*Update 27.08.2024: Check out the the 2023 IDOC report.*

Original article: The Investigation and Disciplinary Office of the Commission (IDOC) is the European Commission service responsible for “ensuring compliance by (former) officials and other agents with their obligations as laid down in the staff regulations by conducting administrative inquiries and disciplinary proceedings in a fair, transparent and timely manner.”

IDOC procedures can be quite lengthy and often last several years. This is especially so in the situation where you are prosecuted in a civil court for a situation unrelated to your work but where, in parallel and linked to that civil case, you may be placed under an IDOC investigation. Until your civil court case is finished, the internal IDOC procedure will be pending (no matter how long that takes).

If on one side this makes sense: after all it is important to formally keep track of potential situations of misconduct, on the other – and in the view of Generation 2004 – the Commission has been for quite a few years taking advantage of the IDOC procedure to freeze the career progress of any member of staff having an ongoing IDOC procedure. This is so without any regard for the principle of presumption of innocence or even the seriousness of the accusations made about the colleague[1]. This is also completely outside the 3 criteria used for the annual evaluation:

• the quality of your previous evaluation reports
• the use of languages in the execution of duties
• the level of responsibilities exercised especially financial, people management or representation of your unit/service/institution to others.

Moreover, while the Commission moves very quickly to block a colleague’s career progress; it has no process in place for reparative action where there is a negative outcome to the IDOC procedure. Around 50% of IDOC cases are filed without follow-up [2] and many result in light punitive actions such as a note to the colleague’s personal file, which should not affect the colleague’s career progress).

This is an utterly immoral situation that Generation 2004 has been pointing out for many years to the administration and that must be urgently and properly addressed. Since this is not covered in the Staff Regulations, we are led to believe that the Authority Invested with the Power of Nomination (AIPN) is arbitrarily and negatively targeting this group of staff members and therefore nefariously discriminating against them.

But what can colleagues do when they are targeted by this practice, when at the end of their IDOC procedure they are not sanctioned with career changes? [3] What can they do when, after 4 or 6 years of worry and non-promotion they are finally given the news that the IDOC is devoid of purpose? Not much unfortunately. The only thing members of staff can do to try to recover the time lost is to file a request asking the Administration to redress their careers (this would be an Article 90.1 of the Staff Regulations) and hope for the best or go to court.

More recently however, the AIPN has shown some signs of openness towards these situations. It said that if an IDOC procedure ends without sanction, the careers of colleagues that have been removed from the final list of promotions during such a procedure would be re-evaluated.

If on one side this is a welcome positive move, it remains however a baby step in the right direction. What the AIPN proposes is that only those colleagues that have been proposed for promotion either by their DG or by the Joint Promotions Committee, following an appeal, will have their careers reviewed. But here is the tricky part, if a Director General knows that a colleague is being subjected to an IDOC procedure, they will also know that proposing that colleague for promotion will be nothing more than wasting one promotion quota, so they might not even propose them for promotion and will instead benefit someone else [4]. At the end of the day the colleague could still appeal the decision of non-proposal for promotion but not everyone is perhaps comfortable with filing an appeal. In this case, the colleague would never meet the criteria to see his/her career redressed.

To conclude, the Commission’s guilty-until-proven-innocent policy often punishes colleagues forever; not just until the end of their career, but until the end of their life. After all, the retirement pension of an ex member of staff is calculated on the basis of their last salary and if the last salary is lower than it should have been due to no promotion for being in an IDOC procedure then is indeed punishment forever.

As always, feel free to contact us if you have questions: we’re here for you!

[1] “In all our procedures, the presumption of innocence applies.” New anti-harassment policy – for everybody! (europa.eu)

[2] IDOC Annual Report 2021, p. 5: 90 cases closed, which outcome? No follow-up (14), non-case (27), devoid of purpose (4) = 45 of 90 total = 50%.  HR have responded to our queries in the past stating that someone promoted as normal and then found to be guilty of misconduct would also be a problem.

[3] Some sanctions can result in the freezing of a staff member’s career or even a demoting a colleague in their step or even grade. A recent examples is a formal reprimand for a colleague who worked from abroad for a month without permission IDOC activity report 2021, page 12, oddly under ‘unauthorised absences’.

[4] Promotion is already opaque (and here, and here), it would be difficult to show that this had happened.