Call for contributions to the Commission’s large-scale review (LSR) exercise – Our survey
On 30 January, the leaders of the staff representative organisations met with Commissioner Piotr Serafin to discuss the Large-Scale Review (LSR), which was conducted by the Commission’s Directorate-General for Human Resources (DG HR) with the support of a committee of experts led by former Secretary-General Catherine Day.
One of the issues addressed by the various working groups responsible for this review is that of the values and raison d’être of our institutions.
This issue is particularly important given that 95% of our colleagues agree that ‘it is important for them to be part of an organisation that strongly defends its values and purpose’. (GRASPE survey, December 2025-January 2026 – 1,600 respondents).
However, in the same survey, only 47% of respondents said that they believed the Commission was an organisation that strongly defended its values and purpose. Just over 52% of staff personally agree with the values defended by the Commission.
When asked whether the Commission treats its staff in accordance with the values it promotes in the world of work, such as duty of care, protection against harassment and protection of health at work, only 43% of respondents said they totally or partially agreed.
Taking all this into account, our organisation played an important role in the ‘Purpose and Values’ working group organised by the Central Staff Committee, representing the staff’s point of view during the Large-Scale Review.
In this context, we proposed that the administration take the following ideas into account when working on this exercise:
- The Commission should set an example to its Member States and partners in terms of respect for fundamental values, as defined in Article 2 of the EU Treaty and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. As is the case in other areas, this aspect should be monitored by a high-level group of experts.
- The Commission should publish, alongside all its proposals and decisions, an explanation of how these proposals contribute to the promotion or development of its fundamental values.
- Social dialogue is one of the values promoted by the Commission. The Commission should assess the social dialogue practices of its Member States and adopt the best ones.
- Respect for human health is one of the Commission’s objectives and values. The Commission should adopt the highest possible health and safety standards at work.
Take part in GRASPE’s Large Scale Review survey!
Would you like to participate in our survey on the various aspects of the Large-Scale Review? There is still time to complete the questionnaire:
https://ec.europa.eu/eusurvey/runner/graspe-lsr
Europe and its institutions facing their challenges
13 proposals for debate
The European Union is currently experiencing a critical period. This is having a significant impact on its civil service, which is currently under pressure.
Firstly, there is an increase in political, economic and military tensions between the main geopolitical blocs. In the context of the globalised economy, this situation threatens us all.
Added to this is the proliferation of open and covert armed conflicts in Eastern Europe, the Middle East, the South China Sea, Southeast Asia, and Central Africa. These conflicts, which are an expression of rivalry between blocs, are reigniting the arms race. In the current budgetary context, this is pushing the financing of social needs, as well as initiatives related to fighting climate change and transitioning to a green economy, into the background. As these tensions fall outside the previously established multilateral institutional framework for regulating the various dimensions of globalisation, there is scope for a brutalisation of international relations. This development runs counter to the paradigm on which the European Union is based: multilateralism, respect for the law, and universal values.
The rise of obscurantist, often theocratic and anti-European far-right forces has not spared the European Union, although it has so far been spared the most extreme forms.
Public debate itself has become gridlocked, with different positions feeding off alternative facts, assertive certainties, and fake news. The proliferation of alternative facts and fake news reflects the growing influence of authoritarian forms of power. This is no longer confined to marginal political forces. Some in the established elite, backed by significant economic interests, are also increasingly challenging the norms of public discourse.
The debates on the future financing plan for the European Union are currently taking place in this context. The Commission contributed to reports such as the Draghi report, which set out an ambitious yet realistic and well-considered approach. However, the Commission did not feel that it had the necessary political power or support from European political parties to fully incorporate these proposals into its budget.
As we know, the Commission has proposed a budget of €2 trillion (€1.75 trillion in volume), which is equivalent to the current budget if the recovery plan’s budget allocation is added to it.
Put simply, these €2 trillion seem to represent an increase, but they actually symbolise budgetary stagnation capped at 1% of European GDP, as approved by the Council and the European Parliament. So how can we finance defence spending or begin to repay the sums borrowed for the previous recovery plan, which will amount to €24 billion from 2028 onwards? How can we maintain or even increase action against climate change when we are unravelling the European Green Deal with a package of simplification measures known as ‘Omnibus’, which was voted for by the EPP group in the European Parliament and the far right?
There is also reason to fear that Member States will cut this budget, as initial reactions have not been very encouraging.
Without the Union’s own resources, this budget will not allow us to meet the European Union’s new needs. This weakness will only fuel criticism that discredits the European project, giving the false impression that the EU is powerless and therefore not the right framework for responding to the internal and external threats we face.
Reform of the Staff Regulations is not currently on the agenda, but budgetary constraints are likely to lead us there in the long term.
Furthermore, even if the Staff Regulations remain unchanged, many regressive measures affecting staff could be imposed.
While staff are struggling to make their voices heard on this issue, we want to reaffirm that the high-level group considering the evolution of the European public service mechanisms must first identify the real challenges and develop a clear understanding of the public service’s role.
