Most of us joined the EU institutions believing that the rules would protect us. That professional performance would matter.
This case challenges that assumption.
An EU official — a translator, recruited through a highly competitive EPSO competition in which he placed in the top 1.5% of candidates — was dismissed at the end of his probationary period. Not because his work was inadequate: his two reporting officers assessed his performance positively and recommended his establishment. Not because of a disciplinary finding: no disciplinary procedure was ever initiated.
Weeks before, this official had been elected the most-voted new candidate in the staff delegation of his Directorate-General — representing two language departments simultaneously. The administration was aware of this.
Our colleague was a translator who is fluent in nine languages. Whatever one thinks of the merits of this case, it is difficult to see how dispensing with that serves the interests of an institution whose entire mission depends on linguistic diversity.
He was dismissed anyway. With four days’ notice.
The question this case raises is not abstract
The dismissal was based on a “loss of trust” derived from forward-looking risk assessments — not from proven misconduct. When the official submitted a request for access to documents to understand the legal basis for the obligations he was accused of breaching, the Commission formally confirmed that it holds no written document — no circular, no guideline, no protocol — defining those obligations or their professional consequences.
The case also has a data protection dimension. During the procedure, the official discovered that his personal data — including sensitive categories — had been processed under a Commission security framework (DPR-EC-00677.3, publicly registered with the EDPS) designed for vulnerability profiling, without prior notification, as required by Regulation (EU) 2018/1725. A formal complaint is pending before the European Data Protection Supervisor.
Why this matters beyond one person’s situation
Probationary officials are among the most exposed in the EU civil service. But the implications of this case reach further:
If forward-looking risk assumptions — unsupported by proven conduct — can substitute for evidence as grounds for dismissal, the same logic could apply to promotions, reassignments, contract renewals, and any other decision where subjective assessments of potential future behavior override objective professional records.
If oral, informal guidance from internal services can create legally binding obligations on staff’s private lives, without any written rule and without any staff regulations basis, then the principle of legal certainty — one of the foundations of EU law — is hollowed out from within.
If personal data can be processed under security frameworks for vulnerability profiling, without notification and without the possibility of challenge, something has gone seriously wrong with the way our institutions handle the rights they are meant to protect.
This case asks the General Court to answer, for the first time, whether administrative discretion in probationary matters has any effective limit when the institution’s own assessment bodies have reached the opposite conclusion.
The practical situation
An annulment action has been filed before the EU General Court. The proceedings are expected to last until 2028–2029. The estimated cost of the full procedure is €20,000.
Every contribution helps cover the legal costs of a case that, if successful, will benefit not only the person who brought it but every current and future EU staff member. If the Court orders the Commission to pay legal costs, the colleague commits that contributions will be returned proportionally to donors, and that receipts are available upon request.
If you cannot contribute financially, sharing this page with colleagues is just as valuable.
Generation 2004 does not pre-judge the outcome of the litigation. We publish this initiative because the questions it raises — about evidence, about written rules, about the limits of administrative discretion — are questions that concern all of us.
We believe the legal questions it raises are of direct relevance to every EU staff member — permanent, temporary, or contractual.
👉 LINK TO CAMPAIGN [1]
- Administrative discretion must remain subject to objective limits.
- The Rule of Law applies inside our institutions, not only outside them.
- Every contribution helps. Every share matters.