Newsletter – 2022-10-25

Newsletter editorial – 25-10-2022

Editorial, Newsletter - 2022-10-25 Print This Post

Welcome to this latest short-and-legal edition of the Generation 2004 newsletter. We take a look at two ongoing Court cases which have the potential to set precedents for many of us. We outline the current state of play and list the issues each one raises. The first deals with the long-running Picard case which relates to pension and retirement rights lost by a contract agent colleague on renewing his contract: When is an upgrade not an upgrade? The second case is more recent and relates to the very topical reimbursement of teleworking expenses: the Court says ‘no’.  These are long legal journeys and there are options still open to our colleagues, even though the answer may have been negative on this occasion.

Enjoy the reading and get in touch if you believe we can help!

When is an upgrade not an upgrade? An update on the Picard case

Contract Agents, Newsletter - 2022-10-25, Newsletter - 2022-11-07, Pensions, Petition Print This Post

*Update 23.06.2023 the Commission is to apply the judgment, but not to officials.* *Update 19.12.2022 C-366/21 P was successful! Well done to everyone involved! Here’s an external evaluation of the case and our own update.*

Original article: Legally speaking, is a contract renewal really a contract renewal? Is a second (or subsequent) contract considered to be a new stand-alone agreement or is it a continuation of an already-existing agreement? Given that contract agents (CAs) are now 25% of Commission staff [1] Continue reading When is an upgrade not an upgrade? An update on the Picard case →

Reimbursement of teleworking expenses: the Court says ‘no’

additional teleworking costs, Cost of living Luxembourg, IT kit for telework, New HR strategy, Newsletter - 2022-10-25, Newsletter - 2022-11-07, Open Plan Office, Working conditions Print This Post

*Update 13.03.2023 here is the presentation on hotdesking from our 10.03.2023 event.*Here is the update on Court case T-486/21 promised in our article on whether working from home can truly be considered voluntary. We noted there that the Court rejected the application made by one of our colleagues for reimbursement of teleworking-related internet and phone costs incurred during the COVID-19 pandemic (judgment 07/09/2022). We’ve been raising the issue of additional teleworking costs for over 2 years now and even though all OSPs succeeded in having this issue explicitly mentioned in the  Commission Decision of 24/03/2022 on working time and hybrid working (Article 13) we see the Commission is increasingly reluctant to act. Continue reading Reimbursement of teleworking expenses: the Court says ‘no’ →