Appellant

Subject

788/2026

T. J.

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On these grounds, the appellant requests that the contested decision be annulled or withdrawn and that his application be reconsidered on the basis of a transparent and reasoned assessment, taking full account of his relevant professional background.

787/2026

N. V.

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.

786/2026

E. B.

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.

785/2026

A. B.

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.

784/2026

M. G. (II)

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.

783/2026

Staff Committee

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.

782/2026

M. G.

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. The appellant has moreover applied to the President of the Tribunal for a stay of execution of the contested decision.

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.

781/2026

G. P. D. G. (II) v. Secretary General of OTIF

The appellant is a former staff member of the Intergovernmental Organisation for International Carriage by Rail (OTIF), employed under a fixed-term contract as of 2 October 2025, whose employment was not confirmed following a probationary period deemed unsuccessful. The appellant’s fixed-term contract expired on 2 January 2026.

By Appeal No. 781/2026, the appellant challenges the decision setting out the practical arrangements for the termination of her contract, taken by the Secretary General on 8 December 2025 and confirmed on 30 January 2026 by the decision rejecting her administrative complaint.

The appellant contends that the decision in question is vitiated by the same procedural defects as those affecting the decision to terminate her employment. With regard to her leave entitlements, she challenges the decision not to pay her for accrued but unused annual leave on the grounds that such a decision is not only based on a calculation error but is devoid of any legal basis and is in breach of the Organisation’s Staff Regulations. The appellant further reproaches the Organisation for having made remarks and taken measures, purportedly for precautionary purposes, that were degrading, unjustified, and disproportionate in the course of organising her departure from OTIF.

On these grounds, the appellant seeks the annulment of the contested decision and compensation for the material and moral damage sustained, in the form of payment for 7.5 days’ salary corresponding to accrued leave and 20,000 Swiss francs in respect of moral damages, in addition to reimbursement of legal fees in the amount of 6,000 Swiss francs.

780/2026

G. P. D. G. (I) v. Secretary General of OTIF

The appellant is a former staff member of the Intergovernmental Organisation for International Carriage by Rail (OTIF), employed under a fixed-term contract as of 2 October 2025, whose employment was not confirmed following a probationary period deemed unsuccessful. The appellant’s fixed-term contract expired on 2 January 2026.

By Appeal No. 780/2026, the appellant challenges the decision to terminate her employment taken by the Secretary General of the Organisation on 5 December 2025, and confirmed by the decision of 30 January 2026, rejecting her administrative complaint. The appellant submits that the termination of her contract was marred by substantial defects, both procedurally and substantively.

With regard to procedural defects, the appellant considers that the decision to terminate her employment should have been issued not by the Secretary General but by the Administrative Committee, in accordance with her request. She also contends that the decision to reject her administrative complaint does not originate from the Organisation, since it was made by a lawyer “appointed” by the Secretary General, and that the notice period was not observed.

As to the merits of the case, the appellant alleges that the Organisation failed to comply with the fundamental principles governing the probationary period by failing to set objectives for her, to conduct a regular evaluation of her performance, and to provide her in a timely manner with the information necessary to implement corrective measures. The appellant further alleges that the Secretary General failed to take into account essential facts and drew manifestly erroneous conclusions from the circumstances, contrary to the objective reality of the work she performed. She also claims a manifest breach of the Organisation’s duty of care, citing a campaign of harassment against her and a complete lack of respect for her person.

On these grounds, the appellant seeks the annulment of the contested decision, her retroactive reinstatement to the position she held until 2 January 2026, or, in the alternative, the payment of compensation equivalent to 21 months’ salary. The appellant further seeks measures to compensate for the harm suffered, including the payment of 50,000 Swiss francs for non-pecuniary damages and 10,000 Swiss francs for legal costs, in addition to the reinstatement of her residence permit in Switzerland. Failing such reinstatement, the appellant requests reimbursement of the costs incurred in obtaining a new residence permit in Switzerland and those arising from the residential lease binding her until 30 September 2026, as well as reimbursement of the medical expenses she has incurred as additional material damage.

779/2026

L. Y. (II)

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.

778/2026

K

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.

777/2026

J

The appellant is a staff member of the Organisation who challenges the rejection of a compensation claim which they lodged with the Secretary General. By means of that claim, the appellant alleged wrongful conduct on the part of the Administration which, through the repetition of unfair decisions, processing errors and omissions in the management of their medical and social insurance coverage, is said to have caused them both material and non-material damage.

The alleged wrongful conduct occurred upon the appellant’s resumption of work on a therapeutic part-time basis, at which point the insurance administrator, Henner, ceased to reimburse medical treatments that had been approved by the insurer’s medical adviser. The appellant maintains that, by preventing the continuity of care, this failure by Henner to comply with the prior authorisation adversely affected both their physical and psychological condition, thereby aggravating their state of health. The appellant further complains that a staff member of the Council of Europe unduly requested from, and obtained via the insurance administrator Henner information relating to their private and medical life, as well as of the lack of support from the Directorate of Human Resources.

According to the appellant, the alleged wrongful conduct is multidimensional and encompasses: (1) a violation of Article IX of the Staff Regulations, of Rule No. 1398 on benefits related to medical expenses, and of the Insured Persons’ Guide; (2) a violation of the Policy on Respect and Dignity at the Council of Europe, in particular its Article 5.10; (3) a violation of the Council of Europe Regulations on the Protection of Personal Data, in particular Article 1 thereof; and (4) a breach of the duty of care.

Accordingly, the appellant seeks compensation for non-material damage and for financial loss, covering in particular unreimbursed medical expenses, health-related costs incurred as a result of the alleged wrongful conduct, as well as the loss of an opportunity to occupy a post at a higher grade.

776/2025

I

The appellant is a job candidate who took part in external competition No. 966/2025 for the recruitment of Human Rights Lawyers (Greek Law). They seek the annulment of the Secretary General’s decision which rejected their administrative complaint and confirmed the decision of the Directorate of Human Resources (DHR) excluding them from the pre-selection list on the basis of the marks obtained in the written tests.

The appellant submits that the appeal is timely, as it was lodged within 60 days of the Secretary General’s decision. They further contend that their administrative complaint was also filed within the applicable 30-day period from the moment in which they became aware of the detailed reasons for the contested decision of the DHR, namely when they discovered the email from the DHR containing the marking explanation in their spam folder.

As to the merits of their appeal, the appellant alleges that the assessment of their written tests was affected by several manifest errors of fact and law and was moreover tainted by unreasonableness. They consider that the lack of information on the marking criteria constitutes a material deficiency in transparency. The appellant also challenges the decision to raise the minimum mark from 10/20 to 13/20, arguing that it lacked transparency and objective justification. They maintain that, had their tests been correctly marked, their mark would reasonably have met or exceeded the raised threshold, such that the Organisation cannot rely on the threshold increase to justify their exclusion.

The appellant contends that the various grounds raised amount to irregularities in the selection process, warranting annulment of the contested decisions. The appellant seeks furthermore the correction or independent re-marking of their written tests by external legal experts, and their placement on the pre-selection list should their corrected mark meet the qualifying threshold. They also request the disclosure and publication of the marking criteria applied in this competition, as well as those to be applied in future competitions.

775/2025

P. R.

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.

774/2025

H v. Governor

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 Annex 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 annex, 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 Annex 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.

The appellant is a former staff member whose spouse benefited, as his dependent, from primary coverage under the Council of Europe Medical and Social Insurance Scheme (CEMSIS) pursuant to Rule No. 1398 of the Secretary General of 20 December 2022 on benefits related to medical expenses.

The appellant challenges the Administration’s decision to terminate his spouse’s CEMSIS primary coverage with effect from 1 June 2025, date on which she began receiving a national pension. In the appellant’s view, by considering that his spouse had ceased to be his dependent – without taking into account the amount of her pension and the fact that she has no entitlement to public health insurance –, the contested decision produced disproportionate and discriminatory effects. He further argues that, by relying exclusively on the mere existence of income – regardless of its amount – and disregarding the absence of any entitlement to national health insurance, Rule No. 1398 results in an undifferentiated assessment of individual situations and may generate disproportionate, even arbitrary, consequences for those concerned. He therefore seeks its revision to ensure compliance with the principle of proportionality.

For these reasons, the appellant asks the Tribunal to order the Secretary General to revise Article 5, paragraphs 2.a and 2 of Rule No. 1398, to annul the contested decision, and to decide that his spouse should be admitted to the benefit of primary CEMSIS coverage.

772/2025

C. V. (II)

The appellant is a former staff member of the Organisation who was recruited for a job falling under a periodic rotation profile, whose employment ended on 31 December 2024 following a probationary period deemed unsuccessful. She contests the decision of the director of Human ressources not to pursue her formal complaint of harassment, on the grounds that the investigation report prepared by external investigators did not conclude that her direct supervisor had engaged in proven harassment. She also requests that the investigation into the facts set out in her formal complaint be continued.

In support of her appeal, the appellant argues that the allegations raised in her complaint were not examined with sufficient thoroughness during the investigation. She submits that the accumulation of a long series of incidents—potentially amounting to managerial shortcomings—undermined the security of her employment and career progression and caused harm to her well-being and dignity. She contends that these circumstances amounted to a situation of institutional harassment. The appellant also invokes a breach of the principles of adversarial procedure and equality of arms, as well as a manifest error of assessment on the part of the Organisation.

On these grounds, the appellant asks the Tribunal to annul the contested decision, to order the continuation of the investigation arising from her formal complaint, and to award compensation for the material and moral harm allegedly suffered. In the alternative, she asks the Tribunal to recognise the existence of a situation of harassment and to grant just and equitable redress in accordance with the Council of Europe’s Policy on respect and dignity.

It should be noted that, by a separate appeal (appeal No. 768/2025), the appellant has also challenged the decision to terminate her employment on the grounds of an unsuccessful probationary period.

771/2025

G

The appellant is a staff member who is currently serving a fixed-term contract, initially due to expire on 18 June 2029. The appeal is directed against the decision of the Secretary General to terminate the appellant’s contract with effect from 31 December 2025, pursuant to paragraph 680.1 of the Staff Rule on termination of service and paragraph 1340.5.3. of the Staff Rule on staff participation.