Admittedly, the group must address issues such as careers, recruitment and staff management, the introduction of flexible and ‘agile’ working methods, ‘fluid’ resource management and the use of artificial intelligence (AI). This also translates into an effort to increase productivity. Within a limited budgetary framework, all of this must serve as a means of taking on the new missions of the institutions and establishing the European Union as a relevant player in protecting citizens and their society based on solidarity, both within and outside the Union’s borders.
In truth, the European Union is currently the most effective response to the current state of the world. However, our institution is also at risk of attack or even being called into question. There are proposals to increase the intergovernmental dimension of European governance, which would undoubtedly weaken it. Despite current public support for the EU, there is a risk that it will be called into question if difficulties arise and adequate responses are not provided.
Therefore, we must promote our strengths, work closely with our ‘friendly’ partners and mobilise our forces to ensure the long-term success of our mission and defend our fundamental values in a hostile world. To fulfil our public service mission in the service of European integration, we can only rely on our own strengths. To achieve this, the institution can essentially only rely on its staff and their commitment to the European project, regardless of the cost.
It seems that the high-level group wants to conduct this reflection without properly organising the contributions of its staff and their representation, except through simple information sessions. This is a mistake. Staff involvement in this process is essential if their expertise is to be utilised. They should have been involved before the tasks for this exercise were established. However, it is not too late to do the right thing. The trade unions and the staff committee are campaigning for this.
To this end, we must put forward a series of proposals. We have preliminarily grouped these proposals into thirteen themes for discussion with staff in inter-union meetings and within the high-level group. As they do not involve any changes to the European civil service statute, our ideas can be implemented immediately, and we are firmly opposed to any such changes in the current political and budgetary context.
- The European institutions operate under a variety of different employment contracts. Currently, officials, temporary staff and contract staff perform identical or similar tasks with the same level of responsibility. The emergence of these various employment contracts is the result of reform processes over the years. It could be useful to consider linking a type of post to a specific type of employment relationship to a certain extent. For example, decision-makers, law enforcement officers, investigators, border guards and diplomats should be civil servants who are recruited for life. Experts who assist the EU in meeting temporary needs could have an employment contract or be seconded from national administrations. The choice of employment relationship for a given job should not depend on the budgetary situation of a specific administration; it should be decided centrally and consistently across all institutions and agencies. However, measures should be put in place to facilitate the integration of contract and temporary staff.
- This also leads to the second challenge: improving and diversifying the recruitment process. We must continue to speed up and modernise the recruitment process through open competitions. However, we cannot rely solely on external competitions for recruitment. This bias must be fully acknowledged. At the same time, depending on the skills and positions available, we must update and diversify recruitment to make it more attractive. Furthermore, the institution does not pay enough attention to the expectations of those recruited, whose needs are not adequately considered. Consequently, some of the available workforce, often the most qualified individuals, are not attracted to the institution’s recruitment process. Similarly, the value, meaning and richness of working in the European civil service, as well as the career opportunities it offers, are not promoted enough prior to recruitment.
- The third challenge relates to inducting staff after they have been recruited. A simple, minimalist approach is not enough. It is crucial to provide these staff members with in-depth training during their first two years, particularly if we want them to be mobile and ‘agile’. This training should include an introduction to the institution’s culture and values, which are European and democratic. Professional pathways in two or three different departments should provide a better understanding of the institution and how it operates. The institution has consolidated experience in this area through its recruitment of young talent.
- Working in a ‘horizontal’ mode must be prioritised. We must collaborate across departments before decisions are made, not at the end of the process. To consider issues in all their multidimensional complexity, we must have the necessary skills. We must move towards less vertical administrative structures from a thematic point of view. We must transition from an interdepartmental consultation methodology to strategic work in clusters. This strategic unification of planning and implementation must also reflect how the college organises its work.
- We believe that reducing the number of hierarchical levels is necessary. Work motivation must be based on the intrinsic interest of the work itself. The pursuit of hierarchical positions should not be the basis for motivation at work, as is the case today. Furthermore, a study by the Harvard Business Review revealed that managers with seven to nine direct reports often strike the best balance between accessibility to their team and sufficient leeway to fulfil their strategic responsibilities.
- The sixth challenge relates to the management of precarious staff, who are vital for the efficient delivery of services for economic reasons. Precariousness must be kept under control. Where it persists, it must be managed more effectively. Internal competitions must comply with the policy on types of posts. However, career development must be facilitated. Therefore, contracts should be possible for longer periods — for example, 12 years — with successive contracts for contract and temporary staff. Regular internal competitions for permanent roles must be held, as securing a position in the permanent civil service should always be the ultimate goal. If full integration of contract and temporary staff cannot be guaranteed, then at least the majority should be guaranteed the benefit of the Community pension after 12 years.
- Further discussion is needed on the integration of AI as a tool intended primarily to replace standard executive tasks, such as processing medical expense claims and calculating mission expenses, as well as supporting staff in improving their skills and work efficiency. Its introduction must be subject to monitoring and evaluation throughout the process. Similarly, training and mobility measures must be provided for the staff affected by its use. Before considering the introduction of AI, an appropriate debate should take place.
