On 6 October 2025 DG HR met colleagues from executive agencies. The meeting was intended as an opportunity for the administration to listen to employees’ concerns and clarify the future of executive agencies. However, the overall tone of the discussion including its outcome, was marked by frustration and disappointment among participants, who felt that few concrete commitments were presented. Uncertainty within executive agencies is not a new phenomenon, and it should not come as a surprise that the administration has offered no concrete answers. 

Large Scale Review (LSR) 

The administration presented the Large-Scale Review (LSR) as a complementary initiative to the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF). The review was described as intended to ensure appropriate resource allocation, simplify the organisation, and draw inspiration from other international organizations via benchmarking. Workload of the agencies was considered as a possibility to be included in the benchmarking exercise. The review was confirmed to focus on three areas: people and culture, structure, and processes and operations. 

Agencies and the Commission 

The administration repeated the classic tune on the need to strike a balance between cooperation, autonomy, and independence between agencies and the Commission. Support from DG HR was mentioned, including in areas such human resources, technical (via Sysper, badge access) as well as most recently the introduction of new anti-harassment policies. It was announced that the Commission’s Confidential Counsel (CCC) was also competent for agencies’ staff and would be visiting agencies. This is good news.  

Talent and recruiting 

The discussion on talent and recruitment focused on the need to attract and retain employees. Initiatives such as the Staff exchange programme (200 colleagues participated), the need for faster and simple selection of laureates and, the outreach strategy (planned for next year) were presented as evidence of progress. Yet, the main career concerns remained.  

Employees’ concerns and equity 

A recurring theme during the meeting was the feeling among agency employees that they were treated as second-class employees compared to their colleagues in the Commission. The administration emphasized that the agencies and the Commission are attractive employers but explained the differences by reminding, historical reasons for creating and reconfiguring agencies, their distinct legal frameworks and staffing plans. This explanation did little to alleviate the frustration of staff, who saw it as an excuse for maintaining worse conditions compared to the Commission rather than a constructive way forward. 

The possibility of a model for a model for Contract Agents to become temporary agents in executive agencies was rejected for budgetary reasons and implications linked to the establishment plans. However, contract agents can apply for such positions.  Nonetheless, based on testimonies reported to us by colleagues, the likelihood of success is, in practical terms, negligible. Similarly, questions regarding mobility of CAs between agencies and DGs were met with negative replies, as the rules currently in place limit such possibilities unless specific conditions are met (retaining an indefinite contract is possible only in certain services, such as Offices, and in DGs only at FG I level). Generation 2004 believes that job mobility and contract change rule scan be simplified by the renegotiation of General Implementing Provisions for contact staff (annex III).  

Proposal of including EAs in staff rotation in delegations was also rejected for the constraints of the provisions in place. In particular, the administration confirmed that only civil servants (‘officials’) can participate in the rotation system, excluding TA 2f staff working in agencies from such opportunities.

Management staff 

Management positions will continue to be reserved for seconded Commission officials (Article 18 of Regulation (EC) No 58/2003) and they were no current plans to change it. Although there was a suggestion that this could be reconsidered in the future with next MFF, but no concrete plans were presented. 

Geographical balance 

Concerns about geographical imbalances in recruitment were raised but not addressed in any meaningful way. Although the administration cited ongoing efforts to improve the representation of underrepresented nationalities and overcome challenges with online testing, participants saw no signs of real progress. The suggested solutions, like the extension of the EPSO reserved lists, are unlikely to increase the engagement of colleagues from Nordic countries for example, if the staff structure relies on contract agents with less attractive salaries, as there is no career path to advance internally to a meaningfully better position for that staff category.    

Cost analysis and pressure to deliver 

When asked about preventing errors in the upcoming cost-benefit analysis (which impacts agencies’ workload and ultimately allows agencies io implement programmes they are changed with as foreseen), the administration expressed confidence in DG BUDG’s professionalism but did not propose any specific actions. 

And how about the location? 

It was stated during the meeting that the decision to move the executive agencies to the North Quarter is not going to be changed. The distance to the EU Quarter was judged as not enormous. However, colleagues know very well that security concerns remain, and that the symbolic detachment from the Commission was well felt.  

The future of the executive agencies 

Questions regarding a potential merger of agencies after 2027 (which otherwise too place in 2021) were met with ambiguous responses. The administration stated that it did not know the answer, offering no concrete guarantees about the long-term future of the agencies or their employees. In a personal statement, an administration representative stated that EA’s ‘future was bright’ and that it was difficult to believe it would be a different configuration.  

In response to a question about potential job losses, the administration reiterated that such outcomes were highly unlikely, though it acknowledged that nothing could be guaranteed until the process was complete. We know however, that such loses happened as recent as 2021. 

Lost hopes? 

Colleagues from the executive agencies had high hopes for this meeting. They were encouraged to participate, and in some agencies questions from staff were carefully gathered beforehand. 

The frustration of participants was palpable.  

‘Although I want to express actually my personal disappointment a bit because I heard you in the beginning say that the session is to listen to your issues and the items that you want to bring forward. And all that I’m hearing is that whatever we are bringing forward, it’s not possible.  […] it’s not just a matter of what you can do or cannot do with the rules, but some rules, they depend on political willingness to change something about that. […] But the rubber band can only be stretched until the point that it breaks. We have a lot of people under a lot of work pressure without really seeing any possibilities of reaping the benefit of hard work. We have people that are stuck in their positions for 10-15 years already, since the start of the existence of the agencies without really having the possibility internally to grow and to continue take on extra responsibilities.’ – an intervention that that unfortunately perhaps best summaries overall impressions during the meeting… 

That very day, after the meeting, colleagues returned to their workstation demotivated instead of hopeful about changes and improvements to their employment conditions. This frustration seemed to echo in the low participation rates in the Staff Survey, even though, in some agencies, staff were bombarded with reminders to complete it. ‘What is going to change?’ some might think, if the direct interaction with the administration appears to have buried their hopes.  

‘What a waste of money’, some colleagues reportedly whispered in the corridors. After all, the event involved not only high-level officials, but also a considerable number of colleagues from the agencies, and yet it failed to provide any real hope, nor any meaningful reassurance that the situation would actually improve. 

Way forward 

Generation20014 calls on the administration to demonstrate greater openness, to share concrete details with agencies, propose compensating measures if those suggested by staff are not possible (for legal and procedural reasons), and to show real willingness to improve the current situation in the EAs within the existing Staff Regulations.