Brussels, 5 March 2025

Note for the attention of Mr Piotr Serafin

Commissioner for Budget, Anti-Fraud and Public Administration

Subject: Very serious concerns and delays in the implementation of the Commission Decision of 12 December 2023 on the prevention of and fight against psychological and sexual harassment¹ .

R&D fully supports the vision set out in your mission letter to ensure that “Europe can rely on a modern and efficient public administration to deliver the Commission’s policy priorities and make a difference to the daily lives of Europeans”.

What’s more, we were pleased to see that your mission letter expressly states that you will: “(…) also ensure that our revamped anti-harassment policy contributes to a safe and respectful workplace (….)” ^2.

However, it must be said that in order for if the decision is to be effectively implemented, a number of serious difficulties, obstacles and resistances need to be addressed and overcome without delay, and we would like to draw your attention to these.

The facts

R&D condemned the fact that for too long the EU institutions have denied the urgent need to put in place effective procedures to prevent and, where necessary, identify and punish cases of psychological and sexual harassment and other inappropriate behaviours.

For far too long, they have confined themselves to the empty, rhetoric of so-called “zero tolerance”.

In response to the refusal of the EU Institutions to put in place genuine harassment policies that go beyond mere slogans and finally to ensure effective management of the complaints received, to conduct credible investigations, to punish with the necessary severity the cases that are found to have occurred and to protect and duly compensate the victims… we worked with the EP and in particular with the CONT to ensure that the harassment also became an issue in the context of the discharge of each Institution ( link )This was the case, for example, with the EESC, whose discharge was rejected and then postponed because of its unacceptable failure to manage the cases of harassment that we had denounced, and which had been confirmed by the results of the OLAF investigations. And these cases are now before the Belgian judiciary.

Because the staff deserve the best

Not content with this unacceptable situation, which denied the suffering of the victims, R&D federal, as leading trade Union in European civil service, has mobilised the best European experts in the field and set up a multi-disciplinary team of specialists with lawyers, work inspectors, psychologists, judicial experts…etc having successfully dealt with cases of harassment, violence at workplace, toxic management also in the context of OLAF and IDOC investigations and before various jurisdictions, including at national level such as procedures regarding suicides at France Telecom and at La Poste in France.

In particular, we have successfully assisted victims at the Commission, the EP, the EESC, F4E and several other agencies…etc. (link ).

Moreover, we have always accompanied our severe criticism of current procedures with detailed proposals for reform, taking due account of best practices in the Member States and international organisations.

Exemplary negotiation of the new Commission Decision

We also drew on this experience in the negotiation of the new decision, which was undoubtedly a major step forward, taking on board a number of our proposals, starting with the introduction of the Chief Confidential Counsellor (CCC), taking into account the positive experience of this measure with the World Bank.

We would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute once again to former Commissioner Hahn and his cabinet colleagues for the resolute political impetus behind the decision, and to President Von der Leyen for including in your mission letter the above-mentioned clear reference to the need to implement the decision properly.

We would also like to thank our colleagues in DG-HR for ensuring an exemplary social dialogue for these negotiations, sometimes successfully overcoming apparent internal resistance.

We would also like to point out that the contribution of our colleagues active in the Harassment Watch Network, with whom we have worked very closely, was also essential to the success of the negotiations.

An exemplary negotiation, resulting in a unanimous and convincing agreement by all staff representatives.

Thanks to its decision, the Commission is truly “leading by example”

A negotiation that has resulted in a decision that is exemplary for the other institutions.

On this occasion, our institution has indeed “led by example” and we are already assisting our colleagues in the other institutions to take account of the advances guaranteed by the new Commission decision. 

However, it is now urgent to ensure that the decision is fully implemented.

It would be unacceptable to betray the trust and hopes of colleagues by implementing the decision too late or, worse still, ineffectively.

In this respect, it must be said that if the decision is to be implemented quickly and effectively, a number of difficulties and obstacles will have to be overcome, and we would like to draw your attention to them.

First of all, the resources available to the Commission’s CCC need to be increased as a matter of urgency.

Undoubtedly, the most notable advance of the new decision is the establishment of the CCC, whose independence is guaranteed by the direct reporting to you.

The first steps taken by the CCC demonstrate the importance of its role and the remarkable positive impact it has had on the trust of colleagues and services.

A number of senior managers have told us that they have overcome their initial scepticism and fear and have come to appreciate the support and advice provided by the CCC  in helping them to ensure the well-being of their staff by taking due account of the concerns raised in the staff survey, supporting the prevention work that needs to be done and, where necessary, intervening in cases of harassment and other inappropriate behaviour that have been identified. 

However, in order for the CCC to be able to carry out her tasks and respond to the increasing number of requests from colleagues and services, as stipulated in the Article 11.7 of the Decision “The Chief Confidential Counsellor shall be provided with appropriate resources to carry out their tasks (…)”

This is clearly not the case at present, and we call on you to rectify this totally untenable situation without delay.

R&D would like to warmly thank the Executive Agencies Directors for proposing that the CCC Commission should also be responsible for their staff.

