{"id":2672,"date":"2023-07-14T15:17:30","date_gmt":"2023-07-14T13:17:30","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/u4unity.eu\/institutions\/european-commission\/eu-agencies\/regulation-agencies\/f4e\/"},"modified":"2026-10-01T17:00:31","modified_gmt":"2026-10-01T15:00:31","slug":"f4e","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/u4unity.eu\/en\/institutions\/european-commission\/eu-agencies\/regulation-agencies\/f4e\/","title":{"rendered":"F4E"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

The Fusion for Energy<\/a> Joint Undertaking (F4E) is based in Barcelona (Spain). The ITER<\/a> project is based at Cadarache (France).<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Contact persons <\/strong>: Paul Wouters – Coordinator, Gerard Gomez Escudero, Alejandro Sampedro Dura and Stavros Chatzipanagiotou – Vice-President of U4U for General Affairs and Regulatory Agencies.

Mailbox <\/strong>: U4U@f4e.europa.eu<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

<\/span>What are the consequences of staff cuts decided by the ITER Organisation (IO)?<\/strong><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Last July, the ITER Organisation (IO) announced staff cuts, prompting serious concerns about the process and its impact on the implementation of the ITER programme. The inter-union group has made demands and urgently requested clarification from the IO’s Director-General, and from the Director of DG ENER who is responsible for nuclear energy, safety and ITER. At the same time, we have requested that our administration organise a social dialogue meeting as soon as possible.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Brussels, 12 August 2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Note to the attention of:
 Pietro Barabaschi, Director-General of the ITER Organisation<\/strong><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Jan Panek, Head of the European Delegation to the<\/strong> ITER Council and Director for Nuclear Energy, Safety and ITER, DG ENER<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Subject: Staff reductions decided at the ITER Organization (IO) in July 2026: very serious concerns regarding the process, implications for programme delivery, and urgent requests for clarification<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Purpose<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

As staff representatives, we wish to express our deep concern regarding the significant number of redundancies announced at the IO, as well as our serious reservations about the decision-making process followed.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

At the outset, we wish to reject the recurrent objection raised by IO that, as representatives of Commission and F4E\u2019 staff, we have no standing to raise these matters.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

First, it is clear that the measures adopted by the IO could impact our colleagues at Fusion for Energy (F4E) too. For this reason, it is necessary to open a dialogue with the relevant authorities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Moreover, Euratom is a Member of the IO, its largest financial contributor, and is represented on the ITER Council.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Thus, we are entirely legitimate not only to raise these matters with the Director-General of the IO, but we are also fully entitled to request clarification as to the position taken on behalf of Euratom and the extent to which that position was coordinated with the relevant Directorate-General and the competent Commissioners.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Indeed, the European Commission therefore has a direct interest not only in the successful delivery of Baseline 2024, but also in ensuring that an international organisation established under an agreement to which the European Union is a party, observes at any time and in any decision and procedure the principles of transparency, respect, fairness, sound administration and meaningful social dialogue<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That is why, these matters cannot be regarded as concerning the internal management of the IO alone.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

