Good things come to those who wait – but not from DG HR. While the Central Staff Committee (CSC) could finally welcome colleagues from DG HR during its pre-Christmas-meeting to gift it with the long-sought-after clarification on freedom of speech for EU staff, the CSC didn’t learn anything that had not been known before. And what had raised doubts and questions before, continues to do so.
Here is the core of the matter: according to the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (EUCFR, Article 11), every European citizen enjoys the right to freedom of speech. The right is not unlimited, as you may imagine, but may under certain conditions be restricted by law (EUCFR, Article 52). Defaming or insulting others is usually outlawed and so is, in some member states, denying the Holocaust. But beyond this, Europeans enjoy the right to pretty much say what they want.
Clear the stage for the staff regulations.
They too are a law in the sense of the EUCFR and thus can qualify the scope of Art. 11 thereof. It is therefore worth to quote the most important provisions ad verbatim:
Art.11: An official shall carry out his duties and conduct himself solely with the interests of the Union in mind …
Art. 12: An official shall refrain from any action or behaviour which might reflect adversely upon his position.
A closer look at both articles makes one thing crystal clear. The Staff Regulations do not even attempt to draw a line, clear or not, between private and professional life. Art. 11 speaks of conduct but does not limit that conduct to your activities in a professional context or capacity. Whether you have coffee or tea for breakfast, you have to keep in mind the interests of the Union. Seriously? Well, that’s how it’s written.
Art. 12 is even sloppier. It boldly requests that EU staff refrain from undertaking activities that might cast them in a negative light. Once again, no distinction is made between private and professional life. Worse still, hypothetical and fuzzy formulations open the door to all sorts of interpretations. What exactly is the ‘interest’ of the Union that could be ‘adversely’ affected? Is it visible to everyone, or is it a moving target driven by the political fads of the day and very much in the eye of the beholder? We don’t know, and we haven’t been told.
This ambiguity is a recurring theme throughout the debate. To paraphrase what DG HR told the CSC, everything depends on the details of the case in question. It still seems relatively clear that participating in a peaceful demonstration or signing a petition should not cause any problems unless you explicitly link it to your professional role. But here comes the snag. Even the absence of an explicit link did not protect colleagues who wrote a critical email from their private account from being thrown in front of the IDOC bus. It wasn’t them who made the link; the link was made for them. Add to that face recognition, Google, and even the most innocuous digital presence on Facebook, and you will understand why staff representatives are concerned. Each and every one of us can be linked to our employer within minutes, no IT nerd required. But if that happens, who then bears the burden of proof who made the link to our employer? Again, we are left in the dark.
A potentially even more serious issue arises in the context of staff’s political activities. In principle, this should be permitted, but, as is often the case, the devil is in the detail. Political engagement by its nature involves expressing controversial opinions in public. But how controversial can they be? The Staff Representation was told the obvious fact that it is better not to campaign for the abolition of the Union (never mind that some British colleagues might even have voted for Brexit). Beyond that, however, there is a whole spectrum of views that are clearly not the EU’s official position, yet still far from an unreflective extremism of any kind. After pressing the point a bit, the Staff Representation was advised that colleagues would be better off asking.
Apart from raising all sorts of practical issues, are we really expected to ask permission to exercise our democratic right to stand for political office and campaign on a platform that is slightly critical of current EU policies? Let us take as an example the debate on the so-called ban on combustion engines in the EU (which in reality is not a ban at all). Would it have been permissible to criticise this ‘ban’ as a candidate of a political party? Or now that the rules are to be weakened due to powerful lobby groups and the intervention of some Member States, would it be permissible to campaign for its preservation when the Commission appears to be yielding to pressure? None of that is any clearer.
If that seems small fry to you, remember some of the more fundamental question about the future of the Union. Do we want more integration or less? Do we want it only in certain areas, but not in others? What about a Union where the rule of law is not universally respected? These are all legitimate political questions that arise in any serious debate about Europe. Just because we work for the Union, does that mean we are not allowed to express our opinions freely, even as private but political individuals?
On other occasions, it is repeatedly emphasised that staff are also ambassadors for the Union. That is all well and good. But how credible is someone as an ambassador for the EU who, for fear of saying the wrong thing, does not deviate one millimetre from the official line, even during the social drinks afterwards?
Thus, it seems, there is still some work to do for DG HR. We need more clarity, not less. We need clear guidance rather than ambiguities. But above all, we need a change of mindset in our Administration. In times like these, when voices from across the Atlantic are proclaiming that Europe is finished and superfluous, we need staff who are willing to publicly stand up for European values more than ever before. We will only get these employees if DG HR trusts staff. Mistrust fuels concerns. And concerns fuel passivity.
