A former European Union ambassador to Malawi is seeking compensation for “psychological harassment” after she was reassigned back to Brussels for what her superiors say were management deficiencies.
Sandra Paesen, a Belgian national, took up the post in Lilongwe around September 2018 with a trial period of nine months. That was extended by six months after a midterm review in March 2019 found shortcomings in her leadership and management.
After an inspection visit, Paesen was told in late November 2019 that Federica Mogherini, the outgoing EU high representative for foreign affairs, believed Paesen’s trial period as ambassador had been unsatisfactory and that she would be recalled to a nonmanagerial position at headquarters in Brussels.
In March 2020, after a period of uncertainty over her status as ambassador, Paesen was authorized to leave Malawi for medical and family reasons. And on April 10, Mogherini’s successor Josep Borrell, told Paesen in a letter that he had decided to confirm his predecessor’s decision to reassign her to a nonmanagerial position at headquarters.
Paesen, who is still employed at the European External Action Service as a special adviser to the EU civilian operations commander, is suing the service at the Court of Justice of the European Union, seeking €60,000, plus legal costs. She also wants the court to annul the decision to reassign her to a nonmanagerial post, which she says is below her pay grade, as well as the annulment of the final management report on the grounds that she was not afforded due process.
At a hearing earlier this month, Paesen argued that, among other things, she had not been given the chance to properly respond to the claims made against her; the evaluations of her performance were too subjective; the delegation in Malawi was in a “particularly problematic” state when she arrived and she did not receive enough support while there, including clear job performance indicators.
Upon request, the court sent Devex a 23-page summary of the hearing. According to the summary, Paesen alleged that her superiors “turned their back on her in an incomprehensible way” and that they themselves were the main source of the “unfounded rumors” about her.
Further, she argued that her mandate featured unusually demanding circumstances, notably local elections taking place that demanded increased political contacts, and later the COVID-19 pandemic.
For its part, the EEAS argued that, “notwithstanding the manifestation of her shortcomings since the beginning of her trial management period,” Paesen was adequately supported, including with coaching and mentoring, and that there is no evidence that her superiors tarnished her reputation.
The court summary does not detail the basis for the EEAS’ mismanagement concerns. However, the EEAS referred in its arguments to an April 2019 meeting between Paesen, her coach, and EEAS officials, which it said was designed “to better understand the impact of [Paesen’s] management style on the delegation, to improve her understanding of the impact of her spoken and written communication and to improve her emotional intelligence.”
There could be wider implications of the judgment too. The EEAS argued that there is legal precedent to support the idea that an employee, including an ambassador, can be reassigned without their consent when difficulties in internal relations are harming the good functioning of the service. And it argued that given the nature of EU ambassadors’ work, they should be expected to operate with greater autonomy and less detailed job descriptions than other staff.
The case comes at an awkward time for the EEAS, as it tries to combat a reputation as a boys’ club. A report from the European Parliament in 2020 found that 87% of senior management and 75% of middle management posts are held by men.
Paesen and the EEAS declined to comment. The court is expected to hand down its decision in the coming months.