Are you sure that you have never breached staff regulations (SR)? Are you aware of the fact that every breach of Staff Regulations might have an impact on your career within the Institutions? Are you aware of the existence and mission of the Investigation and Disciplinary Office of the Commission (IDOC)? Are you aware that annually an IDOC activity report is published in My Intracomm? 

Likely not, if you have never been involved in a disciplinary procedure or if nobody from your network of colleagues or friends working for the EU institutions have been involved in disciplinary investigations, in which you or them, in both professional and private life, albeit by mistake or unconsciously, breach the Staff Regulations. Any wrongdoing occurred when in service, and also after leaving the Commission, might have an impact on your career and/or on your pension payments. IDOC mission, internal operation and outcomes have been lengthily detailed by Generation 2004 in a past article. 

In 2025, IDOC registered 88 new cases, representing a very stable trend in comparison to 2024. Out of the 88 new cases, ten cases concerned the EEAS and four the executive agencies. In 2025, IDOC received 48 mandates from the Appointing Authority (AA) to open administrative inquiries. They concerned allegations of conflict of interest, inappropriate behaviour (including in a staff member’s private life), non-respect of the rules on teleworking, psychological and sexual harassment, unauthorised outside activities (or exceeding authorisations), medical leave spent outside the place of assignment, insubordination, breach of the duty of loyalty and abuse of diplomatic privileges. In 34 cases, the Authority decided to open pre disciplinary proceedings. Check out the 2025 IDOC report for a better understanding of cases, decisions and IDOC activities.  

Breach of the duty of loyalty, inappropriate behaviour, harassment, unauthorised outside activity, unauthorised disclosure of information (leaks), failure to comply with the rules on publications or insubordination are a couple of areas, where IDOC may be called to step in due to possible infringements of the Staff Regulations provisions. Such proceedings are unquestionable as staff has to comply with legal and ethical rules. Thus, an investigation decided by the AA and carried out by the IDOC is a very serious issue, where fundamental rights should be at the heart of the administrative inquiries and of pre and disciplinary proceedings, which may end, in the worst scenario, in your dismissal of the European civil service or in a severe pension reduction if retired 

Theoretically, IDOC seeks to ensure that staff comply with high standards of ethics and integrity. We agree that meeting the highest standards of professional ethics and integrity is of paramount importance with respect to the accomplishment of the Commission’s tasks and its credibility and reputation towards EU citizens and member states. When allegations of breaches of statutory obligations arise, IDOC shall conduct their investigations in a fair, transparent and timely manner.  

Is IDOC doing it in practice?  

Reporting from colleagues and experience from staff representatives in accompanying colleagues in such IDOC administrative and disciplinary proceedings seems to indicate a significant number of wrongdoings and unlawful practices. 

IDOC has become a symbol of how due process is hollowed out inside the European Commission. Under the cover of “investigations” and “disciplinary proceedings”, fundamental guarantees enshrined in the Staff Regulations, the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and settled EU case-law are routinely set aside. What is presented as administration is, in practice, coercion. 

The presumption of innocence is openly disregarded. From the very opening of an IDOC file, staff are treated as suspects to be neutralised rather than officials whose rights must be protected. Guilt is assumed early, narratives are fixed in advance, and proceedings are driven towards incrimination instead of the objective of establishing facts. This is a potential breach of Article 48 of the Charter and a general principle of EU law repeatedly affirmed by the Courts. 

In such context, staff involved in such proceedings should carefully consider the following: 

• attending interviews conducted at the administrative inquiry phase with prior external counselling and being accompanied by a person of their trust or by an external lawyer. Please remember you are free to discuss your situation and seek advice or support.  

• never sign or make declarations under time pressure or any other form of coercion. 

• during any interview, say only the minimum. As a “person concerned” or subject of an investigation, you have the right to remain silent, even if IDOC claims otherwise. In case of uncertainty, refrain from answering immediately and indicate that you will provide a written response after careful consideration. In case of finding a possible additional breach of SR, of which you might not be aware, IDOC will “glue” the elements in charge, into a bigger case, crating further “aggravating facts” and increasing the imposed sanction. 

IDOC no longer acts as an impartial investigative body. It prepares cases. Context is selectively constructed, inconvenient facts are marginalised, and exculpatory evidence is ignored. Witness hearings are reduced to a formality serving the accusation, with only incriminatory testimony effectively considered. The rights of the defence, the adversarial principle, and equality of arms are systematically undermined, despite being core requirements under the Staff Regulations and EU settled case-law. 

Procedural timelines are treated with contempt. Proceedings drag on for months or years, leaving staff suspended in professional and personal uncertainty. Careers [promotions] are frozen, reputations are damaged, and pressure is maintained through delay. This abuse of time constitutes maladministration and breaches the reasonable-time requirement derived from Article 41 of the Charter and the principle of legal certainty (“right to have his or her affairs handled impartially, fairly and within a reasonable time by the institutions, bodies, Offices and agencies of the Union”). 

Most alarming is the abusive use of so-called precautionary measures under Article 23 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations. Staff are removed from duties, and suspended, without established facts, and without a genuine proportionality assessment, despite the AA is obliged to take the decision only after hearing the official or agent concerned. These measures are not precautionary. 

On the other hand, in harassment cases, IDOC’s main concern is not losing the case against the harasser before the Union courts. Statistics and corporate solidarity matter more than justice! This fear explains why a disciplinary decision sanctioning a harasser is rare, and IDOC annual reports prove it. The fear of losing is receiving more weight than the protection of the victim. The victim is therefore punished twice.

The ongoing ‘Large-Scale Review’ exercise would be a very good opportunity to definitively modernise the IDOC operation as part of the modernisation of the EU administration. Modernise would mean making IDOC independent, accountable and transparent. Re-designing IDOC function implies a further acknowledgment on its procedures of strict compliance of the defendants’ rights as the European Union preaches to member states. Also, a simple, but significant step, would be moving IDOC from DG HR supervision, where it stands now, and placing it under, Chief Operating Officer, Deputy Secretary-General of the Secretariat-General (SG).  

IDOC should be brought back under the rule of law.