For years, we’ve been told that Luxembourg suffers from an “attractiveness problem.” Housing is expensive, life is expensive, childcare is expensive and yet, instead of tackling those issues, some now suggest that the solution is… to hold people in Luxembourg for 3–4 years (Point 6 c) to f) of the notice of the competition). This mobility-limiting clause, appearing in some Luxembourg-based competitions, is being used unlike in other sites. 

It seems that forcing colleagues to stay longer is now being presented as a strategy. This is not entirely new, as similar practices exist in some other institutions, for example, the Luxembourg-based Court of Justice applies role-specific restrictions in certain functions, and the Council uses “critical” role labels with mobility consequences, but these are not the same as a blanket location-based restriction.  

But let’s be honest: if the only way to keep staff in a place is to stop them from leaving, you don’t have an attractiveness problem, you have a policy problem.  

Why this approach is wrong – legally, practically and ethically 

Let’s consult the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union (‘staff regulations (SR)’), the rules stating both the fundamental conditions of service and the basic rights, duties and obligations of staff.  

Article 6 regulates posts, not people. 

We hear that Article 6 of those Staff Regulations somehow justifies this use of mobility restrictions in competitions. 
It doesn’t.
It tells the institution how many posts of each grade it can have in each location.
It does not authorise the administration to tell human beings:
“You must stay in Luxembourg for 4 years because we need numbers on paper.”
Mixing up “post planning” with “personal rights” is… creative. Let’s call it that. 

It is also worth noting that a growing number of Luxembourg-labelled posts are already performed partly or fully from outside Luxembourg through teleworking and remote-working arrangements. While administratively counted as Luxembourg-based posts, the work itself is often carried out elsewhere. 

This reality underscores that the problem is not physical presence, but how posts are planned and counted for administrative reporting. Stable headcount figures may serve internal planning, budgetary or political considerations, but they do not justify blanket restrictions on individual mobility rights.  

When arguments are made about the importance of keeping staff numbers “stable” in Luxembourg, no formal document actually states that staff mobility must be restricted to preserve such figures. Such considerations relate to administrative planning convenience, not to individual staff obligations under the Staff Regulations. 

Article 7 still exists and it protects individuals 

Article 7 requires the administration to assign staff on a case-by-case basis, in the interest of the service. Not in the interest of “keeping a site populated so it looks good on slides” (this is shorthand for the argument sometimes made informally that staff numbers must remain stable in Luxembourg; no formal document states this explicitly).
A blanket rule that “Lux colleagues cannot move for X years” is the opposite of a case-by-case assessment.
It’s automatic, mechanical, and legally shaky. 

Article 1d: equal treatment is not optional 

If only colleagues working in Luxembourg are subject to these restrictions and no one in Brussels, Ispra or Petten is, then we are in the territory of geographical discrimination. No equivalent mobility restrictions apply systematically in those other locations. 

It is acknowledged that housing policy is a Member State competence, and that Luxembourg provides state support for rent and purchase. However, those schemes are designed for the general population and do not address the specific constraints faced by EU staff: compulsory posting to a high-cost location, limited choice of residence, cross-border family arrangements and constrained mobility. 

The Commission cannot shift responsibility entirely to national measures when it is the employer imposing the geographical constraint. Where posting decisions create a structural disadvantage compared to colleagues in other locations, the Commission has both the competence and the obligation under Article 1d to ensure equal treatment through employment-related measures, including appropriate allowances or compensatory mechanisms.  

Article 1d prohibits this. Full stop. 

If HR wish to defend any measure of that kind, they need a solid legal justification and a proportionate, targeted approach. “Because Luxembourg needs people” is not enough on its own to justify restricting staff mobility. Administrative needs cannot override staff rights under Articles 1d and 7. 

Attractiveness through restriction is not attractiveness 

Let’s not pretend otherwise.
This approach is not about making Luxembourg attractive. It’s about compensating for the fact that nothing has been done to actually make Luxembourg attractive.
Real attractiveness comes from: 

• Housing support including housing allowance extended to commuters forced to live outside Luxembourg, and extended in time, not artificial restrictions (see the Commission’s 12 Actions for Luxembourg and Generation 2004 articles on housing support). 
• Childcare availability including real expansion of creche places (acknowledged in the Commission’s 12 Actions). 
• Transport links (traffic congestion and cross-border commuting difficulties are well known; while the issue is interinstitutional and involves BE/FR/DE, the Commission can still advocate for and support coordination with national authorities to ease staff commuting),  

Not from locking people in. 

If a hotel forced you to stay because you wanted to check out too soon, you wouldn’t call the hotel “attractive.” You’d call the manager. 

The central issue:
Mobility is a right, not a luxury. 

 The EU institutions are built on mobility – it’s fundamental for career development, inclusiveness, and staff satisfaction. This is recognised in long-standing institutional practice and protected by Articles 7 and 1d. 

Blocking Luxembourg colleagues for 3–4 years is: 

• bad policy, 
• bad law, 
• bad staff relations. 

For comparison: the Council applies a 5-year minimum stay for certain posts labelled “critical” in SYSPER; this is role-specific rather than location-wise, and therefore not comparable to a blanket Luxembourg restriction. We should fix the causes of unattractiveness, not the symptoms. 

What Generation 2004 proposes 

We push for: 

• Real incentives, not restrictions (for example stronger housing support, affordable childcare, improved relocation conditions);
• Real measures such as extending the housing allowance beyond Luxembourg based colleagues without arbitrary time limits, not artificial barriers; 
• Compliance with the Staff Regulations, not creative reinterpretations; 
• Freedom of movement, as guaranteed to every official. 

Luxembourg deserves a real attractiveness strategy, not an administrative lock-in. 

If we want staff to stay, we must give them reasons to stay, not reasons to feel stuck.