The appellant contests the legality of the termination decision, which is based on the suppression of the appellant’s job. The appellant alleges that the decision constitutes an abuse of authority, is discriminatory in nature, and is vitiated by bad faith. The appellant further contends that the Organisation breached its duty of care in the manner in which the suppression of post was carried out and communicated. The appellant also invokes a violation of the Organisation’s obligation to endeavour to reassign the staff member whose job has been suppressed to another suitable position within the Organisation.

On these grounds, the appellant seeks the annulment of the decision to terminate his/her employment and relieve him/her of his/her duties, along with all implementing measures, including those related to the recruitment procedure initiated as a result of the impugned decision. The appellant also claims compensation for the moral and material damage suffered, in addition to reimbursement of the costs of the proceedings.

770/2025

G. T.

The appellant is a job candidate who took part in external competition No. e44/2024 for the recruitment of senior project officers. He seeks the annulment of the decision not to include his name among the first 100 highest-ranked candidates placed on the preselection list, based on his results in the written tests.

In support of his appeal, the appellant alleges both procedural and substantive irregularities in the assessment of his test results. These include the application of inconsistent and non-transparent evaluation criteria, the arbitrary refusal to reassess his papers, and the insufficient justification provided for his results. He further contends that the recruitment procedure failed to guarantee equal treatment of candidates, due to the reliance on Council of Europe project management materials that were accessible only to internal staff members. In his view, these circumstances led the Administration to overstep its margin of discretion and to commit a manifest error of assessment, thereby breaching the principles of due process and fair competition.

On these grounds, the appellant seeks the annulment of the contested decision and the inclusion of his name on the preselection list. He also seeks corrective measures to prevent the future use in recruitment procedures of internal documents that are not accessible to external candidates, as well as any other relief the Tribunal deems appropriate.

769/2025

M.-F. G.

The appellant is a staff member of the Organisation who applied on 24 September 2024 for the voluntary retirement scheme launched by the Administration. She contests the rejection of her application, which was notified to her by a generic e-mail on 21 February 2025.

In support of her appeal, the appellant argues that the decision concerning her application is not based on objective and verifiable criteria and that it is insufficiently reasoned. She considers that these elements raise serious doubts as to the fairness and rigour of the selection process for the departure plan. The appellant also complains that she was not given any information about the possibilities of appealing against the decision in question, in breach of the principles of transparency and the right to information.

On this basis, the appellant submits a number of requests to the Tribunal, asking for her application to be reconsidered under transparent, objective and fair conditions, with a detailed statement of reasons for the assessment of each of the selection criteria. She also requests that the list of employees having benefited from the retirement plan be disclosed.

768/2025

C. V. (I)

The appellant is a former B4-grade staff member who was recruited as of 1 April 2021 through an external recruitment procedure for a job corresponding to a periodic rotation profile at the European Directorate for the Quality of Medicines & HealthCare. She was thus granted two successive fixed-term contracts covering the periods from 1 April 2021 to 31 March 2023, and from 1 April 2023 to 31 March 2026. Following her successful application in another external recruitment procedure, the appellant was appointed to the same job under a one-year fixed-term contract, from 1 January 2024 to 31 December 2024, corresponding to a probationary period.

The appellant contests the decision to terminate her employment with the Organisation on the grounds that her probationary period was unsatisfactory.

In support of her appeal, the appellant argues that the discrepancies and contradictions found in her evaluation reports indicate an erroneous assessment of her performance, resulting from a lack of objectivity and impartiality on the part of her supervisors. She therefore considers that the contested decision is based on an erroneous, manifestly unfounded and unjustified conclusion.

The appellant further complains that the Secretary General failed to comply with the applicable regulations on staff assessments during the probationary period and highlights shortcomings on the part of her supervisors in providing managerial support. According to the appellant, the irregularities identified led to unequal treatment compared to other staff members performing the same duties and constitutes a breach by the Organisation of its duty of care.

On those grounds, the appellant requests the annulment of the decision to terminate her employment, as well as the annulment of her 2024 performance assessments. She also seeks reinstatement to her job and the award of various forms of compensation for the moral and material damage suffered, in addition to reimbursement of the costs of the proceedings.

767/2025

F

The appellant is a staff member of the Organisation who claims to have been the victim of acts of harassment by another staff member while teleworking. The appellant contests the Secretary General’s decision not to investigate his / her complaint of harassment.

The appellant considers that the contested decision is vitiated by several errors of law. The appellant contests the Secretary General’s position that the situation reported in the harassment complaint does not place the alleged facts in a professional context and therefore does not fall within the scope of the Policy on Respect and Dignity.

The appellant further submits that the Organisation breached its duty of care by failing to implement the appropriate procedures following his / her request for a management review of the contested decision.

On those grounds, the appellant asks the Tribunal to annul the contested decision and seeks compensation for moral damage.

766/2024

L. D. (III)

The appellant is a former member of staff of the Organisation whose appointment as assistant lawyer at the Registry of the European Court of Human Rights, under a Junior Professional Programme at grade B3, expired on 30 April 2024. She challenges the decision of the director of Human resources not to follow up her formal complaint of harassment and not to communicate to her the investigation report in its unredacted version.

The first ground relied on by the appellant in support of her appeal concerns the lack of effectiveness of the investigation carried out due to the breach of several procedural guarantees. In this regard, the appellant complains that the Directorate of human resources supervised the investigations whereas, according to the appellant, the principle of independence would have required entrusting the investigations to the DIO (Directorate of internal oversight). The appellant also complains of a breach of the adversarial principle, of the lack of expertise of the private company in charge of the investigations and of the fact that she was deprived of the right to be assisted by legal counsel. The second ground of the appeal concerns a manifest error of assessment by the Administration in concluding, on the basis of the investigation report, that the appellant's allegations of harassment were unfounded.

On those grounds, the appellant asks the Tribunal to annul the contested decision and, principally, to find that her harassment complaint is well-founded and, alternatively, to refer the case to the Council of Europe for a proper investigation.

She also puts forward a number of claims for damages, including compensation for the non-material damage suffered and reimbursement of the costs of the proceedings.

By her appeal No 761/2024, the appellant had challenged the decision to terminate her employment with the Organisation on the ground that her probationary period had been unsuccessful. By her appeal No. 762/2024, she also challenged the decision of the director general of Administration to second her to a directorate general of the Organisation from 25 March to 30 April 2024. This decision was taken following her formal complaint of harassment.

765/2024

L. Y.

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. The appellant contests the decision not to act on her formal complaint of harassment, following the investigation report concluding that harassment had not been proven.

The appellant claims, first, that the contested decision and the investigation report on which that decision was based are vitiated by a manifest error of assessment in that they conclude that there is no evidence to justify the alleged harassment. Furthermore, the appellant complains that the Organisation failed to fulfil its obligations in relation to the alleged harassment, both procedurally and substantively. In this regard, she considers that it was the failure of the Organisation to comply with its obligations regarding the well-being at work of staff members and respect for their integrity and dignity that made it possible for her to be subjected to harassment. The appellant further complains that she was not given full access to the information that enabled the Organisation to take its decision not to act on her complaint. She considers moreover that the investigation has not been conducted thoroughly.

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.

764/2024

A. G.

The appellant is an A3 staff member of the Council of Europe employed under an indefinite term contract. She challenges her assessment report for the year 2023, alleging formal and substantive irregularities affecting its legality.

First, the appellant claims that her assessment report is vitiated by a formal and procedural irregularity in that it was not carried out by her direct manager but by an indirect manager. Secondly, the appellant contests the qualitative and quantitative assessment of her work and alleges a lack of objectivity and failure to provide reasons.

On those grounds, the appellant takes the view that the Organisation made an arbitrary use of its discretionary powers and asks the Tribunal to annul the contested decision.

763/2024

M.-S. F.

The appellant is a candidate who applied to take part in an external recruitment procedure (vacancy notice No e7/2024) organised pursuant to Article 490 of the Staff Rule on entry into service with a view to recruiting a lawyer to the Registry of the European Court of Human Rights.

The appellant challenges the decision not to invite him to the next stage of the selection procedure on the ground that he did not obtain the minimum mark required at the first stage of the procedure. He considers that the decision of the Administration to increase the minimum mark required to be invited to the next stage of the selection procedure is contrary to the Staff Regulations and rules and does not meet the standards of transparency and objectivity which should have guided the Administration in the organisation of the tests.

On those grounds, the appellant requests that he be admitted to the next stage of the competition or, in the alternative, that he be allowed to sit the tests again. He also seeks compensation for non-material and professional damage and reimbursement of the costs and expenses incurred in the proceedings before the Tribunal.

762/2024

L. D. (II)

The appellant is a former member of staff of the Organisation whose appointment as assistant lawyer at the Registry of the European Court of Human Rights, under a Junior Professional Programme at grade B3, expired on 30 April 2024. She challenges the decision of the Director General of Administration to second her to a Directorate General of the Organisation from 25 March to 30 April 2024. This decision was taken following her formal complaint of harassment.

The appellant claims that she has an interest in bringing proceedings, since she had previously accepted an offer of a temporary assignment, the duration of which was not specified, rather than a secondment, the duration of which was specified. The appellant claims that she had reason to believe that this offer was for a period of three years, which was the period of employment to which she believed she was entitled under the Junior Professional Programme.

In support of her action, the appellant pleads lack of competence on the part of the author of the contested decision, in the absence of a valid delegation of signature, failure to state reasons, infringement of the right to be heard and an error of law, for lack of a legal basis enabling the Secretary General to proceed to the secondment.

On those grounds, the appellant seeks the annulment of the contested decision and puts forward a number of claims for damages, including compensation for the material and non-material damage suffered and reimbursement of the costs of the proceedings.

By her appeal No. 761/2024, the appellant also challenged the decision to terminate her employment with the Organisation on the ground that her probationary period had been unsuccessful.

