts. According to the appellant, the Governor's position creates an interdependence between the two social security schemes in place at the Bank – the insurance scheme under Article 9 of the Staff Regulations and the co-ordinated pension scheme under Article 10 of those Regulations – which is not provided for in the applicable legal framework. Such an interpretation would also violate the duty of care, since it would have the effect of giving insurers exclusive competence to decide on the occupational origin of an illness, even though their interests do not coincide with those of the staff members. It would also result in a violation of the principle of legal certainty.

On those grounds, the appellant asks the Tribunal to declare their appeal admissible and well founded and, consequently, to annul the contested decisions, order the Bank to compensate them for the material and non-material damage suffered and order it to pay all the costs.

• Appeal No. 775/2025 – P. R. v. Secretary General of the Council of Europe

On 18 November 2025, the Tribunal also registered appeal No. 775/2025 – P. R. v. Secretary General of the Council of Europe. The appellant is a job candidate who had been admitted to take part in an external competition (vacancy notice No. 1018/2025). Owing to an access problem with the TestReach testing platform, she was unable to sit the first online test, which was eliminatory. As her request to reschedule this test was refused, she could not be admitted to the next stage of the selection procedure.

The appellant submits that her exclusion from the procedure, due to technical failures of the platform for which she was not responsible, is contrary to the principle of non-discrimination and to the requirements of fairness and transparency set out in Article 4.3 of the Staff Regulations. She further argues that she did not receive the adequate technical assistance to which she was entitled.

In consequence, the appellant requests access to the full recording of her connection to the testing platform. She also seeks to be readmitted to the competition and to be allowed to sit the three tests provided for in the selection procedure.