In January 2024, the Administrative Tribunal registered three appeals. The following information is given to enable those who so wish to exercise their right to intervene under Article XI of the Statute of the Administrative Tribunal.

• Appeal No. 743/2024 – B.S. v. Governor of the Council of Europe Development Bank

On 9 January 2024, the Tribunal registered Appeal No. 743/2024 – B.S. v. Governor of the Development Bank. 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.

• Appeal No. 744/2024 – I.S.V. v. Secretary General of the Council of Europe

On 15 January 2024, the Tribunal registered Appeal No. 744/2024 – I.S.V. v. Secretary General of the Council of Europe. 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.

• Appeal No. 745/2024 – Z.G. v. Secretary General of the Council of Europe

Finally, on 17 January 2024, the Tribunal registered Appeal No. 745/2024 – Z.G. v. Secretary General of the Council of Europe. 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.