761/2024

L. D. (I)

The appellant is a former staff member who had been recruited as an assistant lawyer at the Registry of the European Court of Human Rights under the Junior Professional Programme at grade B3. The appellant challenges the decision to terminate her appointment with the Organisation on the ground that her probationary period was unsuccessful.

In support of her appeal, the appellant alleges an error of law, in that the underperformance during her probationary period which was relied on to terminate her appointment does not constitute, in her view, the real reason for the contested decision. The appellant claims that the Secretary General failed to comply with the applicable rules by calling into question the qualifications required for the post to be filled after the start of the recruitment procedure.

In addition to the lack of objectivity of her superiors, the appellant claims that the Organisation breached the principle of good faith and violated her dignity by wrongly criticising her for having refused certain performance objectives and not granting her a reasonable period of time to improve her performance.

The appellant also considers that she is a victim of institutional harassment and that the Organisation erred in law by deciding to terminate her appointment without waiting for the outcome of the harassment complaint she had lodged. She claims further that the complaint procedure for harassment breached the adversarial principle and her right to be assisted by a lawyer and is therefore unlawful.

On those grounds, the appellant seeks the annulment of the contested decision and makes several claims for compensation, including compensation for the non-material damage suffered, in addition to reimbursement of the costs of the proceedings.

760/2024

Ü. K.

The appellant is a job candidate who was placed on the reserve list established within the framework of vacancy notice n° e35/2021 for the external recruitment of lawyers at the Registry of the European Court of Human Rights. The reserve list in question expired in May 2024 without the appellant receiving an offer of employment.

The appellant seeks the annulment of the Secretary General's decision not to extend the validity of the reserve list and requests the extension of this list for a period of 2 years. According to the appellant, his appeal is admissible insofar as he has a direct and existing interest in the extension of the period of validity of the list. The contested decision was erroneous in that it was based on an incorrect assessment of the needs of the Court's registry, whereas the Organisation was in a situation where the need for lawyers, and consequently the potential use of the list, had been established.

The appellant also complains of discriminatory treatment on the grounds of his ethnic origin, which he claims is the reason for the refusal to recruit him during the period of validity of the list.

759/2024

D. S.

The appellant is a job applicant who applied to take part in an external recruitment procedure (Vacancy Notice No. e30/2023) carried out in accordance with Article 4100 of the Staff Rule on entry into service in order to recruit Assistant Lawyers at the Registry of the European Court of Human Rights.

The appellant challenges the decision not to invite him to the final stage of the selection procedure on account of alleged procedural irregularities of the online job-related test which would have led to an erroneous assessment of the test papers.

On these grounds, the appellant asks to be placed in the pre-selection list of the recruitment procedure or alternatively to be given the opportunity to re-sit the examination.

758/2024

F. B.

The appellants seek the annulment of the decision by which the Secretary General rejects any liability on the part of the Council of Europe in connection with the decision of the French tax authorities to make the pension paid to them by the Organisation subject to certain social security contributions.

In support of their appeals, the appellants claim that the Organisation failed in its duties and infringed the Council of Europe's internal law. They complain that the Organisation deprived them of the practical possibility of choosing between affiliation to the French social security system and the Organisation's medical scheme.

The appellants claim further that the Organisation failed to fulfil its duty to inform and its duty of care. They consider that, in application of these general principles, the Organisation should have informed them of the economic consequences of these choices and of the cost of joining the French social security system in view of the social security contributions to be paid.

The appellants ask the Tribunal to order the Organisation to make good the damage they suffered by reimbursing them the arrears of social security contributions which the French tax authorities have charged to them.

757/2024

M. H.

756/2024

P. N.

755/2024

M. C.

754/2024

M.-L. F.

753/2024

E. H.

752/2024

L. C.

751/2024

C. W.-H.

750/2024

G. B.

749/2024

M. B. L.

748/2024

F. G.

747/2024

M.-L. L.

The appellant is a former Council of Europe staff member in grade B2 who had been employed since 2002 under various types of contracts and in various departments of the Organisation. The appellant's last appointment ended on 31 January 2024 at the end of her probationary period on the ground that her performance was not satisfactory.

The appellant challenges the decision not to confirm her in her employment at the end of the probationary period. In support of her appeal, she alleges that the evaluation procedure followed in her case was flawed and deficient, that the opinion of the Appointments Review Committee on which the contested decision is based was biased and that the Secretary General failed in her duty of care. 

She seeks the annulment of the contested decision and her reinstatement in the Organisation or, failing that, financial compensation for the damage suffered.

746/2024

A. S. T.

The appellant seeks the annulment of the decision by which the Secretary General rejects any liability on the part of the Council of Europe in connection with the decision of the French tax authorities to make the pension paid to her by the Organisation subject to certain social security contributions.

In support of her appeal, the appellant claims that the Organisation failed in its duties and infringed the Council of Europe's internal law. She complains that the Organisation deprived her of the practical possibility of choosing between affiliation to the French social security system and the Organisation's medical scheme.

The appellant claims further that the Organisation failed to fulfil its duty to inform and its duty of care. She considers that, in application of these general principles, the Organisation should have informed her of the economic consequences of her choices and of the cost of joining the French social security system in view of the social security contributions to be paid.

The appellant asks the Tribunal to order the Organisation to make good the damage she suffered by reimbursing her for the three years' arrears of social security contributions which the French tax authorities have charged to her.

745/2024

Z. G.

The appellant is a staff member of the Organisation under an open-ended contract.
She seeks the annulment of the Secretary General's decision to appoint her to grade A1 step 3 rather than A2 following an internal recruitment procedure. She challenges the Administration's practice of taking into account only years of professional experience within the Council of Europe at grades B5 and B6 in the calculation of the required six years of experience equivalent to grade A for an appointment at grade A2, in application of Article 340.4 of the Staff Rule on classification of jobs and Article 440.2 of the Staff Rule on entry into service. The appellant also complains that her previous experience outside the Organisation following the completion of her first degree was not considered.
The appellant describes this practice as arbitrary and discriminatory for the Organisation's staff members vis-à-vis external candidates. In her view, it has no legal basis in the Staff Regulations and Rules and creates inequality of treatment between candidates.

744/2024

I. S. V.

The appellant is an A2-grade staff member under an open-ended contract who had been previously employed by the Organisation under fixed-term contracts on a non-continuous basis. She seeks the annulment of the decision not to promote her to grade A3 on the ground that Administration erred in finding that she did not fulfil the six years of service for eligibility for such a promotion. She contests the Administration’s interpretation of the relevant rules (Article 24, paragraph 4, of Appendix II of the former Staff Regulations in force until 31 December 2022 and Article 540.1 of the Staff Rule on career development in force since 1 January 2023) according to which periods of service with the Organisation preceding an interruption of employment are not taken into account. The appellant considers that the rules in question do not support such an interpretation.

743/2024

B. S. v. Governor

The appellant is a staff member of the Council of Europe Development Bank employed under successive fixed-term contracts since 2015.

He is seeking the annulment of the Governor's decision to terminate his employment when his current contract expires on 30 April 2024. He requests, primarily, that his contractual relationship with the Bank be requalified in an indefinite-term contract or, alternatively, that his current contract be converted into an indefinite-term contract. He is also seeking compensation for the damage he has suffered.

The appellant claims that his employment should be maintained insofar as the contracts awarded to him have not complied with the applicable provisions of the Staff Regulations concerning the maximum duration statutorily fixed for contracts. According to the appellant, the Development Bank cannot consider his appeal inadmissible on the ground that it was out of time, since only the decision to terminate his employment at the end of its term met the criteria for a challengeable administrative act. The appellant also claims that the refusal to convert his current contract into an open-ended one is not supported by a sufficient motivation as to the skills he would have lacked to obtain such a conversion. Lastly, the appellant argues that in the reasons given for refusing this conversion, the Bank wrongly applies a condition, that of very good performance, which is no longer required by the rules in force.

742/2023

I. S.

The appellant is a former staff member of Russian nationality who had been employed under fixed-term contracts since 2014.

She seeks the annulment of the Secretary General's decision not to renew her contract following the cessation of the membership of the Russian Federation and not to convert her fixed-term contract into an open-ended contract. She also seeks compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. 

The appellant claims that the decision in question has no legal basis, is discriminatory with regard to nationality and type of contract and in breach of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights concerning the right to respect for private and family life, as well as of the Secretary General's duty to protect all employees of the Organisation without any distinction.

741/2023

E. K.

The appellant is a permanent staff member of the Council of Europe with a dual French and Russian citizenship. The appellant seeks the annulment of the Secretary General’s decision to remove her from an A4 job and to transfer her to a job of a lower grade in pursuance of Articles 570.1 (Transfer without competition) and 590.1 (Supernumerary transfer) of the Staff Regulations within the framework of a risk management exercise aimed at identifying sensitive jobs following the cessation of the membership of the Russian Federation. The appellant also seeks compensation for damages resulting from the contested decision.

The appellant claims that the decision in question is arbitrary, discriminatory and that it contravenes the Staff Regulations and Rules. The decision would also result in a breach of Articles 8 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as well as of the general principles of legality, necessity, proportionality, legal certainty and good administration. The appellant further submits that her assignment to a lower-grade job constitutes a disguised measure of downgrading and a case of psychological harassment.

740/2023

D. K.

The appellant is a permanent staff member of the Council of Europe with a dual French and Russian citizenship. The appellant seeks the annulment of the Secretary General’s decision to remove him from an A4 job and to transfer him to a job of a lower grade in pursuance of Articles 570.1 (Transfer without competition) and 590.1 (Supernumerary transfer) of the Staff Regulations within the framework of a risk management exercise aimed at identifying sensitive jobs following the cessation of the membership of the Russian Federation. The appellant also seeks compensation for damages resulting from the contested decision.

The appellant claims that the decision in question is arbitrary, discriminatory and that it contravenes the Staff Regulations and Rules. The decision would also result in a breach of Articles 8 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as well as of the general principles of legality, necessity, proportionality, legal certainty and good administration. The appellant further submits that his assignment to a lower-grade job constitutes a disguised measure of downgrading and a case of psychological harassment.