- The rise of remote working and artificial intelligence highlights the importance of collaboration and teamwork. Both must be maintained because the institution’s strength lies in its collective intelligence.
- The institution’s objectives must be better defined and achieved through a trust-based approach.
- Those recruited for their technical expertise must be respected for their skills. Not everyone thrives in pure management. The institution’s wealth also lies in the cutting-edge skills of certain experts, who must evolve within their area of expertise. Mobility must be planned, prepared for and supported, and may even require training to ensure its successful completion.
- The staff of executive and decentralised agencies must be given in-depth consideration. The Commission must set up and manage common services, such as mediation, anti-harassment measures and disciplinary procedures. Mobility must be organised not only between agencies, but also between institutions. Some of the staff employed must be civil servants. Internal procedures must be established to organise career development. Trade union representation and social dialogue must be organised more comprehensively and professionally. The governance and legal form of executive and certain decentralised agencies must also be considered. Would Office status not be more appropriate for their operation? On the one hand, this status could strengthen the Commission’s governance, as it is responsible for ensuring the application of the Staff Regulations, the proper implementation of the budget, and compliance with the Treaties. On the other hand, this status would be more advantageous for staff than working within the agencies.
- There is a need to establish a more advanced European interinstitutional training institute than the current European Administrative School, which falls under the authority of EPSO. This school would be responsible for all staff training, including induction (see above), diplomacy and languages. Specific teaching methods would have to be developed for these areas, as well as for preparation for mobility (see above), professional development and transition between categories.
- In general, personnel policies that enable career progression and skills development should be standard practice. Bridges must be built to enable staff to develop their careers and skills. Services cannot function if their workforce is ‘immobile’.
The above proposals should facilitate an informed dialogue. This dialogue must aim to make our administration more effective in addressing the global challenges we currently face. We must empower our European administration to speak with the seriousness and expertise that matches the economic and moral weight of the EU and Team Europe on the world stage. Budgetary considerations are only one part — albeit an important one — of this future debate.
For a Commission that defends its values and its “raison d’être”: meeting with Commissioner P. Serafin
The various comments from different OSPs highlight the fear felt by staff regarding the Large-Scale Review. This fear is understandable given the lack of clarity surrounding the problem and the objective, and the absence of a shared understanding between staff and management. Staff are greatly concerned about the potential answers to the questions they have posed. U4U/USHU suggests overcoming these apprehensions by setting out the proposals put forward by staff members.
Message of U4U/USHU to the Commissioner SERAFIN
For U4U, the starting point is a pessimistic analysis of the economic and political situation. At the geopolitical level, we are witnessing a continuous deterioration.
Our budget as it stands will not give us the means to accomplish everything that would be desirable.
In this context, we shall rely on ourselves to accomplish what is essential. We are like a lighthouse in the dark night.
The LSR provides a unique opportunity to improve our functioning and increase our collective effectiveness in the service of European integration.
This will be achieved if we seek to increase the internal cohesion of our staff, as well. This will require taking their expectations into account. Effectiveness and internal cohesion go hand in hand.
Without going into detail, based on our 13 groups of proposals and the 1,500 responses to our questionnaire received to date, we can identify five main areas for action:
- Being part of an organisation that defends its values, and its raison d’être is a position supported by 95% of respondents to our questionnaire, while only 47% believe that this is the case.
- Better treatment of contract and temporary staff is the second area for improvement. These staff members are very useful to our institutions and deserve to benefit from career prospects and mobility. A call from 1,600 colleagues provides answers on this subject.
- The situation of decentralised and executive agencies must be improved. The Commission should take direct responsibility for managing several of the functions of decentralised agencies (combating harassment, mediation, disciplinary investigations, organising mobility, etc.). Executive agencies could become offices within the Commission. Social dialogue should also be strengthened, as it is virtually non-existent in most agencies.
- A fourth area for action is the improvement and diversification of recruitment, the induction of new staff, the transformation of organisational practices and the management of teleworking, which must not hinder collaborative working.
- Finally, personnel policies aimed at enabling career progression and skills development provide the basis for a fifth project, which should also include the creation of an internal European school of administration with expanded skills and roles.
USHU represents colleagues working in delegations outside the Union, including civil servants, temporary staff, and many contract and local staff.
These colleagues are currently particularly concerned about the process of reorganising the delegations. This process is being implemented without any meaningful social dialogue, and with very limited and delayed communication.
In this regard, we would like to point out that a strike notice[1] was filed this morning by all the organisations at this meeting, precisely in the hope of finally opening the necessary dialogue.
Unfortunately, this lack of dialogue, and this disregard for the reality of the delegations, is also evident in the context of the large-scale review.
This situation is even more regrettable given that the Union needs to strengthen its presence in the world more than ever in the current political context.