We welcome the decision, which we have been calling for throughout the negotiations, to allow the staff of the executive agencies to have recourse to the CCC of the Commission.

In this respect, we would particularly like to thank the Directors of the Executive Agencies for immediately recognising the importance of offering their staff absolutely the same level of protection and support as Commission staff in implementing the new decision. 

We can only regret that the same commitment does not seem to have been shown by the management of the regulatory agencies and JUs.

The unacceptable delays and obstacles in the implementation of the decision by the regulatory agencies and the other external bodies: we call on you to take into account the urgent request for assistance from these colleagues ensuring its effective implementation without further delay.

Indeed, we fully support the request of colleagues working in regulatory agencies and other external bodies to benefit from the advances and protection offered by the new decision, as they, so urgently, wish.

This is all the more important given that, as all the experts confirm, the precarious nature of their contracts and the lack of any real mobility mean that these colleagues are even more exposed to the risk of harassment.

On the contrary, we can only regret the extremely difficult discussions currently underway between DG HR and the administrations of the regulatory agencies and the other external bodies.

In particular, we fully share the fears of our colleagues who are assigned there and who have desperately requested our help denouncing that their administrations make no secret of their conviction that they will succeed in obtaining from the Commission a complete and totally unacceptable “opt-out” from applying the Decision, or at least very far-reaching amendments to render it devoid of any useful effect, first and foremost by excluding the appointment of a CCC.

For it is the refusal to set up an independent CCC and to exclude any involvement of the Commission’s CCC that has become the real issue at stake in these never-ending discussions.

All this, while several administrations of the regulatory agencies and the other external bodies engage in pathetic and ridiculous exercises of “self-satisfaction”, claiming that the procedures in place already ensure… “zero tolerance”… zero tolerance, whose nature as an empty and ineffective slogan no longer needs to be demonstrated.

While it is clear that solutions can be envisaged for setting up CCCs, particularly for smaller entities, for example by groups of agencies on a geographical basis or by area of activity, there can be no question of imagining purely and simply doing without the role of the CCC, of not guaranteeing its independence, and of the absolute need for coordination at central level to be ensured by the Commission’s CCC.

In the light of the foregoing, it is therefore a matter of urgency that the current procedures of article 110 of Staff Regulations concerning the implementation of the Decision by the regulatory agencies and the other external bodies be completed without further delay.

We are, of course, fully reassured by the fact that, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 110 of the Staff Regulations, all these attempts to evade the application of the new decision will be swept aside, since you will have the final say on the proposed amendments.

We also fully understand all the patience and efforts to explain and convince that have been made so far by our colleagues in DG HR, whom we would like to thank in this respect, during the ongoing discussions with the representatives of the administrations of the Regulatory Agencies and the other external bodies.

Nevertheless, more than a year after the adoption of the decision, it is time to put an end to the obvious delaying tactics, to clearly reject the unacceptable proposals and to make the necessary purely technical adjustments, confirming with the utmost clarity that there can be no question of excluding the appointment of a CCC or of depriving this role of all credibility and usefulness without in any way guaranteeing its independence.

The Commission’s reinforced governance should also be fully effective in the context of this ongoing procedure for the adoption of the decision on the regulatory agencies and the other external bodies.

We very much welcome the Commission’s decision, which we have long been calling for, to properly reinforce its governance of the agencies and other external bodies. ( link )

This is not only to ensure policy coherence, but also to put an end to the recurrent unacceptable abuses whereby Agency managers too often try to replace all statutory rules and procedures with the “fait du prince”, too often being able to count on the docile support, or at least the guilty silence, of their administrations.

The staff concerned were the first victims of these abuses, being left to fend for themselves without any real support from the parent DGs and the Commission’s representatives on the Boards.

We would like to thank once again the Secretariat General and DG HR for their efforts in implementing this reinforced governance.

Reinforced governance now needs to be applied too concerning the adoption of the new decision.

To this end, the SG and DG HR urgently need to raise the awareness of the parent DGs and their representatives on the Boards, so that they clearly reaffirm the Commission’s position. 

Unfortunately, this is not the case at present.

Worse still, in some cases the administrations of the regulatory agencies and the other external bodies  even claim to have the support, or at least to be taking advantage of the lack of interest, of the Commission’s representative on the Board and/or the parent DG in their requests for opt-outs and/or proposals for amendments, which are absolutely unacceptable.

The specific case of F4E, which deserves your particular attention and that of Commissioner Jørgensen.

In the recent past, we have been reassured by the attention and appropriate follow-up devoted to our critical analyses (link) and to the request for intervention by Commissioners Hahn and Simpson (link)

We have no doubt that F4E’s staff can currently count on the same commitment from you and Commissioner Jørgensen also regarding the need to properly implement the new Commission decision without further delay.

Indeed, it should not be forgotten that not only did F4E obtain the worst staff survey results ever recorded within a European institution, but the external psychosocial risk assessment survey carried out at F4E after the tragic loss of our beloved colleague has been more than alarming.