739/2023

E. T.

The appellant is a permanent staff member of the Council of Europe with a dual French and Russian citizenship. The appellant seeks the annulment of the Secretary General’s decision to remove her from an A4 job and to transfer her to a job of a lower grade in pursuance of Articles 570.1 (Transfer without competition) and 590.1 (Supernumerary transfer) of the Staff Regulations within the framework of a risk management exercise aimed at identifying sensitive jobs following the cessation of the membership of the Russian Federation. The appellant also seeks compensation for damages resulting from the contested decision.

The appellant claims that the decision in question is arbitrary, discriminatory and that it contravenes the Staff Regulations and Rules. The decision would also result in a breach of Articles 8 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as well as of the general principles of legality, necessity, proportionality, legal certainty and good administration. The appellant further submits that her assignment to a lower-grade job constitutes a disguised measure of downgrading and a case of psychological harassment.

738/2023

C. A.

The appellant seeks the annulment of the Secretary General's decision to appoint them, following an internal recruitment procedure, to Grade A1 instead of Grade A2. The appellant challenges the Administration's practice of taking into account only the years of experience as a permanent staff member in grades B5 and B6 for the purposes of determining the grade on appointment, pursuant to Article 340.4 of the Staff Rule on classification of jobs and Article 440.2 of the Staff Rule on entry into service.

The appellant considers that this practice is arbitrary in that it does not take account of the responsibilities actually exercised by staff members. They further claim that the practice in question discriminates against external candidates and against staff members who have experience as temporary staff members in the Organisation.

G. T.

The appellant seeks the annulment of the Secretary General's decision to terminate their temporary contract on the ground of manifest unsuitability to perform their duties. This decision was taken following allegations of harassment for acts that the appellant had committed in the performance of their duties. 

The appellant submits that the procedure followed to terminate their contract without giving them a written warning did not comply with the applicable rules and, more generally, with the general principles of international civil service law, such as mutual trust, good faith, the duty of care and the right to be heard. The appellant also claims that, by deciding not to initiate disciplinary proceedings in respect of the acts of which they were accused, the Administration infringed their rights of defence. The appellant further claims that the decision to terminate their contract prematurely was manifestly disproportionate and insufficiently reasoned.

A. A.

The appellant seeks the annulment of the Secretary General’s decision not to accept their application in an external recruitment procedure (vacancy notice e7/2023 - Director of filtering and support services of the Registry of the European Court of Human Rights, Grade A6) on the ground that the application did not meet the requirements of the vacancy notice as regards diploma, professional experience and language knowledge.

The appellant considers that this decision is contrary to the provisions of the Staff Regulations and to fundamental principles of law, such as the principle of equal treatment, the principle of good administration and the principle of protection of legitimate expectations. The appellant further submits that the Secretary General erred in her assessment of the facts and misused her discretion.

R. K.

The appellant is a former local staff member employed by the Organisation under a fixed-term contract (CDD). Having lodged a complaint with the Commission against Harassment, the appellant challenged the Deputy Secretary General's decision to support the Commission's opinion concluding that there had been no harassment in their case, on the grounds that the Commission had not been impartial in its investigation and that its recommendations were prejudicial to them.

Paolo LOBBA

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.

Zhargal BUDAEV

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 and discriminates her owing to her nationality.

Daria CHISTIAKOVA

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 and discriminates her owing to her nationality.

Anna GORODETSKAYA

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.

Olivia CONRAD (III)

The appellant is a staff member of the Organisation who applied for external competition No. e11/2022 for the recruitment of communication/media officers. She seeks the annulment of the Administration's decision not to invite her to the next stage of the selection procedure because of her results in the written test. She claims that there were irregularities in the competition conditions linked to the testing platform and argues that the selection procedure was neither transparent nor fair.

Emiliya RAMAZANOVA

The appellant is a national of Russia and Azerbaijan who is employed as an assistant lawyer at the Registry of the European Court of Human Rights. She seeks the annulment of the decision not to place her name on the reserve list which was drawn up following completion of the procedure under vacancy notice No. e22/2021 for the recruitment of Legal Analysts/Legal Advisors (Grade A1/A2). She claims that, as a candidate to this procedure, she was discriminated owing to the unjustifiable requirements that the Administration imposed upon her relating to her nationality.

C (II) v. Governor

The appellant contests the decision of the Council of Europe Development Bank by which the Bank allegedly refused to communicate the calculation of his/her days of leave. The appellant alleges that the author of the contested decision was not competent to adopt it and that the decision in question does not comply with the principle of sound administration.

Lars NYCTELIUS (III)

The appellants seek the annulment of the decision, reflected in their January 2022 pay statement, to partially apply the 2022 salary adjustment in application of the affordability clause in the salary adjustment method. They also challenge the decision of the Committee of Ministers concerning the application of this clause to the 2022 salary adjustment.

Penelope DENU (V)

Joanne HUNTING (II)

Tanja KLEINSORGE (II)

Natalia ZAYTSEVA

The appellant is a Russian national who was employed until 31 May 2022 on a fixed-term contract. She seeks the annulment of the decision not to renew her contract upon its expiry, as well as the decision rejecting her prior request for an unpaid leave. By her appeal, she contends that the Organization violated the duty of care, discriminated her on account of her nationality, and she challenges the alleged inconsistency of the Council of Europe contractual policy.

Olga OREKHOVA

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 is unlawful, arbitrary and discriminatory.

Elena IZYUMENKO

The appellant is a French-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. The appellant seeks the annulment of the decision not to renew her contract upon its expiry alleging that the contested decision is unlawful, arbitrary and discriminatory. She also seeks compensation for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages suffered.

E

The appellant seeks the annulment of the decision not to renew his/her secondment at the Council of Europe and compensation for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages suffered.

Dmitry GURIN

The appellant seeks the annulment of the decision terminating his application to an external vacancy on the ground of ineligibility following the cessation of the membership of the Russian Federation to the Council of Europe.

Fatih KIRBAS

The appellant seeks the annulment of the decision not to invite him to an interview as part of an external recruitment procedure.

D

The appellant seeks the annulment of the Secretary General’s decision not to renew his/her contract.

M. R. (II)

The appellant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Secretary General not to accept his application for the external competition e48/2020.

Paméla MENDEZ CARVALHO

The appellant challenges the decision to refuse the renewal of her contract.

C (I) v. Governor of the Council of Europe Development Bank

The appellant contests the decision of the Governor of the Bank notifying her of the decision of the Invalidity Board, denouncing that the origin of her invalidity is attributable to the Administration due to a situation of moral harassment at work, and claims compensation for the damages suffered.

Irena Alicja KOWALCZYK-KEDZIORA

The appellant seeks the annulment of the administrative decision not to grant her the educational allowance for the university year 2020 for her son who is studying in a third country.

Laurence NECTOUX

The appellant seeks the annulment of the decision to terminate her contract.

Irène WEIDMANN (II)

The appellant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Secretary General by which the Organisation modified the scale of calculation of her pension.

M. R. (I)

The appellant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Secretary General not to invite him to compete for the post of System Support Assistant. He also demands the reopening of the internal competition with written and oral examination.

Tanja KALOVSKA ROUSSOU

The appellant complaints of the discrimination as well as the non-inclusion in the follow-up project on promoting human rights and minorities protection in the South-East of Europe.

Maria OCHOA-LLIDO

The appellants request the annulment of the decision refusing them compensation for the entire injury resulting from acts of psychological harassment.

Vincente DALVY

Ilknur YUKSEK (II)

The appellant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Secretary General dated 7 June 2019 not to place her name on the reserve list established after the following competition: Vacancy notice no. 17/2018 MONEYVAL, Programme Manager (A1/A2), due to an irregularity in the procedure concerned.

Timothy CARTWRIGHT

The appellant mainly seeks the annulment of the decision to implement the modification of Article 36 of Coordinated Pension Regulations (RRCP) recommended by 236th Report of CCR and the return of statu quo ante; in the alternative, they ask for compensation for prejudice corresponding to the loss of their pension rights.

Silvia MUÑOZ BOTELLA (II)

The appellant seeks to include in her salary, in the future, the salary rating of 1,1% calculated for 2018, after the payment of the arrears of the salary contribution by a Member State for the years 2018, 2019 and 2020.

Antonella CAGNOLATI

The appellants seek the annulment of the decision by the Secretary General to recover in 2020 the tax adjustment which had been paid in 2018.

Ulrich BOHNER (VII)

Yannick TROADEC

The appellants mainly seek the annulment of the decision to implement the modification of Article 36 of Coordinated Pension Regulations (RRCP) recommended by 236th Report of CCR and the return of statu quo ante; in the alternative, they ask for compensation for prejudice corresponding to the loss of their pension rights.

Morven TRAIN

Linette TAESCH

Ilda OLIVEIRA

Silvia MUÑOZ BOTELLA (I)

Anne-Marie KLEIN

Violette GRAS

Sabine EMERY

Penelope DENU (IV)

B

The appellant party seeks the annulment of a disciplinary measure.

Youlia LEVERTOVA v. Governor of the Council of Europe Development Bank

The appellant challenges her appraisal for 2018.

Nathalie VERNEAU (II)

The appellant mainly seeks the annulment of the decision to implement the modification of Article 36 of Coordinated Pension Regulations (RRCP) recommended by 236th Report of CCR and the return of statu quo ante; in the alternative, they ask for compensation for prejudice corresponding to the loss of their pension rights.

Hanno HARTIG (III)

The appellants seek the annulment of the decision by the Secretary General to implement in their respect the decision of the Committee of Ministers’ amending article 36 of Coordinated Pension Regulations

Melina BABOCSAY (VII)

Johannes de JONGE (III)

Riccardo PRIORE (II)

The appellant challenges the decision of the Secretary General refusing to grant him effective protection (article 2 of Rule 1292 on the protection of human dignity at the Council of Europe).

Ulrich BOHNER (VI)

The appellants seek the annulment of the decision by the Secretary General to implement in their respect the decision of the Committee of Ministers’ amending article 36 of Coordinated Pension Regulations

Simon PALMER

Bridget O'LOUGHLIN

Alfonso ZARDI (VI)

John PARSONS (V)

Isabela MIHALACHE (II)

The appellant contests the modalities of execution of the 30 October 2019 decision in appeal No. 604/2019.