However, although the large-scale review primarily focuses on central services, it will inevitably have a significant impact on delegations. Therefore, it is difficult to understand why they are not formally included in the exercise.
This exclusion appears to be part of a wider trend. In particular, I am thinking of the fact that delegation staff are also excluded from the remit of the Chief Confidential Adviser.
Therefore, we would like to make it clear that services cannot be effective without consistent decision-making and cohesion between services, whether in Brussels or elsewhere in the EU.
We therefore urge the various working groups to consider the impact of their deliberations on delegation staff.
We also insist that the measures resulting from the large-scale review should not negatively affect the delegations. Now is not the time to reduce our international presence.
Reducing staff numbers or budgets in the delegations would expose the Union to considerable risks.
Furthermore, as the work of Commission staff and the European External Action Service (EEAS) in the delegations is closely interdependent, it is crucial that the EEAS is involved in the review process.
[1] Notice of strike on 30 January 2026
Europe and its institutions are facing challenges
12 proposals for debate
The European Union is at a critical juncture. This is particularly true of its civil service.
Firstly, we are witnessing mounting political, economic and military tensions between the major geopolitical blocs. In the context of the globalised economy, such a configuration threatens us all.
These tensions transcend the previously established institutional framework designed to regulate the various dimensions of globalisation, paving the way for the brutalisation of international relations. This development runs counter to the paradigm that has underpinned the European Union.
Added to this is the proliferation of open and covert armed conflicts in Eastern Europe, the Middle East, the South China Sea, Southeast Asia, and Central Africa. These conflicts, which are an expression of rivalry between blocs, are reviving the arms race. In the current budgetary context, this is pushing the financing of social needs, as well as initiatives related to fighting climate change and transitioning to a green economy, into the background.
The rise of obscurantist forces, which often have theocratic and anti-European connotations, has not spared the European Union. For the moment, however, it has been spared the most extreme forms.
Public debate itself has become blocked and illegible, with different positions feeding off alternative facts, assertive certainties and fake news. This is no longer just the work of marginal political forces. Some of the established elite, backed by powerful economic forces, are also increasingly challenging the rules of public debate.
The debates on the future financing plan for the European Union are currently taking place in this context. The Commission has contributed to the drafting of reports such as the Draghi Report, which sets out a realistic and considered approach. However, the Commission did not consider that it had the necessary political power or support from European political parties to fully integrate them into its budget proposals.
As we know, the Commission has proposed a budget of €2 trillion, of which €1.75 trillion is available. This is equivalent to the current budget amount plus the budget allocation for the recovery plan.
In short, while this €2 trillion may appear to be an increase, it actually reflects budgetary stagnation. So how can we finance defence spending, for example, or begin to repay the sums borrowed for the previous recovery plan? And how can we maintain or even increase the actions taken to combat climate change?
There is also a risk that Member States will cut this budget, given the lacklustre initial reactions.
Without the Union’s own resources, this budget will not allow us to meet the European Union’s new needs. This weakness will only fuel criticism that discredits the European project, giving rise to the false belief that the EU is too weak to respond to the threats we face.
Reform of the Staff Regulations is not currently on the agenda, but budgetary constraints are likely to lead us there in the long term. Furthermore, even if the Staff Regulations remain unchanged, many regressive measures could be imposed on staff.
While staff are struggling to make their voices heard on this issue, we want to reaffirm that the high-level group reflecting on the evolution of the European civil service must first identify the real challenges and develop a clear understanding of the civil service’s role.
Admittedly, the group must address issues such as careers and career management, recruitment, staff management, implementing flexible and ‘agile’ working methods, managing resources smoothly, and using artificial intelligence (AI). Within a limited budgetary framework, all of this must serve to take on the new missions of the institutions and establish the EU as a relevant player in protecting citizens and their model of society based on solidarity, both within and outside the Union’s borders, as well as improving productivity.
In truth, the European Union is probably the most effective response to the current drift of the world. To fulfil our mission, we can only rely on our own strengths. To achieve this, the institution must empower its staff to do better.
However, the high-level group seems to want to pursue this reflection without properly organising the contribution of its staff and their representatives, except through simple information sessions. This is a mistake. Staff involvement in this process is essential if they are to contribute their expertise. Together with the other trade unions, U4U is campaigning for this. It is not too late to do the right thing.
In order to do so, proposals must be put forward. So far, U4U has identified several proposals, which have been grouped into 12 themes. These will be discussed with staff, in the inter-union group and within the high-level group. As they do not involve any changes to the European civil service statute, our ideas can be implemented without delay, which we are firmly opposed to in the current political and budgetary context.
1. The European institutions operate under a variety of different employment contracts. Currently, officials, temporary staff and contract staff perform identical or similar tasks with the same level of responsibility. These numerous types of employment contract have emerged as a result of reform processes over the years. It could be useful to consider whether a specific type of employment relationship should be linked to a particular type of post. For example, decision-makers, law enforcement officers, investigators, border guards and diplomats should be civil servants who are recruited for life. Experts who assist the EU in meeting temporary needs could have an employment contract or be seconded by the national administration. The choice of employment relationship for a given function should not depend on the budgetary situation of a specific administration; rather, it should be decided centrally and consistently across all institutions and agencies. However, measures should be put in place to facilitate the integration of contract and temporary staff.