The indicators on harassment, violence at work and discrimination confirmed that, with varying degrees of risk, only 11% of staff felt that there were no interpersonal conflicts, 12.7% felt that there was physical violence, 59.2% of staff felt that there were situations of psychological violence (threats, insults, silencing, verbal abuse, etc.) as well as 16% of staff feeling that there were situations of psychological violence (threats, insults, silencing, verbal abuse, etc.), 9% of the staff also replied that they were confronted with situations of sexual harassment.

As a result, one of the shocking conclusions of the external experts’ report was that F4E should:

“review the processes implemented for harassment, violence at work and discrimination, and the particularities highlighted in the report to improve the performance of F4E in these situations and the results obtained”.

This urgent request must finally be met, not only by the swift and unwavering application of the new Commission decision, but also by increased support for the Commission’s CCC through the provision of the necessary ad hoc dedicated resources. This special assistance is necessary to enable F4E, which is of major political importance as it is responsible for contributing to the ITER nuclear fusion project, to overcome once and for all the serious concerns that have persisted for too long.

This exceptional and reinforced assistance is all the more relevant for F4E given that as we had proposed and according to the best practices, Article 17.2 of the Decision requires that the prevention and intervention measures to be put in place under the coordination of the CCC with regard to the risks of harassment must also be modulated and targeted on the basis of the seriousness of the results of the staff surveys organised within the entity concerned.

We had hoped that F4E’s Director, aware of the seriousness of the situation, would take the lead in requesting the deci­­sion be applied and an independent CCC be appointed wi­thout delay. Whatever the demand of other agencies. This would have been an undisputable sign of a change in culture at F4E, which could have really helped restore staff confidence. This was clearly not the case, and we can only deeply regret this.

Finally, we are perfectly aware that in the process of implementing the decision, staff representatives cannot simply call on the Commission, but must face up to their responsibilities.

We are perfectly aware that it would be unacceptable to ask the Commission to ensure flawless application of the decision without joining our efforts as staff representatives.

All the more so as the decision was unanimously supported by all the Commission’s trade unions and the Staff Committee.

The position of the staff representatives must be made as clear as possible, because in their efforts to avoid the new decision being applied to them, some administrations of the Agencies and other external bodies sometimes claim to have the support of their staff committees and representative trade unions.  

Even if it subsequently turns out that this support was obtained on the basis of a misunderstanding of the text or incorrect information.

Thank to F4E’ Staff Committee!

This was the case at F4E, for example, with regard to the alleged disappearance of confidential counsellors in the event of application of the decision, when on the contrary their role is completely strengthened thanks to the coordination provided by the CCC, not to mention that the confidential counsellors are mentioned 68 times in the text of the decision!

In this respect, it is reassuring to note that the F4E Staff Committee, on the basis of the clarifications obtained, has just issued a new unanimous opinion calling for the application of the decision and the establishment of a fully independent CCC.

Conclusion

Dear Commissioner, we call on you to take into account all of the above aspects and to ensure that the new decision is implemented quickly and effectively.

Let’s not betray the hopes and trust of all our colleagues, regardless of where they are posted, in the proper implementation of the new decision.

Effective implementation, both within our institution, by providing the CCC with the necessary resources, and, as far as the regulatory agencies and other external bodies are concerned, by confirming that the procedure under Article 110 of the Staff Regulations must be concluded as a matter of urgency and that, in this context, there can be no question of the Commission accepting any request for an “opt-out” or amendments designed to deprive the decision of any useful effect, particularly as regards the obligation to set up a truly independent CCC.

Cristiano Sebastiani,

President

Copy:

Ms U. von der Leyen, President

Mr B. Seibert, Head of Cabinet of the President

Ms J. Petkova, Director of Coordination and Administration – Cabinet of the President

Mr D. Jørgensen, Commissioner Energy and Housing

Mr G. Radziejewski, Head of Cabinet; Ms A. Carrero, Member of Cabinet of Commissioner Serafin

Mr M. Engell-Rossen, Head of Cabinet of Commissioner Jørgensen

Ms L. Naesager, Chief confidential Counsellor

Ms I. Juhansone, Secretary-General; Mr P. Leardini, Deputy Secretary-General

Mr S. Quest, Director-General ; Mr C. Roques, Deputy Director-General; Mr C. Linder, Director F;

Ms M. Silva Mendes, Mr L. Duluc – DG HR

Ms D. Juul-Joergensen, Director-General; Mr M. Garribba, Deputy Director-General – DG ENER

Mr M. Lachaise, Director Fusion for Energy (F4E)

Ms P. Aba Garrote, Director CINEA,

Ms S. Beernaerts, Director EACEA

Mr J-D Malo, Director EISMEA

Ms L. Moreau, Director ERCEA

Ms M. Zanchi, Director HaDEA

Mr M. Tachelet, Director REA

Harassment Watch Network

Central Staff Committee

OSP

Staff

F4E Staff Committee 

—————————-

^1.Commission Decision of 12.12.23 on the prevention of and fight against psychological and sexual harassment

^2. Mission Letter