Arman ZRVANDYAN

The appellant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Secretary General refusing his job application under vacancy notice o44/2019.

Stanislas FROSSARD

The appellants seek the application of the adjustments of salaries for the year 2018 after the payment of the arrears of the salary contribution by a member state.

Andrée Jeannine FRANCK

Alfonso ZARDI (V)

Lars NYCTELIUS (II)

Hanno HARTIG (II)

Günter SCHIRMER (II)

John PARSONS (IV)

Marc BAECHEL (IV)

Yann DE BUYER (II)

Melina BABOCSAY (VI)

Ulrich BOHNER (V)

A v. CCNR

The appellant seeks the annulment of the decision of the President of the Central Commission for the Navigation of the Rhine refusing to open an external investigation concerning allegations of mental harassment. The appellant also requests to suspend the implementation of the appointments made, according to that person, with the aim of removing the appellant from the Organisation.

James BRANNAN (IV)

The appellant seeks to annul the administrative decision announced on 22 July 2019 to amend the medical insurance scheme CEMSIS concerning children of 18 and 19 years old, and therefore depriving them of their full and free of charge coverage previously provided for in Article 9, paragraph 2, of Staff Regulations.

Jean-Michel MARTZ

The appellant seeks annulment of the decision to remove him from his post as a disciplinary measure.

Nigel SMITH

The appellant seeks annulment of the decision to refuse him a retroactive payment of the household allowance.

Michel BRECHENMACHER (II)

The appellant seeks annulment of the decision to remove him from his post as a disciplinary measure.

Merete BJERREGAARD

The appellant seeks the annulment of the administrative decision to refuse to grant the educational allowance and the reimbursement at “the exceptional rate” of educational costs foreseen for children with special educational needs for her son (Article 7, paragraph 6.d of Annexe IV of Staff Regulations and paragraph 5 of Rule 1277).

Ana GOREY (V)

The appellant seeks the annulment of the administrative decision to refuse to grant “the exceptional rate” of reimbursement of educational costs foreseen for children with special educational needs for her daughter and her son (Article 7, paragraph 6.d of Annexe IV of Staff Regulations and paragraph 5 of Rule 1277).

Ana GOREY (IV)

Barbara UBOWSKA (II)

The appellant challenges the pro rata basis system with regard to travelling time calculated for 2019 to return home in Poland.

Barbara UBOWSKA (I)

The appellant challenges the refusal to grant her a special leave for the purpose of moving house to Poland.

Magno LOURENCO AGOSTINHO

The appellant seeks the annulment of the decision imposing him a new probationary period following a new contract for the same functions.

Ulrich BOHNER (IV)

The appellants seek the annulment of the decision of the Secretary General in execution of the Committee of Minister’s decision to freeze salary and pensions for 2019 not applying the annual salary and pension adjustment recommended by the Co-ordinating Committee on Remuneration (CCR).

An appellant (Appeal No. 607) also seeks the annulment of the decision to postpone by one year the introduction of the "moderation clause" in the method of salary and pensions adjustment.

Pierre MASSON (II)

Monique BECRET (VI)

Alessandro MANCINI

Yann DE BUYER

Johannes de JONGE (II)

Melina BABOCSAY (V)

Alfonso ZARDI (IV)

Gianfranco ALBERELLI (IV)

Céline COSSET

The appellant challenges the decision to refuse the renewal of her contract before the ending of the probationary period.

X

The appellant challenges the decision not to renew the appellant’s contract. The appellant also seeks compensation for damages.

Isabela MIHALACHE (I)

The appellant challenges the decision to refuse the renewal of her contract even though she was successful in a recruitment procedure for the same functions.

Maria Cristina ANA

The appellant challenges the decision not to grant her a higher grade and she requests the Tribunal to grant her that grade.

Claire SMITH v. Governor of the Council of Europe Development Bank

The appellant challenges the amount of the capital sum paid after the recognition of her disability.

Penelope DENU (III)

The appellants seek the annulment of the decision of the Secretary General in execution of the Committee of Minister’s decision not to award the annual salary and pension adjustment as from January 2018.

David PARROTT (II)

Ulrich BOHNER (III)

Alfonso ZARDI (III)

John PARSONS (III)

James BRANNAN (III)

Gianfranco ALBERELLI (III)

Matthias BAUER v. Governor of the Council of Europe Development Bank

The appellant challenges the decision of the Governor to impose him a reprimand as a disciplinary measure and to reorganize his duties.

Luca SCHIO v. Governor of the Council of Europe Development Bank

The appellant contests the decision of the Governor to confirm the opinions of his direct hierarchical superior on his appraisal.

Sibel DEMİR SALDIRIM (II)

The appellant seeks the annulment of her written and oral examination for the selection of seconded lawyers in the Organisation.

Michel BRECHENMACHER (I)

The appellant seeks annulment of the decision to remove him from his post as a disciplinary measure.

Edo KORLJAN

The appellant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Deputy Secretary General to return him to the grade A3 he was occupying before his promotion to grade A4.

Victor SOLOVEYTCHIK

The appellant seeks the annulment of the decision of 20 December 2017 of the Directorate of Human Resources insofar as it determines that a pension transfer request submitted after a date fixed by HRD would be refused.

Jannick DEVAUX (III)

The appellant challenges the decision to refuse the renewal of her contract.

Jannick DEVAUX (II)

The appellant challenges the refusal of maintaining her remuneration.

Manuel PAOLILLO

The appellant challenges the decision rejecting his demand for compensation for acts of moral harassment.

Rona BROWN

The appellant challenges the amount of the capital sum paid after the recognition of her disability.

Pedro AGRAMUNT FONT de MORA

The appellant, President of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, challenges the report No. 14338 of the Parliamentary Assembly.

Riccardo PRIORE (I)

The appellants challenge a decision of the Deputy Secretary General taken under Rule 1292 of 3 September 2010 on the protection of human dignity at the Council of Europe.

Régis BRILLAT (III)

Manuel Antonio de ALMEIDA PEREIRA

The appellant challenges the decision of the Director of Human Resources, denying him additional steps and he asks the Tribunal to grant him these steps.

Sibel DEMİR SALDIRIM (I)

Concerning the appointment to posts of seconded lawyers at the European Court of Human Rights. They request that their competencies be recognised and they demand the annulment of the Secretary General’s decision to appoint the four successful candidates.

Zeki UYSAL

Monique BECRET

The appellant requests the annulment of the provisions of Rule No. 1387, modifying CEMSIS insurance medical coverage.

Nezih DUSKUNKORUR

The appellant requests the annulment of the provisions of Rule No. 1387, modifying CEMSIS insurance medical coverage.

Schnutz Rudolf DÜRR

The appellant requests the annulment of the provisions of Rules No. 1384 and 1385 and of Rule No. 1387, modifying CEMSIS insurance medical coverage.

Rüdiger DOSSOW

The appellant requests the annulment of the provisions of Rule No. 1387, modifying CEMSIS insurance medical coverage.

Aiste RAMANAUSKAITE

The appellant requests the annulment of the provisions of Rule No. 1387, modifying CEMSIS insurance medical coverage.

Tanja KLEINSORGE

The appellant requests the annulment of the provisions of Rule No. 1387, modifying CEMSIS insurance medical coverage.

Günter SCHIRMER

The appellant requests the annulment of the provisions of Rules No. 1384 and 1385 and of Rule No. 1387, modifying CEMSIS insurance medical coverage.

James BRANNAN

The appellant requests the annulment of the provisions of Rules No. 1384 and 1385 and of Rule No. 1387, modifying CEMSIS insurance medical coverage.

Susan CROSS

The appellant challenges the Secretary General’s decision not to maintain the payment of the allowance in respect of dependent children and the education allowance during the period of unpaid leave.

Natalia KRAVCHENKO (II)

The appellant, a former temporary staff member, challenges the Secretary General’s decision to reject her request for protection and assistance in her action before the Directorate of Human Resources and in her judicial proceedings against the “Bas-Rhin sickness insurance fund (Caisse Primaire d’Assurance Maladie du Bas-Rhin)” about an invalidity pension following an accident at work reported by the Directorate of Human Resources.

Raphaël ALOMAR v. Governor of the Council of Europe Development Bank

Retiring Governor of the Bank, the appellant demands the annulment of the Governor’s decision to exclude him from the Consultative Committee of the Autonomous Pension Fund.

Costas SKOURAS

The appellant complains about the Secretary General’s decision not to renew his contract.

Holger SEIFERT v. Governor of the Council of Europe Development Bank

The appellant contests a new hierarchical junction and a diminution of responsibilities. He also complains about moral harassment.

Maria-Lucia ORISTANIO (II) v. Governor of the Council of Europe Development Bank

The appellant contests the decision of the Government to reorganize the Bank. She assumes that this decision deteriorates further her working conditions as it is continuing the downgrading, the moral harassment and the disguised disciplinary measure already brought to the attention of the Tribunal in appeal N° 559/2014.

Gyorgyi KACSANDI (IV) v. Governor of the Council of Europe Development Bank

The appellant challenges the Governor’s decision to refuse her a permanent contract at the end of her probationary period.

Gyorgyi KACSANDI (III) v. Governor of the Council of Europe Development Bank

The appellant complains about psychological harassment and unequal treatment.

Gyorgyi KACSANDI (II) v. Governor of the Council of Europe Development Bank

The appellant requests the annulment of the decision to terminate her fixed term contract.

Gyorgyi KACSANDI (I) v. Governor of the Council of Europe Development Bank

The appellant challenges her 30th month appraisal.

Nataliya YAKIMOVA

The appellant is complaining about the Secretary General’s refusal to effect advancement in step after 24 months of service (article 3 of Appendix IV to the Staff Regulations). She also challenges the exclusion of probationary period from the term of service in the calculations for the purposes of advances of steps.

