On 28 September 2026, Generation 2004 and the other staff organisations took their concerns on the Large-Scale Review directly to Commissioner Serafin. He offered several reassurances, but the decisive questions on careers, structures, and safeguards remain open.

Following the publication of the workstream leaders’ recommendations in July, staff representatives met Commissioner Serafin, together with Mr. Quest and DG HR representatives, for a further exchange on the Large-Scale Review (LSR). Generation 2004 was present, alongside the other trade unions and representatives of the Central Staff Committee. 

Our message: reform with staff, not on their backs 

Generation 2004 set out a balanced, constructive, but firm position. We support a Commission that is more modern and better able to defend Europe’s interests, but we cautioned that the concrete recommendations tend to save money (fewer posts, cheaper contracts, a smaller appeals reserve, colleagues eased out before their pension) while the measures that would genuinely help staff remain vague. Administration is only about 6% of the EU budget, so savings for the next Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) cannot be balanced on the backs of the staff who deliver it.  

We were clear on our red lines: careers, merit based career progression, internal competitions and certification are not privileges but the way the institution recognizes experience and years of service; certification is written into the staff regulations and cannot be abolished by a simple decision; a forced cooling-off under the seven-year rule would break careers and, as the Court confirmed in the Picard case, put pension rights at risk. We also flagged that working conditions (notably the move to open-plan Offices) were left out of the review entirely and asked that staff be consulted. Above all, we offered to help build a leaner and more modern Commission by saving on genuine administrative burdens, duplicated IT tools, avoidable outsourcing, smarter use of space, rather than on careers, progression and health. 

The Commissioner is open to discussing with staff representatives and is supportive of the staff. He is willing to have a dialogue to ensure an inclusive review process. He confirmed that by saying: 

• “I am not the enemy of staff.” The Commissioner insisted his job is to protect the institution and the staff and ensure it survives through today’s difficulties, and that being harsh with staff is not his aim. 

• The recommendations are the staff’s input, not his decisions. Recommendations from staff representatives were also welcome and part of this process among other sources and inputs. They were drafted by the workstreams (over one hundred senior or other colleagues) and are a reference point, but they are not the final recommendations. He will draft his own report, which will have shorter recommendations by the end of 2026. Some measures could be implemented as early as possible, and some will have more time for their implementation. 

• social dialogue is and will be preserved. He does not plan to change it; any recommendation moving to implementation that affects staff will go through social dialogue. He distanced himself from a suggestion that appeared to weaken it. 

• This is not primarily a budget-driven exercise, in his words, though budgetary constraints are “part of life.” He noted near-unanimous resistance in the Council to increasing staff numbers for our institution. 

• On resources: he considers the current 1% annual redeployment not enough, but said the way forward is to free resources by stopping unnecessary tasks, not by seeking efficiencies “on the backs of people,” and to have the courage to decide where the Commission should do less. 

• Restructuring and reorganisation are the President’s prerogative. On possible DG mergers, language services, and the external action service, he cannot pre-empt decisions that belong to the President. 

• On recruitment: he clarified that his earlier “two years” concern was the time from application to first pay (a barrier to attracting talent), not a two-year probation, and expressed sympathy for a Junior-Professional-Programme-style approach. He took note of our concerns about the temporary routes and entry pathways for existing contractual agents.  

• Luxembourg and Ispra: recommendations that are legally unfeasible cannot be implemented, but he acknowledged a real problem with the Luxembourg site and is testing a housing allowance; on Ispra, he remains hopeful on the healthcare (Tessera Sanitaria) issue and open to reinforcing the site, a political decision. 

• Translation services (DGT): he said efficiencies are needed, but any transition will go through social dialogue and noted DGT is the most advanced on AI. We informed that around 2,650 colleagues are directly concerned. 

• AI must respect the legal framework and should help staff, not replace them (“because we are not going to have more people”); a central structure to address today’s fragmented AI landscape is already in the recommendations. Staff representatives, we also asked for the establishment of a joint committee on AI and Innovation to ensure guide and guidance for the use of AI and to ensure safeguards for staff. 

• On the Benchmarking, Mr. Quest informed us that it was carried out by DG HR and an article was already published. The result was included in the recommendations, and the exact results of the benchmarking exercise will not be published separately. The main aim was not to rank the institution or to set key performance indicators, but to ensure support and input as a source for the proposed recommendations of the work streams leaders (please add link to that article for information). 

What is still open? 

On the questions that matter most to staff, we did not get final answers as at this moment further clarity and reassurance are needed to know : whether internal competitions remain a genuine route for Contract Agents, temporary agents and AST; whether certification is phased out or not despite of the provision on that process in the Staff Regulations; on the use of AI and the safeguards for the staff; the cooling-off under the seven-year rule and its pension effect; the cut of the appeals reserve from 5% to 2% and the redistribution of the 3% and which DGs would benefit from that; the future of structures and sites; and the working conditions. For all these reasons we asked the Commissioner and DG HR to have another meeting on the Large-Scale Review recommendations that will be considered final before the end of this year.  

The final report requires a genuine involvement of staff representatives and a clear social dialogue. 

Next steps 

The Commissioner will await the report of the High-Level Group led by Ms. Day, expected in October, before putting forward to the President his own report with the final recommendations by the end of 2026. He remains open to continuing the dialogue and having, as we requested, another meeting.  

Generation 2004 will be there, defending careers, rights and safeguards, including the working conditions, and holding the Commission to its promise that reform is done with staff, not around them and to ensure a modern, stronger and future proof institution that protects its staff.