At Generation 2004, we consider that protection against arbitrary termination is a fundamental element of fair employment conditions. The recent judgment from 10 June 2026 (Case T-13/25, HC v Court of Justice of the European Union [1]) of the General Court of the European Union is particularly important in this respect. It clarifies the conditions under which an indefinite contract of a Temporary Agent may be terminated on the grounds of a breakdown of the relationship of trust.
The judgment is also worth reading alongside an earlier ruling delivered just one week before on 3 June 2026 (Case T-1137/23, UF v European Parliament [2]), concerning an accredited parliamentary assistant (APA). While the two cases concern different categories of staff and different employment relationships, they both examine the circumstances in which a loss of trust may justify termination.
In T-13/25, the General Court annulled the decision terminating the Temporary Agent’s indefinite contract and awarded her €10,000 in compensation for non-material damage.
A loss of trust does not give the administration unlimited discretion
The case concerned a Temporary Agent employed under an indefinite contract at the Court of Justice. Her contract was terminated under Article 47 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants (CEOS), on the basis of an alleged breakdown of trust between her and her hierarchical superior, a Judge of the General Court.
The General Court recalled that an indefinite contract can indeed be terminated because of a breakdown in the relationship of trust. However, this does not give the administration unlimited discretion.
The authority responsible for concluding contracts of employment must:
- establish whether a loss or absence of trust is actually being invoked;
- verify the material accuracy of the facts relied upon; and
- ensure that the termination does not infringe fundamental rights or constitute a misuse of powers.
The administration cannot invent its own reasons
In this case, the administration referred to an allegedly “difficult, if not conflictual” relationship between the Temporary Agent and the Judge and considered that this relationship demonstrated, in itself, that trust had broken down.
However, the Judge himself had not relied on such a relationship when requesting the termination of the contract.
The Court made clear that the administration cannot substitute its own assessment for that of the hierarchical superior in a relationship based on personal trust (intuitu personae).
While the authority responsible for contracts may decide which reasons put forward by the superior are sufficient to justify termination, it cannot create or substitute its own reasons for the superior’s assessment.
The facts must also be checked
The Court identified another important failure.
Neither the authority responsible for the contract nor the body examining the complaint had properly verified the factual accuracy of the allegations made against the applicant.
This was also a legal error.
The existence of a relationship of trust does not mean that the administration can simply accept allegations without checking whether the underlying facts are accurate.
A useful comparison with the earlier APA judgment
The judgment of 3 June 2026 in T-1137/23, UF v European Parliament, concerned an Accredited Parliamentary Assistant whose fixed-term contract was terminated at the request of the MEP whom he assisted.
In that case, the General Court recognised the specific nature of the relationship between an MEP and an APA. A genuine breakdown of trust can justify termination, and the Court confirmed that termination does not necessarily require an act directly attributable to the APA.
However, the Court also stressed that the administration must explain the factual circumstances underlying the alleged loss of trust.
The two judgments therefore provide an interesting distinction. The Court recognises that trust is particularly important in certain employment relationships, especially where staff work directly with elected representatives or senior officials. At the same time, the concept of “loss of trust” cannot simply become a formula allowing the administration to avoid proper reasoning and verification of the facts.
€10,000 for moral damage
In T-13/25, the Court also considered the circumstances surrounding the termination procedure, which it considered to have been excessively long and contentious.
Given the limited practical effect that annulment alone would have had in the circumstances of the case, the Court awarded the applicant €10,000 in compensation for non-material damage.
What does this mean for Temporary Agents?
This judgment is particularly relevant for Temporary Agents employed under indefinite contracts.
It confirms that, although such contracts can be terminated because of a breakdown in the relationship of trust, the administration must still respect important safeguards.
A decision to terminate cannot simply rely on a general statement that a relationship has become difficult. The administration must identify the relevant factual circumstances, verify the facts and ensure that the decision respects fundamental rights.
The judgment is therefore an important reminder that an indefinite contract does not give the administration unlimited discretion to terminate employment. Where termination is based on a breakdown of trust, the applicable procedure and legal safeguards must be respected.
Generation 2004: an important judgment for staff
Generation 2004 is particularly pleased with this judgment because the case concerns the Court of Justice itself. An institution whose fundamental role is to uphold the rule of law and protect individual rights should be exemplary in the way it treats its own staff and should lead by example.
We therefore welcome the fact that the General Court dealt with the case independently, carefully examining the administration’s reasoning and identifying the legal errors in the termination procedure.
For Generation 2004, this sends an important message: no EU institution should be above the rules and principles that it is responsible for upholding. Staff members, regardless of where they work, are entitled to fair, transparent and properly justified procedures.
Read together with the 3 June 2026 judgment in T-1137/23, the two rulings demonstrate the importance of balancing the legitimate need for a relationship of trust with the fundamental requirement that staff decisions are properly reasoned, factually supported and subject to effective judicial review.
The judgment demonstrates the value of independent judicial scrutiny and is a welcome contribution to strengthening fair administration, accountability and staff rights across the EU institutions.
If you are facing a termination of your contract, difficulties concerning your employment relationship, or any other HR-related issue, do not hesitate to contact Generation 2004 [3]. We can help you understand the applicable rules, rights, and support you in defending them where necessary.
toolTips('.classtoolTips6','Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) \'select their accredited parliamentary assistants (or ‘APAs\'). ....Parliament\'s administration provides the contractual framework but is not involved in the selection of APAs.
There are 19 APA grades and two ‘function groups\' (I and II)
- APAs recruited in function group I mainly perform administrative support and secretarial duties (grades 1 to 13);
- APAs recruited in function group II mainly perform drafting and advisory duties (grades 7 to 19).
APAs work directly for MEPs in their Offices in Brussels and Strasbourg, supporting their parliamentary and political work and providing administrative support.\' European Parliament [4]'); toolTips('.classtoolTips44','Conditions of Employment of Other Servants [5]'); toolTips('.classtoolTips47','Trade union or staff association (OSP) [Organisation syndicale et professionnelle]');