Maria-Lucia ORISTANIO (I) v. Governor of the Council of Europe Development Bank

The appellant is complaining of a deterioration of her working conditions, a downgrading, a moral harassment and a disguised disciplinary measure under the guise of a reorganization. She also contests the refusal of her demand to be reestablished in the integrality of her duties.

Martine CARALY-STARKE

The appellant asks that the accident she sustained should be regarded as an accident at work.

Gunilla HEDMAN

The appellant seeks for revision of Rule No. 1364 of 28 January 2014 on contributions towards collective insurance premiums and the restoring of the base provided for in Rule No. 1325.

Fabrice KELLENS

The appellant challenges the recruitment procedure following vacancy notice No. e257/2013 as well as the subsequent decisions including the appointment of another candidate.

Geneviève MAYER

The appellant challenges the recruitment procedure following vacancy notice No. e257/2013 as well as the subsequent decisions including the appointment of another candidate.

Viaceslav PETRASHENKO

The appellant seeks the annulment of the Secretary General’s decision not to appoint him to a position of lawyer at the Registry of the European Court of Human Rights and not to put him on the reserve list further to an external recruitment competition.

Anne GURY

The appellants seek the annulment of the Secretary General’s decision to reject theirs applications for the competition n° e059/2013. They also allege that the Human Resources Directorate would have provided them with wrong information concerning the possibility of taking out an unemployment insurance.

Martine LANG

Nasera KESSOUR

Marie-Paule GUTFREUND

Sevda GÜNDÜZ

Clelia CUCCHETTI-RONDANINI

Monique BECRET (IV)

The appellant contests the decision to refuse the early retirement measures.

Jannick DEVAUX

The appellant challenges the calculation method of her benefits to purchase her pension entitlement.

Cynera JAFFREY

The appellant challenges the civil liability of Council of Europe for the accident at work she had on the 21 November 2012.

Carlo TANCREDI (II)

The appellant contests the decision refusing a new classification of his grade.

Bilge KURT TORUN

The appellant contests the decision informing her that she was excluded from the special procedure under article 24.e of the Regulations on Appointments following the ability tests.

Carlo TANCREDI

The appellant contests the decision to refuse to renew his fixed-term contract following the New Staff Policy.

Giovanni PALMIERI (VIII)

The appellant seeks the annulment of the Secretary General’s decision to refuse to apply to him article 24, paragraph 2 of the Staff Regulations to let him end his term as President of the Staff Committee (30 June 2015).

Staff Committee (XIV)

The appellant seeks the cancellation of the A.P. decision 6186 concerning inter alia the granting of steps to a staff member.

Merita ANDREA

The appellant contests her appraisal.

Dorota LELONEK v. Governor of the Council of Europe Development Bank

The applicant seeks the annulment of the Governor’s decision not to pay her a survivor’s pension.

STAFF COMMITTEE (XIII)

The appellant seeks the annulment of the consultation of the Staff Committee by the Administration dated 7 November 2012 on the use of the Vanbreda account and its replacement by a consultation in accordance with the general principles of law and the statutory and regulatory provisions.

STAFF COMMITTEE (XII)

The appellant seeks the cancellation of the deductions carried out with respect to the August 2012 pay slips for certain staff members who took part in the “work stoppage” organized by the Staff Committee on 19 June 2012.

Michel SEMERTZIDIS (II) v. Governor of the Council of Europe Development Bank

The appellant seeks annulment of the decision to remove him from his post as a disciplinary measure.

Mimoza MURATI

The appellant (a project manager with a consulting contract) seeks the annulment of the Secretary General’s decision not to extend her contract.

Ellen Joanne PENNINCKX

The appellant seeks the annulment of the Secretary General’s decision not to pay her the expatriation allowance and all related payments.

Joan STAFFORD

The appellant seeks the annulment of the Secretary General’s decision not to proceed to the immediate destruction of confidential information concerning her which could illegally be found in files other than administrative files.

Alfonso ZARDI (II)

The appellant contests the modalities of execution of the 8 December 2011 decision in appeal N° 475/2011.

Françoise PRINZ (II)

The appellant contests the modalities of execution of the 8 December 2011 decision in appeal N° 474/2011.

Nelly ROUGIE-EICHLER

The appellant seeks the recognition of the Council of Europe responsibility in relation of the damage the appellant believes having suffered.

R. V. (III) v. Governor of the Council of Europe Development Bank

The appellant seeks annulment of the decision not to consider him as invalid.

Alev GUNYAKTI

The appellant seeks the annulment of the decision not to award her the following step in her grade as from 1st January 2012, as well as the decision to double the period for awarding steps in future.

Ivana d'ALESSANDRO

The appellant requests the replacement of a fixed term contract with an indefinite duration contract following the vacancy of the post corresponding to the duties which are effectively exercised.

STAFF COMMITTEE (XI)

The appellant seeks the annulment of the Secretary General’s decision not to award staff members (or former staff members) with a disability an exceptional home adaptation grant without respecting former engagements taken with the Staff Committee.

Laurent LINTERMANS (II)

The appellant seeks the annulment of the Secretary General’s decision to refuse to qualify as industrial disease the disability for his recognition as an invalid.

Laurent LINTERMANS (I)

The appellant seeks the annulment of the Secretary General’s decision to refuse to qualify as industrial disease the disability for his recognition as an invalid.

Tilman HOPPE

The appellant contests the tests results of his online test for a recruitment procedure (vacancy notice n° e104/2011).

R. V. (II) v. Governor of the Council of Europe Development Bank

The appellant seeks annulment of the decision to remove him/her from his post as a disciplinary measure.

Elisabeth SCARAVELLA

The appellant seeks the annulment of the decision not to award her the following step in grade as from 1st October 2011, as well as the decision to double the period for awarding steps in future.

James BRANNAN

The appellant seeks the annulment of the decision not to award him the following step in grade as from 1st October 2011, as well as the decision to double the period for awarding steps in future.

Nadine SCHAEFFER

The appellant seeks the annulment of the decision not to award her the following step in grade as from 1st October 2011, as well as the decision to double the period for awarding steps in future.

Marie-Odile BILLET

The appellant seeks the annulment of the decision not to award her the following step in grade as from 1st October 2011, as well as the decision to double the period for awarding steps in future.

Daniela BALESTRA

The appellant seeks the annulment of the decision not to award her the following step in grade as from 1st October 2011, as well as the decision to double the period for awarding steps in future.

Didier FAUCHEZ

The appellant seeks the annulment of the decision not to award him the following step in grade as from 1st October 2011, as well as the decision to double the period for awarding steps in future.

Roza MUSTAFAYEVA

The appellant contests her appraisal for 2003.

D. M. v. Governor of the Council of Europe Development Bank

The appellant seeks compensation for damage suffered as a result of moral harassment, discrimination and racist abuses.

Emmanuel SIMONET

The appellant seeks the annulment of the decision not to award him the following step in grade as from 1st July 2011, as well as the decision to double the period for awarding steps in future.

Nicholas FOURCHER

The appellant seeks the annulment of the decision not to award him the following step in grade as from 1st July 2011, as well as the decision to double the period for awarding steps in future.

Marc BIGAIGNON (II)

The appellant seeks the annulment of the decision not to award him the following step in grade as from 1st July 2011, as well as the decision to double the period for awarding steps in future.

J. de la P. L. (II) v. Governor of the Council of Europe Development Bank

The appellant contests the Governor’s decision to end his/her contractual engagement.

Richard WIEDER

The appellant seeks the annulment of the decision not to award him the following step in grade as from 1st July 2011, as well as the decision to double the period for awarding steps in future.

Gemma FRY

The appellant seeks the annulment of the decision not to award her the following step in grade as from 1st July 2011, as well as the decision to double the period for awarding steps in future.

Sylviane POIRIER

The appellant seeks the annulment of the decision not to award her the following step in grade as from 1st July 2011, as well as the decision to double the period for awarding steps in future.

Christophe STOLL

The appellant seeks the annulment of the decision not to award him the following step in grade as from 1st July 2011, as well as the decision to double the period for awarding steps in future.

Anne AMAR

The appellant seeks the annulment of the decision not to award her the following step in grade as from 1st July 2011, as well as the decision to double the period for awarding steps in future.

Ana GOREY (III)

The appellant seeks the annulment of Rule No. 1329 on the education allowance and of the Secretary General’s decision not to accord her the exceptional rate of reimbursement of educational costs.

Ayşe Gül ALKIŞ

The appellant alleges some irregularities in the ability tests, which, according to her, are part of the written tests of a recruitment procedure (vacancy notice n° e25/2010).

Michel SEMERTZIDIS v. Governor of the Council of Europe Development Bank

The appellant requests the annulment of his downgrading as a disciplinary measure.

Emanuele NICOSIA

The appellant alleges some irregularities in the ability tests, which, according to him, are part of the written tests of a recruitment procedure (vacancy notice n° e25/2010).

Marina MAKAROVA

The appellant alleges some irregularities in the ability tests, which, according to her, are part of the written tests of a recruitment procedure (vacancy notice n° e25/2010).

Ekaterina PRIKHODKO

The appellant alleges some irregularities in the ability tests, which, according to her, are part of the written tests of a recruitment procedure (vacancy notice n° e25/2010).

Barry TULETT

The appellant seeks the annulment of the decision not to award him the following step in grade as from 1st April 2011, as well as the decision to double the period for awarding steps in future.

Emin ATAC

LThe appellant seeks the annulment of the decision not to award him the following step in grade as from 1st April 2011, as well as the decision to double the period for awarding steps in future.

David Michel PARROTT

The appellant seeks the annulment of the decision not to award him the following step in grade as from 1st April 2011, as well as the decision to double the period for awarding steps in future.

Françoise DEGENS

The appellant seeks the annulment of the decision not to award her the following step in grade as from 1st April 2011, as well as the decision to double the period for awarding steps in future.

Robert DIEBOLD (III)

The appellant seeks the annulment of the decision not to award him the following step in grade as from 1st April 2011, as well as the decision to double the period for awarding steps in future.

Katia BARON

The appellant seeks the annulment of the decision not to award her the following step in grade as from 1st April 2011, as well as the decision to double the period for awarding steps in future.