2. This also gives rise to a second challenge: improving and diversifying the recruitment process. We must continue to speed up and modernise the recruitment process through open competitions. However, we cannot rely solely on external competitions for recruitment. At the same time, depending on the required skills and available positions, we must update and diversify recruitment to make it more modern. The institution does not pay enough attention to the expectations of those recruited, whose needs are not adequately considered. Consequently, some of the available workforce, often the most qualified individuals, are not attracted to the jobs that the institution can offer. Similarly, the value, meaning and careers available in the European civil service are not promoted sufficiently prior to recruitment.
3. The third challenge relates to inducting staff after they have been recruited. A simple, restrictive procedure is not enough. If we want staff to be mobile and agile during their first two years, it is crucial to provide in-depth training, including training in the institution’s culture and its European and democratic values, which must be shared. Career paths in two or three different departments, for example, must better reflect who we are and how we work.
4. Horizontal working must be prioritised. We must collaborate across departments before decisions are made, not at the end of the process. To consider issues in all their multidimensional complexity, we must have the necessary skills. We must move towards less vertical administrative structures from a thematic perspective. We must transition from an interdepartmental consultation methodology to strategic work in clusters. This strategic unification of planning and implementation must also reflect how the college organises its work.
5. We believe that reducing the number of hierarchical levels is necessary. Work motivation must be based on the intrinsic interest of the work itself. Motivation at work should be based on making full use of one’s skills, rather than pursuing hierarchical positions, as is the case today.
6. The sixth challenge relates to the management of precarious staff, who are vital for the smooth running of services for economic reasons, among others. Precariousness must be managed. If it persists, it must be managed more effectively. Internal competitions must comply with the policy on types of posts.
However, career development must be facilitated. Therefore, contracts must be possible for longer periods — for example, 12 years — with successive contracts for contract and temporary staff. Regular internal competitions for permanent roles must be held, as securing a permanent position in the civil service should always be the ultimate goal. Otherwise, it will not be possible to fully integrate contract and temporary staff. By contrast, after 12 years, most people will be guaranteed the benefits of the Community pension.
7. The integration of AI as a tool intended primarily to replace basic tasks, such as processing medical expense claims or calculating mission expenses, should be discussed further. It should also be considered as a means of supporting staff in improving their skills and the efficiency of their work. The introduction of AI must be subject to monitoring and evaluation throughout the process. Similarly, training and mobility measures must be provided for staff affected by its use.
8. The rise of remote working and artificial intelligence highlights the importance of collaboration and teamwork, both of which must be maintained as they are the foundation of institutional strength.
9. The institution’s objectives must be better defined and achieved through a trust-based approach.
10. Mobility must recognise the skills of those recruited for their technical expertise. Not everyone thrives in a purely managerial role. The institution’s wealth also lies in the specialist skills of certain experts, who must be given the opportunity to develop in their field. Mobility must be planned and prepared, and accompanied by the necessary training for its successful completion.
11. Executive and decentralised agencies must give in-depth consideration to their staff. The Commission must set up and manage common services, such as mediation, anti-harassment measures and disciplinary procedures. Mobility must be organised not only between agencies, but also between institutions. Some of the staff employed must be civil servants. Internal procedures must be established to organise career development. Trade union representation and social dialogue must be organised in a more comprehensive and professional manner.
12. In general, personnel policies that enable career progression and skills development should be standard practice. Staff should be given the opportunity to progress in their careers and develop their skills. Services cannot function if they are made up of ‘immobile’ people.
The above proposals should enable us to engage in an informed dialogue. This dialogue must aim to improve the effectiveness of our administration in the face of the current global challenges. Our European administration must be empowered to speak with the seriousness and expertise that matches the economic and moral weight of the EU and Team Europe on the world stage. Budgetary considerations are only one part — albeit a very important one — of this future debate.
The real objectives of Catherine Day’s High Level Group need to be clarified
Note TO THE ATTENTION OF A. Katsogiannis, CHAIRMAN
OF THE CENTRAL STAFF COMMITTEE
&
Mr Sebastiani, Mr Trujillo Herrera, Ms Valkova, Mr Mavraganis, Mr Vlandas and
Ms Conefrey,
CHAIRPERSONS OF REPRESENTATIVE UNIONS AND STAFF ASSOCIATIONS
Subject: Reply to your note: Large-scale review – Participation of the Central
Staff Committee / Trade unions
By note dated 20 November 2025, you drew my attention to the request of the Central Staff Committee (CSC) and the representative trade unions to participate more actively in the Large-Scale Review (LSR). During the staff event on 21 November, Commissioner Serafin underlined the importance he attaches to staff representation and expressed his appreciation for the constructive role played by elected representatives in the life of the institution. He also reaffirmed his commitment to maintaining an open, continuous and trust-based dialogue, and confirmed his intention to meet with the staff representatives at the beginning of next year, which will be an opportunity for you to share your initial contribution to any, or all, of the large-scale review workstreams. In the same spirit, DG HR has already outlined a practical and constructive framework for the involvement of the CSC during the reflection phase: the invitation to submit written contributions on any or all workstreams and to hold targeted meetings with workstream leads where useful, including to present or discuss these inputs. This approach ensures that your contributions will inform the work of the different workstreams in a structured and meaningful way, while keeping the workstreams focused on their mandate. The LSR is an important internal exercise for the institution. Its purpose is to strengthen the Commission and its capacity to deliver efficiently for European citizens. In this context, I attach great importance to ensuring that staff representatives can make constructive contributions throughout the process, while ensuring that the respective roles and mandates of the different actors are safeguarded.
