The President has tasked Commissioner Serafin [1] to ensure that Europe can draw on “a modern, efficient public administration” and has invited him to carry out a ‘large-scale review of the Commission’s organisation and operations’. The first question we can already ask is: Who will be the corresponding ‘high-level reflection group’ and what will be the selection process for that group?
I would like you to carry out a large-scale review of the Commission’s organisation and operations, together with an external benchmarking exercise …You will be supported in this work by a High-Level reflection group on the future of the Commission’s civil service.’ Mission letter 17.09.2024, A modern public administration, page 8,
On 3rd July, The Director General of DG HR and Security posted on Viva Engage Forum, the following message to all staff [2]:
‘We have started the journey to prepare the future of the Commission’s civil service [3], and I’d like to hear your thoughts about the Commission as a public administration.’
Since then, it has been confirmed that the High-Level Group will be chaired by former Secretary-General, Catherine Day. The group will be composed of external experts and is expected to deliver its final recommendations by the end of 2026. While the stated objective is to build a more efficient and attractive Commission, many staff are worried about what this review might really bring [4], given that the outcomes of the last ‘effort to reduce staff expenditure and further streamline the EU civil service’ are well documented:
‘We looked at the impact of the 2014 reforms at the Commission and concluded that they have led to considerable long-term savings. Yet though the Commission’s workforce has become more diverse and flexible, the actual impact of changes to improve HR management has been rather limited. We also found that the 2014 package has negatively impacted the Commission’s attractiveness as an employer. To address future challenges, monitoring of the Commission’s workforce should better target emerging risks.’ European Court of Auditors, 2019, Special report no 15/2019 [5]: Implementation of the 2014 staff reform package at the Commission – Big savings but not without consequences for staff
Catherine Day played a central role in the 2004 and 2014 reforms – reforms that reshaped the EU civil service, widened the gap between pre- and post-2004 staff, introduced slower career paths, and increased reliance on Contract Agents. Generation 2004 exists because of those reforms. [6]
Consultations with staff have already started in some form, but the process so far lacks clarity. We do not know to what extent staff input is being taken on board, how questions are being framed, or what level of openness exists. To date, only the President of the Central Staff Committee has been invited to be informed about the initiative. There has been no official invitation to elected staff representatives to participate or contribute to the process – at least not yet. This raises serious concerns about the inclusiveness and transparency of the entire reflection process.
While we acknowledge Catherine Day’s institutional experience, the choice of someone who retired nearly a decade ago, before the telework transformation and structural shifts of the COVID era, makes it harder for staff to believe this process will be forward-looking. Instead of hope, her appointment brings memories of austerity and exclusion.
Worse still, rumours are already circulating: possible further increases in working time, job cuts, and even the reopening of the staff regulations [7]. If modernisation is once again used as a cover for cuts, staff trust will erode even further.
We need clarity, transparency, and a guarantee that the mistakes of the past will not be repeated. Any reform of the civil service must start with those who understand its challenges best: the staff themselves and their elected representatives. While some consultations are taking place, it remains unclear who is being consulted, how feedback is being gathered, and whether it will truly influence the outcome. At the same time, the people who are officially elected and mandated to represent staff – those who receive complaints, listen to concerns, and support colleagues daily – have not yet been invited to contribute.
We’d like to see them gather the already-published information and to consult as far as they can to identify the issues. We believe this would greatly assist in outlining the many recurring problems. As sources, off the top of our heads, we encourage the high-level reflection group to look at the many, many staff surveys [8] (general, specific and wellbeing) and to look at the DGs consistently performing below expected. We’d also suggest a reading of the many relevant staff committee notes [9], the formal complaints or requests [10] under Article 90 [11] of the staff regulations [7], the many (often repeated recommendations) issued to DGs in the annual reports of the mediation service [12] and the issues highlighted by the Investigation and Disciplinary Office of the Commission (IDOC) activity reports [13].
Generation 2004 will remain vigilant, and we will keep asking the questions others prefer not to raise.
If you have any information about the exercise, more details about how consultations are being carried out, or any questions or comments — please let us know [14].