Sergey GUSEVSKIY

The appellant alleges some irregularities in the ability tests, which, according to him, are part of the written tests of a recruitment procedure (vacancy notice n° e25/2010).

Olivia CONRAD

The appellant contests the regularity of an external recruitment procedure (vacancy notice n° e64/2011).

Senem GUROL

The appellant alleges some irregularities in the ability tests, which, according to her, are part of the written tests of a recruitment procedure (vacancy notice n° e25/2010).

Mesut BEDIRHANOGLU

The appellant alleges some irregularities in the ability tests, which, according to him, are part of the written tests of a recruitment procedure (vacancy notice n° e25/2010).

Natasha BAKIRCI

The appellant alleges some irregularities in the ability tests, which, according to her, are part of the written tests of a recruitment procedure (vacancy notice n° e25/2010).

Ûmit KILINÇ

The appellant alleges some irregularities in the ability tests, which, according to him, are part of the written tests of a recruitment procedure (vacancy notice n° e25/2010).

J. de la P. L. v. Governor of the Council of Europe Development Bank

The appellant contests his appraisal.

Jonathan Landon SHARPE (IV)

The appellant seeks the annulment of the Secretary General’s decision to reduce salary and pension scales of a sum corresponding to 0,2% of the scale.

Mélina BABOCSAY (IV)

The appellant seeks the annulment of the Secretary General’s decision to reduce salary and pension scales of a sum corresponding to 0,2% of the scale.

Brian O'REILLY

The appellant seeks the annulment of the Secretary General’s decision to reduce salary and pension scales of a sum corresponding to 0,2% of the scale.

Veronica JEANNIN (V)

The appellant seeks the annulment of the Secretary General’s decision to reduce salary and pension scales of a sum corresponding to 0,2% of the scale.

Maria Isabel CASTRO MARTINEZ

The appellant seeks the annulment of the Secretary General’s decision to reduce salary and pension scales of a sum corresponding to 0,2% of the scale.

Pascale BOUILLON (VII)

The appellant seeks the annulment of the Secretary General’s decision to reduce salary and pension scales of a sum corresponding to 0,2% of the scale.

Carol KENDALL

The appellant seeks the annulment of the Secretary General’s decision to reduce salary and pension scales of a sum corresponding to 0,2% of the scale.

Maria Rosa PREVOST

The appellant seeks the annulment of the Secretary General’s decision to reduce salary and pension scales of a sum corresponding to 0,2% of the scale.

Jayne YEO

The appellant seeks the annulment of the decision of 15 November 2010, which considers that she had resigned.

Alfonso ZARDI

The appellant seeks the annulment of recruitment procedure e46/2010 and, as a result, the subsequent decisions including the appointment of another candidate.

Françoise PRINZ

The appellant seeks the annulment of recruitment procedure e46/2010 and, as a result, the subsequent decisions including the appointment of another candidate.

Seda PUMPYANSKAYA (III)

The appellant seeks the annulment of a decision about her contract and compensation for damages.

Franceline DENTINGER

The appellant seeks annulment of the Secretary General’s decision to reject her request for an education allowance.

Judith BUTLER

The appellant seeks the annulment of the decision to initiate for her benefit an individual performance-enhancement process.

R.V. v. Governor of the Council of Europe Development Bank

The appellant seeks annulment of the Bank’s decision to reject his request for protection in his official capacity and the granting of such a protection.

Seda PUMPYANSKAYA (II)

The appellant seeks the annulment of a decision about her contract and compensation for damages.

Pierre DEFER

The appellant seeks annulment of the Secretary General’s decision to reject his request for an education allowance.

Seda PUMPYANSKAYA (I)

The appellant seeks the annulment of the appraisal for 2009.

Natalia KRAVCHENKO

The appellant seeks the annulment of the decision not to give her a temporary contract after the 30th of June 2010.

Virginia PALMIERI

The appellant seeks the annulment of the Secretary General’s decision not to pay her an orphan’s pension.

Giovanni PALMIERI (VII)

The appellant seeks the annulment of the Secretary General’s decision not to pay him the allowance in respect of dependent children.

Jean-Marc LIBS

The appellant, a permanent staff member of grade B4 fulfilling a fixed-term position, seeks the annulment of the decision of the Directorate of Human Resources excluding him from taking part in an internal competition for a post of grade B3 (vacancy notice n° 67/2009).

Tobia FIORILLI

The appellant seeks the annulment of the Secretary General’s decision not to pay him the expatriation allowance.

Elnara RAMAZANOVA

The appellant contests the result of her interview in a recruitment procedure (vacancy notice n° e94/2008).

Levent ERCAN

The appellant contests the result of his interview in a recruitment procedure (vacancy notice n° e37/2008).

Renate ZIKMUND (II)

The appellant seeks the annulment of the implicit decision of refusal to grant her protection in her official capacity (Article 40 of Staff Regulations).

Petra WINTER

The appellant contests the mark given for a paper in an external recruitment procedure. She seeks re-evaluation of the paper and the evaluation of other papers.

Natasha PACE ABU-GHOSH (II)

The appellant contests the mark given for a paper in an external recruitment procedure.

Sergey GOLUBOK

The appellant seeks the annulment of the Secretary General’s decision not to invite him to participate in the written examination for the competition e42/2008 for a fixed-term position: Russian lawyer in the Registry of the European Court of Human Rights (grade A1/A2/A3).

Przemysław MUSIAŁKOWSKI

The appellant seeks the annulment of the Secretary General’s decision not to invite him for an interview under the competition e84/2007 for the recruitment of administrative officers open to nationals of Council of Europe member States (grade A1/A2).

Annachiara CERRI

The appellant seeks the annulment of the Secretary General’s decision not to rectify the salary and pension scales, in accordance with the salary adjustment method following the correction of the french component of the basket of salaries used to calculate the coordinated scales for 2003, 2004 and 2005.

Pierre MASSON

The appellant seeks the annulment of the Secretary General’s decision not to rectify the salary and pension scales, in accordance with the salary adjustment method following the correction of the french component of the basket of salaries used to calculate the coordinated scales for 2003, 2004 and 2005.

Jean-Pierre GEILLER

The appellant seeks the annulment of the Secretary General’s decision not to rectify the salary and pension scales, in accordance with the salary adjustment method following the correction of the french component of the basket of salaries used to calculate the coordinated scales for 2003, 2004 and 2005.

Olivia CONRAD

The appellant seeks the annulment of the Secretary General’s decision not to rectify the salary and pension scales, in accordance with the salary adjustment method following the correction of the french component of the basket of salaries used to calculate the coordinated scales for 2003, 2004 and 2005.

Estelle STEINER

The appellant seeks the annulment of the Secretary General’s decision not to rectify the salary and pension scales, in accordance with the salary adjustment method following the correction of the french component of the basket of salaries used to calculate the coordinated scales for 2003, 2004 and 2005.

Günter NAGEL

The appellant seeks the annulment of the Secretary General’s decision not to rectify the salary and pension scales, in accordance with the salary adjustment method following the correction of the french component of the basket of salaries used to calculate the coordinated scales for 2003, 2004 and 2005.

Ana GOREY (II)

The appellant seeks the annulment of the Secretary General’s decision not to rectify the salary and pension scales, in accordance with the salary adjustment method following the correction of the french component of the basket of salaries used to calculate the coordinated scales for 2003, 2004 and 2005.

Lucie MISSEMER

The appellant seeks the annulment of the Secretary General’s decision not to rectify the salary and pension scales, in accordance with the salary adjustment method following the correction of the french component of the basket of salaries used to calculate the coordinated scales for 2003, 2004 and 2005.

Florence MANSONS

The appellant seeks the annulment of the Secretary General’s decision not to rectify the salary and pension scales, in accordance with the salary adjustment method following the correction of the french component of the basket of salaries used to calculate the coordinated scales for 2003, 2004 and 2005.

Wolfgang LARCHER

The appellant seeks the annulment of the Secretary General’s decision not to rectify the salary and pension scales, in accordance with the salary adjustment method following the correction of the french component of the basket of salaries used to calculate the coordinated scales for 2003, 2004 and 2005.

Elisabeth SCARAVELLA

The appellant seeks the annulment of the Secretary General’s decision not to rectify the salary and pension scales, in accordance with the salary adjustment method following the correction of the french component of the basket of salaries used to calculate the coordinated scales for 2003, 2004 and 2005.

Françoise MALLET

The appellant seeks the annulment of the Secretary General’s decision not to rectify the salary and pension scales, in accordance with the salary adjustment method following the correction of the french component of the basket of salaries used to calculate the coordinated scales for 2003, 2004 and 2005.

Karl-Friedrich BOPP

The appellant seeks the annulment of the Secretary General’s decision not to rectify the salary and pension scales, in accordance with the salary adjustment method following the correction of the french component of the basket of salaries used to calculate the coordinated scales for 2003, 2004 and 2005.

Marose BALA LEUNG

The appellant seeks the annulment of the Secretary General’s decision not to rectify the salary and pension scales, in accordance with the salary adjustment method following the correction of the french component of the basket of salaries used to calculate the coordinated scales for 2003, 2004 and 2005.

Ilina TANEVA

The appellant seeks the annulment of the Secretary General’s decision not to rectify the salary and pension scales, in accordance with the salary adjustment method following the correction of the french component of the basket of salaries used to calculate the coordinated scales for 2003, 2004 and 2005.

Joanne HUNTING

The appellant seeks the annulment of the Secretary General’s decision not to rectify the salary and pension scales, in accordance with the salary adjustment method following the correction of the french component of the basket of salaries used to calculate the coordinated scales for 2003, 2004 and 2005.

John Bryan WILSON

The appellant seeks the annulment of the Secretary General’s decision not to rectify the salary and pension scales, in accordance with the salary adjustment method following the correction of the french component of the basket of salaries used to calculate the coordinated scales for 2003, 2004 and 2005.

Karla CHARRETON (II)

The appellant seeks the annulment of the Secretary General’s decision not to rectify the salary and pension scales, in accordance with the salary adjustment method following the correction of the french component of the basket of salaries used to calculate the coordinated scales for 2003, 2004 and 2005.