At this stage, the workstreams remain an internal exercise of the administration. Asking staff representatives to participate in this internal work would create a situation in which they would co-author recommendations which they could subsequently be expected to assess or discuss with the administration, thereby blurring the distinction between the respective roles and phases of the process. Maintaining this distinction and sequencing helps preserve the distinction between the administration and staff representation and ensures that staff representatives can exercise their important role freely and independently with regard to the results of the workstreams. Moreover, when and if the ideas emerging from the LSR mature into concrete proposals taking the form of new general implementing provisions or decisions affecting staff rules or working conditions, the well-established social-dialogue framework will apply in full, including the due involvement of the representative Trade Unions and Staff Associations where foreseen. Be assured that DG HR will continue to work closely with the CSC throughout the process of the LSR and at each step of its development and implementation, as the statutory interlocutor of the administration for matters relating to the organisation and operation of the services.
Electronically signe
Stephen QUEST
01/12/2025
*******
AK/RTR
Note to the attention of
Mr Stephen QUEST, Director-General DG HR
Subject: Large-scale review – Participation of the Central Staff Committee
/ Trade Unions
Dear Mr Quest, The Central Staff Committee (CSC) and the Representative Trade Unions would like to thank you for your presentation in the Central Staff Committee plenary meeting on October 23, 2025, about the Large-Scale Review (LSR). We would like also to thank you for your confirmation that the Staff Regulations are beyond the scope of this exercise and therefore, no matter what the outcome/conclusions of this exercise will be, there will be no request for a reform.
During the presentation it was also mentioned that the inception phase of this exercise included consultation with around 1000 staff members, including (senior) managers, staff and even Junior Professionals. Nevertheless, it never included a proper consultation of the Staff Committee, the committee that according to article 9 of the Staff Regulations represents the staff and can express the opinion of staff. Following this presentation, the CSC received a letter by the LSR team’s chair, Mr. McAleavey that the CCP could “submit written contributions on any – or even all – workstreams” and that the LSR team would “be pleased to facilitate meetings between colleagues designated by the Central Staff Committee and the workstream leaders, where relevant, to discuss your contributions and the progress in the relevant workstreams.”
While we welcome the opening from DG HR’s side with regards to contribution from the CSC and the Trade Unions on the workstreams, at the same time, we regret that the offer by DG-HR is “too little and too late”. We feel that in the frame of this exercise, DG HR doesn’t really want to recognise the statutory role of Staff Committee and that of the trade unions as the most important, not to say the unique, social parties. This is even more discouraging for elected staff representatives as this extremely limited involvement of the staff representatives doesn’t appear to be coherent even with the Commission’s own opinion on social dialogue. Just by a fast reading of the Commission’s Communication on “Strengthening social dialogue in the European Union: harnessing its full potential for managing fair transitions”, one can note the lack of coherence; among other things it is mentioned that “Social partners’ involvement improves policy-making and law-making”, or that “Strong social partners are essential for effective and balanced change management”. In the same spirit, the Council mentions that “the 2 systematic involvement of social partners and other relevant stakeholders is key for the success of economic and employment policy coordination and implementation”.
The LSR is exactly an exercise that aims at identifying areas of improvement, at proposing changes, and at achieving transition to new processes and new ways of operating; hence the request by the Staff Committee and by the Trade Unions to be actively included as an equal partner in this exercise. Our repeated request to be actively involved is also in response to the request by President’s Von der Leyen invitation of September 10, 2025, whose email to all staff concluded: “Finally, I use this opportunity to invite you to engage with the large-scale review of the Commission’s organisation and operations currently underway. Your insights are vital to this work, to shape a Commission able to deliver for Europeans in a rapidly changing world.”
The CSC and Trade union members can have very valuable insights which can be extremely useful if we are given the opportunity to fully participate in the works of the workstreams, in the benchmarking exercise and in the High-Level Group. Asking us just to “share contributions” in a generic manner, without the possibility to present and explain them or to comment on other contributions is simply counter-productive for us. The Staff Committee and the Trade unions have clear roles to play which include a proper and timely consultation, the sharing of documentation, effective dialogue with a genuine eagerness from the side of the administration to discuss, before decisions are taken. If the above-mentioned elements are missing, the staff representatives are hindered from exercising their roles and can in no way be considered as “consulted”.
