The Personal Security Clearance (PSC), also known as vetting procedure, is the systematic process of investigating a person’s background to determine their reliability and trustworthiness to be granted access to European Union classified information (EUCI). PSC safeguards the Institution from threats such as espionage, leaks, fraud, disruption and data breaches.
The Commission is increasingly requiring the issuance of PSC for certain staff and jobs’ functions. Security authorisations to handle EUCI are granted by the Commission Security Authority upon reception of a positive opinion from relevant National Security Authority (NSA) of an EU member state, unless the NSA considers no longer to be in position to take an informed decision. Each member state has different rules and regulations, but each investigates and advises on the security competence of a person about the handling of classified information. When the NSA advisory opinion is received, the Commission Security Authority decides whether an individual may be granted a security authorisation to access EUCI or not. Some member states foresee the possibility of requesting the concerned staff to be heard and a few allow for challenging a negative decision.
In 2025, assistance from the Mediation Service has been requested on several occasions in connection with the issuance of Personal Security Clearance (PSC). According to the last activity report of the Mediation Service of the Commission for 2025 [1], concerned colleagues mainly sought clarification on the applicable internal procedure, the role of DG HR Security department in dealing with national authorities, and the support available throughout the process, particularly in the event of a hearing or a negative decision by national authorities. They also raised concerns about the impact a negative decision could have on their position. The colleagues concerned reported experiencing significant stress given the high stakes for their careers. They felt lost as regards the different stages of the procedure, the status of their PSC request, whom to contact for updates, what they could legitimately expect from DG HR, and what support their DG of assignment could provide in the event of a negative outcome.
It seems dedicated staff matters present indeed information mostly targeted at DG HR Security department’s DGs LISO correspondents. Additionally, its internal processes have been put in place to ensure that posts requiring security vetted staff be systematically identified, including for job vacancy notices, or that staff be duly informed by DG HR Security Department of the national PSC vetting procedures that will be applicable to them and be given Commission’s competent contact details at the time of the launching of the procedure.
Thus, the procedure for delivering a PSC is an unduly cause for stress for many colleagues that need it to perform their tasks properly, and in many occasions, out of Brussels, specifically in all EU delegations all over the world, what is an additional factor of stress because with a non-delivered PSC, they risk to be sent back to the headquarters legging behind family and personal interests. DG HR Security Department has recently released a renewed case management system offering to staff members concerned, among others, the possibility to directly consult at which the stage of the procedure their request is. Lastly, it seems the current Commission’s legal framework is currently being reviewed.
Notwithstanding these positive developments, the Mediation Service considers that some further improvements could help staff members feel clearer and reassured about the PSC vetting procedure. To this end, a specific recommendation has been issued by the Mediation Service in their last report of 2025 (released [2] on 4 May 2026). The Recommendation is addressed to DG HR Security Department and urges this department to:
- complement existing information, for example via a FAQ, on the follow-up to a decision imposing conditions or restrictions or possible consequences in case of a negative decision for concerned staff from a HR career perspective, including available alternatives;
- consider briefing colleagues who are invited to an interview with their national authority and who have expressed concerns about being pressured to disclose undue information, with a view to ensuring that no information is shared beyond what is strictly necessary for the PSC issuance from the Institution’s perspective;
- contemplate as appropriate the possibility to assist staff in cases the applicable national vetting procedure foresees the possibility of appeal;
- make the pertinent information mentioned above available on the relevant channels, such as DG HR staff matters dedicated pages, in the information package that is shared to staff concerned at the launching or throughout the PSC vetting procedure.
Colleagues in Delegations are required to have personal security clearances (PSC) in order to work. Prior to taking up duties, each official or contractual agent shall obtain his/her security clearance, as stated in the Decision (UE, Euratom) 2015/444 [3] of the Commission of 13 March 2015 on the security rules for protecting EU classified information. This requirement is also present in an EEAS administrative notice of 2019 (see Article 4 of the Decision of the Director General for Budget and Administration of the EEAS on security clearance and procedures of 8 March 2019 (ADMIN (2019)7).
PSC are delivered by national authorities and serve as a basis for the EEAS/Commission services to decide whether the person is cleared or not.
In 2025, our Belgian colleagues (among others) started experiencing problems in being granted PSCs. Numerous rejections were suddenly delivered by the Belgian National Security Authority (NSA) stating that they are unable to conduct the necessary security investigation to determine whether you meet the required standards of loyalty to Belgium’s interests, as outlined in Article 13 §2 of the Law of 11 December 1998 on classification and security clearances, certificates, and advice. This is due to the fact that the Belgian NSA does not have the means to obtain information from the competent authorities in the countries where you have resided during the relevant period. The Belgian NSA did not see themselves fit to deliver PSC to Belgians who had spent more than 10 years outside of Belgium. It is important to know that Contract Agents in Delegations by nature of their contracts spend most of their “careers” outside of the EU – it is basically the job to be in the delegations.
In this context, the assistance provided by the DG HR Security department (HR.DS.4 Information Security & Inspections, EC security clearance) was sadly short: “The security clearance falls within the exclusive competence of the Member States and in this regard, any appeal must follow the national laws and regulations”.
Several colleagues made appeals to the Belgian authorities with (or without) the assistance of external lawyers at their own expenses and the decision was finally reversed. However, the costs of such actions (including legal assistance) have not been spontaneously supported by EEAS/Commission, despite these colleagues needed to put several thousand euro from their pocket to obtain a document requested by their HR. In between a new structural solution with the Belgian NSA have been reached as announced on 7 May 2006 by EEAS in its intranet pages [4], which will avoid (we hope) in the future rejections of the PSC by the Belgian NSA.
Is this acceptable? Is this fair?
The recommendation of the Mediation Service addressed to DG HR Security department does not tackle this issue. Consequently, the colleagues concerned shall take action by requesting a decision from EEAS/Commission on the payment of their costs related to the administrative procedure before the NSAs in general or, in particular, before the Belgian NSA by lodging a request for decision under Article 90(1) of staff regulations.
The purpose is to secure a decision from the appropriate authority, i.e. the appointing authority or the authority responsible for concluding contracts of employment concerning the amount of money spent of the delivering of a PSC, which is required to the staff for the proper performance of their tasks. The form is not subject to any particular conditions, what counts is the content. This request can be lodge at any time. The procedure is free of costs. For additional details, consult the dedicated staff matters page [5] in Staff Centre at MyIntracomm.
The colleagues concerned may, alternatively, bringing up the issue to the attention of the Mediation Service [2] as it acts as an independent internal service working in an informal way to facilitate the arrangement of disputes related to statutory rights and obligations (or in relationship conflicts).
Action from concerned colleagues is needed, Generation 2004 is here to assist you in your ‘démarches’.