Veronica JEANNIN (IV)

The appellant seeks the annulment of the Secretary General’s decision not to rectify the salary and pension scales, in accordance with the salary adjustment method following the correction of the french component of the basket of salaries used to calculate the coordinated scales for 2003, 2004 and 2005.

Martine SCHANDENE

The appellant seeks the annulment of the Secretary General’s decision not to rectify the salary and pension scales, in accordance with the salary adjustment method following the correction of the french component of the basket of salaries used to calculate the coordinated scales for 2003, 2004 and 2005.

François KOLB

The appellant seeks the annulment of the Secretary General’s decision not to rectify the salary and pension scales, in accordance with the salary adjustment method following the correction of the french component of the basket of salaries used to calculate the coordinated scales for 2003, 2004 and 2005.

Didier FAUCHEZ

The appellant seeks the annulment of the Secretary General’s decision not to rectify the salary and pension scales, in accordance with the salary adjustment method following the correction of the french component of the basket of salaries used to calculate the coordinated scales for 2003, 2004 and 2005.

Yolande ANTOINE

The appellant seeks the annulment of the Secretary General’s decision not to rectify the salary and pension scales, in accordance with the salary adjustment method following the correction of the french component of the basket of salaries used to calculate the coordinated scales for 2003, 2004 and 2005.

Jeanne GRUBER-THIRION

The appellant seeks the annulment of the Secretary General’s decision not to rectify the salary and pension scales, in accordance with the salary adjustment method following the correction of the french component of the basket of salaries used to calculate the coordinated scales for 2003, 2004 and 2005.

Kheyra MOKEDDEM

The appellant seeks the annulment of the Secretary General’s decision not to rectify the salary and pension scales, in accordance with the salary adjustment method following the correction of the french component of the basket of salaries used to calculate the coordinated scales for 2003, 2004 and 2005.

Gianfranco ALBERELLI (II)

The appellant seeks the annulment of the Secretary General’s decision not to rectify the salary and pension scales, in accordance with the salary adjustment method following the correction of the french component of the basket of salaries used to calculate the coordinated scales for 2003, 2004 and 2005.

Elisabeth HEURTEBISE (II)

The appellant seeks the annulment of the Secretary General’s decision not to rectify the salary and pension scales, in accordance with the salary adjustment method following the correction of the french component of the basket of salaries used to calculate the coordinated scales for 2003, 2004 and 2005.

Jean-Philippe RESTOUEIX

The appellant seeks the annulment of the Secretary General’s decision not to rectify the salary and pension scales, in accordance with the salary adjustment method following the correction of the french component of the basket of salaries used to calculate the coordinated scales for 2003, 2004 and 2005.

Marc BAECHEL (III)

The appellant seeks the annulment of the Secretary General’s decision not to rectify the salary and pension scales, in accordance with the salary adjustment method following the correction of the french component of the basket of salaries used to calculate the coordinated scales for 2003, 2004 and 2005.

Pascale BOUILLON (VI)

The appellant seeks the annulment of the Secretary General’s decision not to rectify the salary and pension scales, in accordance with the salary adjustment method following the correction of the french component of the basket of salaries used to calculate the coordinated scales for 2003, 2004 and 2005.

Halvor LERVIK (IV)

The appellant seeks the annulment of the Secretary General’s decision not to rectify the salary and pension scales, in accordance with the salary adjustment method following the correction of the french component of the basket of salaries used to calculate the coordinated scales for 2003, 2004 and 2005.

Jonathan Landon SHARPE

The appellant seeks the annulment of the Secretary General’s decision not to rectify the salary and pension scales, in accordance with the salary adjustment method following the correction of the french component of the basket of salaries used to calculate the coordinated scales for 2003, 2004 and 2005.

Mikaël POUTIERS

The appellant seeks the annulment of the Secretary General’s decision not to rectify the salary and pension scales, in accordance with the salary adjustment method following the correction of the french component of the basket of salaries used to calculate the coordinated scales for 2003, 2004 and 2005.

Mélina BABOCSAY (III)

The appellant seeks the annulment of the Secretary General’s decision not to rectify the salary and pension scales, in accordance with the salary adjustment method following the correction of the french component of the basket of salaries used to calculate the coordinated scales for 2003, 2004 and 2005.

Giovanni PALMIERI (VI)

The appellant seeks the annulment of the Secretary General’s decision not to rectify the salary and pension scales, in accordance with the salary adjustment method following the correction of the french component of the basket of salaries used to calculate the coordinated scales for 2003, 2004 and 2005.

Régis BRILLAT (II)

The appellant seeks the annulment of the Secretary General’s decision not to rectify the salary and pension scales, in accordance with the salary adjustment method following the correction of the french component of the basket of salaries used to calculate the coordinated scales for 2003, 2004 and 2005.

Nicholas BROWN

The appellant seeks the annulment of the Secretary General’s decision not to rectify the salary and pension scales, in accordance with the salary adjustment method following the correction of the french component of the basket of salaries used to calculate the coordinated scales for 2003, 2004 and 2005.

Penelope DENU (II)

The appellant seeks the annulment of the Secretary General’s decision not to rectify the salary and pension scales, in accordance with the salary adjustment method following the correction of the french component of the basket of salaries used to calculate the coordinated scales for 2003, 2004 and 2005.

Inga ŠVARCA

The appellant contests the mark given for a paper in an external recruitment procedure. She seeks re-evaluation of the paper and the evaluation of two other papers.

Maria ORESHKINA

The appellant seeks the annulment of the Secretary General’s decision not to invite her to participate in the written examination for the competition e84/2007 for the recruitment of administrative officers open to nationals of Council of Europe member States (grade A1/A2).

Renate ZIKMUND (I)

The appellant seeks the annulment of decision A.P. 4277 of the Secretary General to second her temporarily to another Department.

Nathalie VERNEAU

The appellant seeks the annulment of the Secretary General’s decision to exclude her application to take part in the competition e84/2007 in which she took part on a provisional basis.

Loredana TASSONE

The appellant seeks the annulment of the Secretary General’s decision to exclude her application to take part in the competition e84/2007 in which she took part on a provisional basis.

Laura TOMASI

The appellant seeks annulment of the decisions by the Secretary General and the Appointments Board to exclude her application to take part in competition e84/2007. She requests the Appointments Board to mark the written papers she drew up during the aforementioned competition in which she took part on a provisional basis.

Irène WEIDMANN

The appellant seeks the annulment of the Secretary General decision to keep her post at B3 grade and not to take into account of the circumstances in favour of the upgrading of the post in B5 or A2.

Lilit NIKOGHOSYAN

The appellant seeks the annulment of the Secretary General decision to exclude her application to take part in the competition e84/2007 for the recruitment of administrative officers open to nationals of Council of Europe member States (grade A1/A2).

Natasha PACE ABU-GHOSH (I)

The appellant asks the Secretary General to be allowed to participate in an oral interview in the event that she is successful in the written element of competition e84/2007. The appellant had taken part to the written examination on a provisional basis.

Franck KOLB

The appellant seeks the revision of the Secretary General’s decision to upgrade his post to grade C3 instead of grade C5.

STAFF COMMITTEE (X)

The appeal aims to obtain the annulment of the contract concluded between the Secretary General and the Van Breda trader insurance company, or failing that, obtain the annulment of all the implementing acts or clauses of the contract to the active and retired staff of the Organisation.

Anne KLING (IV)

The appellant requests the annulment of her downgrading as a disciplinary measure.

Alfred SIXTO

The appellant seeks annulment of the Secretary General’s decision not to upgrade his post.

Ljiljana STOJISAVLJEVIC

The appellants seek annulment of the Secretary General’s decision not to accord them the exceptional rate of reimbursement of educational costs.

Solange STIPLOVSEK

Ana GOREY (I)

Marie-Louise WIGISHOFF

The appellant seeks annulment of the Secretary General’s decision not to upgrade her post.

Cecilia Adina GLODEAN (V)

The appellant requests the Secretary General to deliver her a certificate of employment (Article 48 of Staff Regulations) according to the governing rules of the matter.

Nadine BOLENDER

The appellant seeks annulment of the Secretary General’s decision not to upgrade her post.

Patrick BUCHMANN

The appellant seeks annulment of the Secretary General’s decision to reject his request for review of the upgrading of his post (grade A2 instead of grade B6).

Giuseppe CORTESE

The appellant seeks annulment of the Secretary General’s decision to upgrade his post to grade B2 instead of a grade more appropriate (grade B5 or at least B4).

Ilknur YUKSEK

The appellant seeks annulment of the Secretary General’s decision not to recalculate the maximum time-limit for the renewal of her fixed-term contract.

Christopher SAWYER

The appellant seeks annulment of the Secretary General’s decision not to upgrade his post.

Cecilia Adina GLODEAN (IV)

The appellant requests the Secretary General to deliver her a certificate of employment (Article 48 of Staff Regulations).

Adriana DĂGĂLIŢĂ

The appellant seeks the annulment of the Secretary General’s decision to recruit her at grade A1 instead of A2.

Cornel Ioan GLODEAN (III)

The appellant, spouse of a staff member of the Organisation, seeks the annulment of the Secretary General’s decision not to grant his family the protection provided for article 40 of the Staff Regulations.

X

The appellant seeks the annulment of the decisions of the Secretary General not to renew the temporary (monthly) contracts.

Cornel Ioan GLODEAN (II)

The appellant seeks the annulment of the competitive examination for the recruitment of technical, secretarial and clerical support staff (grade B2) – vacancy notice N° e109/2006.

X

The applicant seeks the annulment of the decisions of the Secretary General to promote some staff members from grade B2 to grade B3 and from grade B3 to grade B4 using the exceptional upgrading procedure and advertising in the intranet site notices of upgrading concerning posts which had not been upgraded (Article 21, paragraph 5 of the Regulations on Appointments, Appendix II to Staff Regulations).

Carlos BENDITO (V) v. Governor of the Council of Europe Development Bank

The appellant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Governor of the Council of Europe Development Bank not to recognize the violation of the general principle of law of res judicata and to refuse to compensate him fully and promptly.