To address the above issues, the CSC/TUs are proposing the following active participation ways:
- Inclusion of 2 staff representatives in each workstream;
- Participation of 2 staff representatives in the High Level Group as members, or as observers;
- Early sharing with the CSC/Trade unions of the intermediate conclusions of all work streams, due for February 2026;
- Consultation on the preliminary recommendations and the final draft report of the LSR.
The staff representatives would like once again to reiterate their welcoming of making our Organization more modern, more agile and more flexible and our aforementioned proposals aim exclusively to help reaching these goals.
Central Staff Committee
Cristiano SEBASTIANI / Raul TRUJILLO
Alliance
Marcela VALKOVA
Generation 2004
Nicolas MAVRAGANIS
USF
Georges VLANDAS / Helen CONEFREY
RS-U4U/USHU
| cc: | Mr Grzegorz Radziejewski, Ms Ana Carrero Mr Christian Roques, Mr Christian Linder, Mr Stanislav Demirdjiev, Mr Laurent Duluc, Mr Beniamino Annis, Mr Paul McAleavey |
20/11/2025
*****
Brussels, 11 November 2025
Note for the attention of
Mr Piotr Serafin, Commissioner for Budget, Anti-Fraud and Public Administration
Ms Catherine Day, Special Adviser to Commissioner Serafin
and Chair of the High Level Group
Subject: Large-scale review – Article published on Euractiv
As we indicated in our letter to you dated 6 October, which to date has remained unanswered, the Large-Scale review exercise is raising a number of questions and even concerns among staff.
On the one hand, with the present (second letter) we would like to reiterate our request for the active involvement and participation of the staff representatives in all stages, workstreams and groups established to carry out the Large-Scale Review. The measures currently envisaged by DG HR are clearly insufficient and confirm the disregard for genuine social dialogue, which should not be replaced by a mere sharing of information. On the other hand, these concerns are all the more founded, given that, in the past, a similar exercise presented as an effort to “modernise” our institution resulted in a disastrous reform of our Staff Regulations. Its consequences are still being felt by staff today and have seriously undermined the attractiveness of our civil service. In this regard, we have taken note of the oral assurances given by Mr Quest during his participation in the last plenary meeting of the Central Staff Committee (CSC) that there would be no further reform of the Staff Regulations. However, we note that there is, at this stage, no formal and written guarantee provided directly by the Commission, and that this review is carried out within the framework of the current Staff Regulations.
Furthermore, staff are deeply concerned by the recent article published on Euractiv reporting comments attributed to Ms Catherine Day questioning the very permanence of our civil service and, by extension, its independence. Such an article raises serious concerns, as it appears to indicate a possible reopening of the Staff Regulations, contrary to the assurances previously given by DG HR.
It seems very inappropriate that the Chair of the High-Level Group had made such public comments before the start of the process. It is therefore of paramount importance that the Commission requests Ms Day to publicly clarify whether the statements are accurate and, if not, to request the publication of a corrigendum on this topic.
Above all, it is up to Ms Day to immediately and unequivocally confirm to staff that the comments quoted in the article in any way do not reflect her thoughts, intentions or priorities in the context of her mandate as Chair of the Large-Scale Review High-Level Group.
Furthermore, as Ms Day is your Special Adviser, we ask whether you, on behalf of the Commission, can formally confirm that such a vision of the future of our civil service is totally unacceptable, that it in no way corresponds to the priorities of our institution, and that it cannot represent a possible and acceptable outcome of the Large-Scale Review.
If we truly want this exercise to contribute to improving the organisation and functioning of our institution, we must be very clear about the framework within which it is conducted by firmly establishing the outcomes that the Commission must already rule out as unacceptable and contrary to the founding principles of our European civil service.
We therefore call on the Commission to urgently convene a dedicated social dialogue meeting with staff representatives to discuss these matters and agree on next steps. We also expect the Commission to present a clear and coherent vision and roadmap for the Large-Scale Review, ensuring that all actions are guided by defined objectives rather than isolated statements or ad-hoc initiatives.
| C. Sebastiani / R. Trujillo | M. Válková | N. Mavraganis | G. Vlandas / H. Conefrey |
| Alliance (signed) | Generation 2004 (signed) | USF (signed) | RS- U4U/USHU (signed) |
Copy: Ms Ursula von der Leyen, President
Mr Björn Seibert, Head of Cabinet to the President
Mr Grzegorz Radziejewski, Head of Cabinet; Ms Ana Carrero Yubero,
member of the cabinet Serafin
Mr Stephen Quest, Director-General; Mr Christian Roques, Director ;
Mr Christian Linder, Director of HR. F; Mr Laurent Duluc, Head of Unit
HR. F4 – DG HR Commission and Agency Staff
Executive
11/11/2025
******
Subject: Reply to your note on the High-level reflection group
Dear Mr Sebastiani, Mr Trujillo Herrera, Mr Mavraganis, Mr Vlandas,
Dear Ms Valkova and Ms Conefrey,
I am writing with regard to your note of 6 October 2025 on the High-level reflection group of the Large-scale review, to which Commissioner Serafin asked me to reply on his behalf.
