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

• Appeal No. 782/2026 – M. G. v. Secretary General of the Council of Europe

On 13 April 2026, the Tribunal registered Appeal No. 782/2026 – M. G. v. Secretary General of the Council of Europe. The appellant has been a staff member of the Organisation since November 1995. He holds a permanent contract at grade A6.

The appellant challenges the decision taken by the Secretary General on 7 April 2026 to impose provisional measures on him under paragraph 1220 of the Staff Rule on Discipline, with effect from 9 April 2026. These measures arise in the context of an investigation conducted against him by the Directorate of Internal Oversight (DIO), of which the appellant was informed on 7 April 2026, in connection with alleged acts of wrongdoing affecting the public interest attributed to him.

The appellant submits that the contested decision is unlawful on the following grounds: it failed to respect his right to be heard; it was taken in disregard of the principle of good administration and the duty of care; and it is in breach of the principle of proportionality.

Under the first ground of appeal, the appellant reproaches the Organisation for not having heard him before the provisional measures were imposed in the context of the DIO investigation, which followed a report concerning alleged violations of the regulatory framework applicable to the protection of personal data. He further submits that he was not heard during the DIO's preliminary assessment either. The appellant contends that, had he been heard, he would have been able to explain the entirely regular nature of the acts attributed to him, as well as the circumstances in which the report was made.

Under the second ground of appeal, the appellant takes issue with the statement of reasons for the contested decision, on the grounds that it merely repeats the provisions of its legal basis – namely paragraph 1220 of the Staff Rule on Discipline – and fails to specify how the provisional measures would be indispensable to preserve the effectiveness of the investigation, the interests of the Organisation or a harmonious working environment, having regard to the loyalty, integrity and managerial skills he has demonstrated throughout his career. According to the appellant, this inadequacy of reasoning constitutes a breach of the duty of solicitude.

Under the third ground of appeal, the appellant submits that the severity of the measures imposed is disproportionate in relation to the alleged facts. In the absence of a reasonable connection between those facts and any precautionary objective, the appellant contends that the measures amount in substance to a punitive sanction, thereby anticipating the finding of a misconduct that has not been established, and causing him serious and irreparable harm. 

On these grounds, the appellant requests the annulment of the Secretary General's decision to impose provisional measures on him under paragraph 1220 of the Staff Regulations on Discipline.

• Appeal No. 783/2026 – Staff Committee v. Secretary General of the Council of Europe

On 16 April 2026, the Tribunal registered Appeal No. 783/2026 – Staff Committee v. Secretary General of the Council of Europe. By its appeal, the Staff Committee challenges the new approach adopted by the Administration regarding the publication of vacancy notices for A4 and A5 jobs, as announced in a news published on the Organisation's intranet on 10 December 2025. It submits that this announcement has had the effect of allowing the Administration to fill vacant A4 and A5 jobs systematically through external recruitment, whereas that procedure had previously been permitted only on an exceptional basis.

The Staff Committee submits that this change of approach constitutes an administrative decision adversely affecting it, in that it disregards the functions conferred upon it by Article 13.4 of the Staff Regulations. Under that provision, it maintains that it should have been consulted prior to the adoption of the new approach, since the latter departs from the previous practice of filling A4 and A5 jobs primarily through internal competition, with recourse to external competition permitted only on an exceptional basis, where a job required particular competencies or where the internal procedure had failed to identify a candidate meeting the requirements of the job. In this regard, the Staff Committee submits that the consistent and deliberate application of this practice by the Administration had rendered it a binding element of staff policy, which could only be validly modified by a legal provision.

The Staff Committee further considers that the exchanges that took place between itself and the Secretary General prior to the announcement in question cannot serve as a substitute for a formal statutory consultation, which requires, on the one hand, the prior submission to the Committee of a complete legal text and, on the other hand, the granting of a period of 15 days within which to formulate its opinion, unless otherwise agreed between the parties, which was not the case in the present instance.

On these grounds, the Staff Committee requests the Tribunal to annul the decision of the Secretary General not to consult it prior to modifying the procedures for appointment to A4 and A5 grades and, consequently, to annul the decision of 10 December 2025 concerning the modification of those procedures, together with an order that the Administration reimburse the costs incurred in the amount of 6,000 euros. 

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 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.