After the dean of the Faculty of Law, Economics and Finance (FDEF) at the University of Luxembourg resigned at the end of April, the rectorate removed the head of the finance department, Christos Koulovatianos, from his post. That decision was the subject of an administrative appeal on Friday.
Surprising details emerged beyond the argument over whether the court had jurisdiction at all, given that staff hold private-law contracts while working for a public institution. The real intrigue was over the grounds for Koulovatianos' dismissal. Romain Adam, the university's lawyer, told reporters after the hearing that the university had the right to withdraw the department head's mandate ad nutum – at its own discretion.
That means, Adam explained, that if the rectorate takes the view that the person is no longer the right fit, it can withdraw the mandate. In Koulovatianos' case, he emphasised, the university had nothing to hold against him directly. The point, he said, was that with the dean's post now vacant, the rectorate believed a new head of department should also be chosen, in order to achieve genuine renewal across the department as a whole.
A loss of confidence, he added, was sufficient grounds for such a decision, and no specific reason needed to be given. During the hearing itself, however, alongside the loss of confidence and the argument about organisational renewal, Adam also mentioned that the University had observed that the professor in question had been regularly speaking to the press.
Asked afterwards whether that had been one of the reasons for the revocation, Adam initially said "not at all". After consulting his notes, however, he retorted that it might have been mentioned, but that it was certainly not why Koulovatianos had been removed from his mandate.
The professor, he added, would have done better to make use of the opportunity to lay out the university's position. In his view, the press ran a lot of material that was simply untrue and did not match the documents on file.
During the hearing, Adam also said that the press had "dragged the university through the mud".
There is, however, no indication whatsoever that Koulovatianos himself had fed information to the press. He did not speak to RTL Luxembourg, contrary to what has been suggested in some quarters. A search of his press mentions shows that in recent years he has indeed given interviews about his research and in his capacity as a financial and economic expert. Beyond that, extensive articles with photos have appeared in Mediahuis group publications about his dismissal as head of department. Even there, however, it was not Koulovatianos who spoke to journalists, but his lawyer Stéphane Sunnen. Sunnen argues that his client acted as a whistleblower.
In the months and years before the decision, Sunnen said, Koulovatianos had, on several occasions, flagged illegalities or irregularities in various processes at the university. In Sunnen's view, his client has now been unjustly sanctioned for those actions.
As a whistleblower, Sunnen argued, his client is entitled to protection. On top of that, he said, the decision to remove Koulovatianos' mandate would inflict irreparable damage on his career. There could therefore be no waiting for a full trial on the merits. Even so, Sunnen felt there was a good chance of having the decision annulled. Sunnen said: "The university's reasoning is not coherent and shifts depending on the interlocutor. We believe it has no legal basis."
The heads of the other FDEF departments, namely law and economics, have not seen their mandates revoked. The rectorate's stated desire for organisational renewal has, in practice, so far affected only the department head who had disagreements with the former dean.
The court's decision is expected later this week.