I welcome your support for the objectives of the Large-scale review, which provides an opportunity for us to modernise and strengthen our public administration. Let me underline that the review is based on the experience, expertise and knowledge of Commission staff at all levels. The High-level reflection group, composed of external experts, is there to provide an independent and outside perspective, serving as a sounding board during the review.
The Large-scale review will be organised around 15 workstreams, and work to prepare recommendations in relation to each workstream is now about to start. In this context, let me confirm that there is no intention to re-open the Staff Regulations.
As the review exercise progresses, staff representatives will be able to contribute within the structured framework for staff representation.
On 23 October 2025, I will, together with Paul McAleavey who leads the Large-scale review team, meet with the Central Staff Committee. This will be an occasion to reflect on how the Committee can be kept informed and how it can submit views and contributions.
In addition, to provide an occasion to bring everyone up-to-date on where we stand and what can be expected from the review, Commissioner Serafin will host an all-staff meeting on 21 November 2025.
I appreciate your commitment and trust the administration can count on your continued support as the review progresses.
Yours sincerely,
Electronically signed
Stephen QUEST
Cc: G. Radziejewski, A. Carrero (CAB Serafin)
C. Roques, P. McAleavey, L. Duluc (DG HR)
A. Katsogiannis (CSC)
22/10/2025
******
Note for the attention of Mr Piotr Serafin
Commissioner for Budget, Anti-Fraud and Public Administration
Subject: High-level Reflection Group
The European Commission recently set up a high-level reflection group chaired by the former SecretaryGeneral of the Commission, Catherine Day, a colleague with extensive experience of the institution, and composed of leading experts ‘from international organisations and public administrations across Europe’.
The group aims to produce a comprehensive review of the Commission’s organisation and functioning by the end of 2026, prior to or in parallel with the adoption of the next multiannual budget, accompanied by a benchmarking exercise.
The aim of this exercise is to make ‘our organisation stronger, more agile and better equipped to continue serving European citizens’. In addition, it would enhance the Commission’s attractiveness as an employer and create ‘a working environment where everyone can thrive’.
These are all objectives that we share!
The trade union and statutory staff representatives therefore welcome this initiative. It is necessary and legitimate to periodically review the relevance and validity of our professional practices.
In this announcement, we also appreciated your commitment to take into account the ideas and proposals of staff on this subject. This is all the more important given that the working areas of this high-level group focus on ‘our operations, our structures and inter-service collaboration’ with a view to ‘improving strategic workforce planning and resource allocation’.
We agree that these are issues that not only are of primary interest to staff but, given their expertise, require their active involvement and that of their representatives.
It must nevertheless be noted that staff representatives have not been involved in this initiative, either prior to its publication or in its implementation to date.
In this regard, we ask to be able to fully exercise our role as staff representatives, without being limited to mere consultation, but to be present within this group, thus enabling genuine interaction and active and constructive participation on our part.
The direct and active involvement of staff representatives is essential, as these proposals will have a major impact on the professional and private lives of the staff we represent, as well as on our institution.
Having already appreciated your commitment to social dialogue, we are confident that you will respond positively to our request, which fully supports your comments and your desire to welcome our ideas, as you consider them ‘essential for shaping a Commission that truly walks the talk, is effective and is ready for the future’.
Finally, you note in your communication that ‘the last major review of the organisation and functioning of the Commission took place 25 years ago’.
However, memories are resurfacing, and staff remember that this review was, at the time, the prelude to the 2004 Reform.
We would point out that the two consecutive reforms of the Staff Regulations, in 2004 and 2014, have already generated substantial savings for the EU budget, responding to the Member States’ wishes to reduce costs, but at a very heavy cost to the staff of the institutions, as confirmed in the Court of Auditors’ 2019 report.
These reforms have not only profoundly deteriorated the working conditions of the institutions’ staff, but have also undermined the attractiveness of our civil service, the current geographical imbalance being a direct consequence of this.
We therefore call on the new Commission to make a clear commitment: this review must under no circumstances lead to a new reform of the Staff Regulations, but only to the implementation of the above-mentioned improvements, which must be put in place without changing the Staff Regulations.
| C. Sebastiani / R. Trujillo M. Valkova N. Mavraganis Alliance Generation 2004 USF (signed) (signed) (signed) | G. Vlandas / H. Conefrey RS- U4U/USHU (signed) |
Copy: Mr Grzegorz Radziejewski, Head of Cabinet; Ms Ana Carrero Yubero, Member of Cabinet Serafin Mr S. Quest, Director-General; Mr C. Roques, Deputy Director-General; Mr L. Duluc – DG HR Staff of the Commission and Executive Agencies 06/10/2025