They also engage the responsibility of the Commission, which must at all times uphold\u2014and be seen to uphold\u2014the abovementioned principles<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is precisely the purpose of the strengthened governance requested by the staff representation and put in place by the Commission and most recently reaffirmed by Commissioner Serafin in the context of the Large-Scale Review exercise.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This governance framework is not optional: it must be fully respected and consistently applied in practice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Questions regarding Commission oversight, accountability and internal coordination<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Against this background, in the face of a procedure that appears manifestly incompatible with the fundamental principles of employment and social law which the Commission itself firmly requires the Member States to uphold, it is particularly significant that a representative of the Commission participated in the relevant Iter Council meetings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The issue is not to keep repeating that the Commission cannot decide on its own or that it has no veto over decisions that are ultimately adopted.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The issue is that where a decision is manifestly unacceptable, as is the case with the dismissals decided by the ITER Organization, both all internal and external stakeholders, are entitled to know what position was taken by the Commission representative and, where applicable, whether any disagreement or objection expressed on behalf of the Commission \u2014 irrespective of whether it was sufficient to prevent the decision from being adopted \u2014 was duly and formally recorded.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Particular emphasis should be placed on the decision adopted by the ITER Council in June 2026 to reduce the notification period for affected contracts from nine months to three months. This amendment reportedly followed a proposal by ITER management and was approved by all ITER members, including the European Commission, represented by DG ENER.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Such a drastic reduction is deeply troubling. A three-month notification period gives employees and their families very little time to reorganise their professional and personal lives, particularly in an international workplace where many staff members have relocated across borders. The decision appears incompatible with the European Union’s stated commitment to social dialogue, collective protections, fair working conditions, and respect for workers<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is especially important to clarify why the Commission accepted a deterioration in employment protection within an organisation in which the EU plays a central role. European labour principles should not cease to matter merely because ITER has a particular international legal status. The EU cannot credibly promote strong social standards within Europe while accepting significantly weaker protections in an international organisation operating with substantial European participation and on European territory.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In particular, it should be clarified whether the Commission representative expressed any reservation, objection or legal concern regarding the measures proposed and, if so, whether that position was explicitly stated, formally recorded and traceable in the official minutes or other records of the meeting.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the absence of such a record, serious questions arise as to whether the Commission exercised the level of scrutiny and oversight that could reasonably be expected in relation to decisions carrying potentially significant legal, financial and reputational consequences.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It should also be established whether the position taken on behalf of the Commission had been properly coordinated in advance with DG ENER and with the Commissioners concerned.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Given the significance of the decisions concerned, such coordination cannot be regarded as a mere procedural formality, but as an essential element of sound governance and institutional accountability.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Equally important is the question whether a formal legal assessment was sought before the measures were endorsed or implemented.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In view of the apparent issues relating to legal certainty, legitimate expectations, non-retroactivity, transitional protection, procedural fairness and good administration, it would be difficult to understand how measures of this nature could have been supported, or allowed to proceed without formal objection, without prior verification of their legal robustness<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If no such legal assessment was requested, no reservation was formally expressed and no prior coordination took place at the appropriate level within the Commission, this would raise a broader and more fundamental question as to whether the governance and oversight mechanisms put in place to safeguard the Commission\u2019s institutional and financial interests were effectively exercised in practice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Providing such assurances and ensuring full transparency are all the more critical at this juncture, when the Commission is negotiating a substantial additional financial contribution to the ITER project in the context of the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In these circumstances, clear accountability as to the positions taken on behalf of the Commission is not merely desirable; it is essential to the credibility of any request for further EU funding and to our ability to justify such a significant financial commitment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Consistency of treatment: leading by example is not an empty slogan!<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

At the same Council meeting at which the compulsory staff reductions were approved, the Council was informed that annual performance-based bonuses formed part of the arrangements used to reward staff members and that, at least, in one senior-level case, such a bonus could amount to approximately three months\u2019 salary.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

During the same performance cycle, staff members whose mid-year assessments confirmed that they were meeting their objectives were notified that their posts were being abolished under provisions reducing their separation entitlements by up to one third.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

No conclusion is drawn here as to the merits of any individual awards. The issue is one of consistency of treatment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Leading by example cannot be reduced to an empty slogan. If the financial position was considered sufficiently serious to justify compulsory staff reductions and a substantial reduction in separation entitlements, we are entitled to request clarification from both the Director-General of the IO and the Commission\u2019s representative as to what corresponding cost-saving, restraint or burden-sharing measures<\/strong>.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Last Message to Staff from the IO Director-General<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

We have taken note of the message addressed to IO staff by the Director-General on 31 July 2026, setting out the rationale for the staff reductions, the procedure followed, and the measures adopted, in accordance with the duty of care, to mitigate their consequences for the colleagues concerned.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We wish to state at the outset that we strongly deplore the repeated references in this message to the possible initiation of disciplinary proceedings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Such references convey an intimidatory message and are wholly unacceptable, particularly given that the communication is also addressed to colleagues who are already experiencing considerable distress following notification of their dismissal\u2014an announcement that places both their professional future and the well-being of their families at serious risk.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The repeated assertion that employees are prohibited from disclosing the circumstances surrounding these dismissals goes well beyond any legitimate duty of discretion or restraint that may reasonably be expected of an employee. It appears instead to be aimed at discouraging colleagues from speaking openly about the decisions taken and, in doing so, at limiting public scrutiny and accountability in relation to those decisions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Context<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

gainst that background, and in a constructive spirit, we consider it important it is important to set out, in sufficient detail a clear reconstruction of the sequence of events in order to assess not only the substance of the measures adopted, but also the manner in which they were prepared, approved and subsequently applied.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In particular, it is crucial to address the following elements:<\/p>\n\n\n\n