Generation 2004 is pleased to see the recently-announced agreement [1] to have bills for hospitalisation in Luxembourg sent directly to the JSIS [2] (so a default prise en charge/direct billing [3]). No longer will JSIS members in Luxembourg have to pay bills for scheduled (‘elective’/non-emergency) surgery and then await reimbursement[1], for example. Well done on making this happen!
‘The Commission has been continuously working to enhance the attractiveness of Luxembourg as an institutional seat. In 2020, a high-level interinstitutional initiative was launched in cooperation with the Luxembourgish authorities, identifying … 12 concrete measures to improve various aspects of life in the Grand Duchy for EU staff. These include … improved access to hospital care …’ (Luxembourg: new hospital billing system simplifies paperwork for staff [4], Au Quotidien, 01.10.2025)
While this change is welcome [4], and it may well contribute to the overall attractiveness of Luxembourg as a place of work in the long term, it appears to be a bit of a side quest (but every little bit helps, right?). We are unable to find ‘improved access to hospital care’ or hospital up-front charging or any health-related issue among the original 12 CALux actions announced in March 2022 [5]. Is there another list? Was there scope creep? How is progress going on the original 12? We had a good look for any signs of progress at 6 months [6], 9 months [7], 1 year [8] and then at 2 years [5] … we’re still looking.
1: Launching site-specific European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) competitions,
2: Job shadowing initiatives for career guidance officers,
3: Creation of a common job platform,
4: Inter-institutional excellence hubs (e.g. financial, digital, legal),
5: Housing allowance,
6: Offer of temporary housing,
7: Jobs for spouses,
8: Interinstitutional cooperation of Welcome Desks,
9: Future of interinstitutional crèches in Luxembourg,
10: Common communication strategy,
11: Collaboration with the national authorities,
12: Cooperation with top European universities.
(12 CALux actions to address the interinstitutional difficulties of recruiting (and retaining) staff in Luxembourg)
Stated intentions and measuring success
This side quest could maybe be part of the unofficial 13th item which Generation 2004 insists on adding, that of JSIS members being charged more for the same GP visit or medical intervention than their nationally-insured neighbours (‘overcharging’)[2]. It’s difficult to know: we’re not clear on the current status of the whole improving-recruitment-and-retention-in-Luxembourg (‘attractivity’) endeavour as a whole. There are no stated deadlines, no Key Performance Indicators nor criteria for confirming resolution: how will we know when it’s been successful?
Surely there’s something to show for the intervening time?!
Credit where credit is due, we have seen some change: it’s just that it’s been opaque [5], fragmented [9] and short-term [10]. Will the temporary housing allowance or the long-awaited matching of the national minimum wage [11] count as progress? How are any gains to be measured? [12] How is the effectiveness of changes to be measured where they are implemented by one institution and not the others? We’d really like to see a progress report on each of the original 12 action items plus an interinstitutional evaluation overall. In short, we want to see just where these 3.5 years of work and progress will have had a measurable impact. In fact, let’s go further back, some of the groundwork on what would become the 12 (13?) actions began in 2020 [4], so let’s have a look at the Key figures [13] staff numbers for the Commission in Luxembourg in the last 5.5 years.
Recruitment and retention at the Commission 2020-2025
[14]
OK, admittedly that line is not a great start, but maybe it’s not representative of the efforts being made since even before 2020? A target of 12.5% of Commission staff being Luxembourg based [15] was set even further back, in 2015. Maybe ‘total Commission staff’ is a moving target: staff numbers there might be increasing and so Luxembourg as a percentage is falling? Let’s check the absolute figures and go further back!
[16]
Ah, well maybe not. That’s more than a little underwhelming after so many years of work on the issue. Maybe the charts are not doing the figures justice? What about the figures themselves?
OK, it’s not just not improving, not even standing still: Commission staff figures are falling overall and also in Luxembourg but maybe that’s not how this project will be measured? We’ve heard of arguments counting the Luxembourg-based EU staff and not just Commission staff, but the target of 12.5% was Commission specific. The closure of the Luxembourg-based Chafea [17] agency in March 2021 is difficult to coincide with the stated aim of increasing the number of staff in Luxembourg. We have no idea how else to measure such such a target unless via staff figures, how else can we measure recruitment and retention? Any ideas?
| Year | Total Commission Staff | Number of Commission staff in Luxembourg | % of Commission staff in Luxembourg |
| 2016 | 32966 | 3890 | 11.8 |
| 2017 | 32546 | 3936 | 12.1 |
| 2018 | 32196 | 3982 | 12.4 |
| 2019 | 32399 | 4063 | 12.5 |
| 2020 | 32847 | 4188 | 12.8 |
| 2021 | 32281 | 3718 | 11.5 |
| 2022 | 32169 | 3707 | 11.5 |
| 2023 | 32262 | 3680 | 11.4 |
| 2024 | 32484 | 3670 | 11.3 |
| 2025 | 32860 | 3674 | 11.2 |
What is there to show for the effort and concern being reported?
Generation 2004 is well aware that recruitment and retention in Luxembourg is a big issue and that it’s bigger than the Commission alone. It’s a well-known interinstitutional challenge and has many moving parts, nevertheless, it’s been recognised since at least the 2003 ‘Kinnock – Polfer’ agreement. Has anything really improved in the intervening 22 years?
Generation 2004 is also further concerned that the already-falling staff numbers in Luxembourg are perhaps a little inflated in that they might actually be artificially high in that they will include Luxembourg-based jobs being done from another site, however ‘temporary’ that may be [3]: a short-term workaround for a long-standing problem. Are there any jobs based on other sites which are being done from Luxembourg?
Are side quests a bad thing?
At Generation 2004 we never underestimate the value of a side quest: if it contributes to the overall outcome, improves morale and gives sense of achievement then why not? On the other hand if the main challenge, one that you set yourself, remains only partially addressed, and mostly unfinished, then something needs to change.
For any other questions, do not hesitate to get in touch [18] or leave a comment below.
If you appreciate our work, please consider becoming a member of Generation 2004 [19]
[1] For an idea of the amounts involved see Luxembourg CHL price list [20] and PMO.3 General Implementing Provisions for the reimbursement of medical expenses and the codes [21]p.20 for surgery reimbursement ceilings.
[2] The difference in price is normally explained by the (so-far) unquantifiable part the state contributes on behalf of those covered by the national system. The extra cost was previously set at 15% but this was overturned in court [22], leaving the overcharge undefined. This resulted in an increase in the administrative burden and uncertainty for colleagues undergoing non-emergency care since they are strongly recommended to first request an estimate (yes, like for work on a car) and submit it to the JSIS who then decide whether the price is acceptable (see ‘special rules: Luxembourg [23]).
A PMO-led interinstitutional taskforce to address hospital pricing in Luxembourg was expected to publish findings at the end of 2022: we’ve not seen a copy, if you have one please feel free to share!
[3] In January 2021 DG Sante, unable to find staff willing to come to Luxembourg, exceptionally allowed Luxembourg posts to be done from any Commission site [24].