Brussels, 15 July 2026

Note for the attention to M. Momchil SABEV,

Director of EISMEA

Subject: Request for full disclosure and transparency concerning the decision to cancel selection procedure E.03 TA

Background

Restoring trust is a demanding task, one that requires sustained effort over time.

In the course of our analysis of the results of the latest Staff Survey concerning EISMEA, we duly acknowledged the improvements recorded  (Staff Survey 2025 – Initial Results – R&D’s Preliminary Analysis and Key Findings – Renouveau & Démocratie ; Renard Déchaîné special “Staff Survey 2025- Staff engagement: comprehensive analysis and R&D recommendations” – Renouveau & Démocratie)

That said, it would have been difficult to fare worse: the previous Staff Survey produced what were, in all likelihood, the poorest results ever recorded within any European institution (Staff Survey 2023: full transparency of the results and follow-up, including at central level, in the event of very negative results such as those of EISMEA, Renouveau & Démocratie).

Considerable efforts nonetheless remain to be deployed.

By way of illustration, satisfaction with senior management has yet to reach even the 50 per cent threshold, still falling short of the 2021 score of 56 per cent; similarly, at 39 per cent, the satisfaction rate regarding EISMEA as a “great employer” remains far removed from the 55 per cent recorded in 2021.

As Commissioner Serafin recently recalled when presenting the Staff Survey results, listening to staff must be followed by “concrete, visible and verifiable action.” R&D fully endorses that statement.

As regards EISMEA, the rebuilding of trust cannot be achieved through further declarations of principle, action plans and recovery plans alone. It requires visible and verifiable action that leaves no doubt as to the Agency’s commitment to transparency, fairness and accountability.

The efforts to restore the confidence of EISMEA staff must therefore not merely be sustained: they must be significantly reinforced.

The decision to cancel selection procedure E.03 TA

In that context, staff are entitled to firm and unequivocal assurances that any malfunction will be acknowledged in full and without delay. It should not be forgotten that this is precisely one of the factors at the origin of the profound crisis of staff confidence.

As Commissioner Serafin has so rightly observed, and as was recently underlined in the framework of the Large-Scale Review, the principles of transparency, compliance and accountability — which must govern every aspect of the conduct of a European service — demand considerably more than the mere acknowledgement of the difficulties observed.

They do require that all necessary verifications be carried out without delay in order to establish the underlying causes, to identify the failures in the control mechanisms that allowed those difficulties to arise, and to determine the responsibilities incumbent upon each actor involved in the procedure.

Against this background, we have been contacted by numerous colleagues — including outside EISMEA — who were left dismayed by your decision to cancel both the written tests and the interviews of selection procedure E.03 TA.

It was merely stated that shortcomings affecting the integrity of the ongoing selection procedure “had been brought to the Agency’s attention.”

On that basis, the procedure relating to the E.03 option was suspended with immediate effect, “the results of all written tests and interviews were cancelled, and all forthcoming interviews were likewise cancelled.”

In the face of a decision of manifestly extraordinary gravity, no explanation whatsoever has been provided to date — neither as to the reasons, nor as to the nature of the malfunctions identified, nor as to the responsibilities that may be engaged.

Nor has any information been communicated as to the conclusions drawn from those malfunctions, the weaknesses in the internal control procedures that failed to prevent them, or the measures adopted to ensure that they will not recur — whether in the newly organised procedure for Unit E.03 or in any future selection organised by EISMEA.

This silence is not acceptable.

Only full transparency can put an end to the speculation — which the Agency’s continued silence can only fuel — as to the true reasons underlying the decision to cancel this procedure.

This incident cannot be dismissed as an isolated procedural mishap. It must be treated as a defining test of EISMEA’s willingness to confront one of the Agency’s most serious challenges: the rebuilding of trust.

Safeguarding the principles of equal treatment, impartiality and merit-based recruitment in any selection organised by EISMEA is not merely essential — it is a legal obligation. Restoring staff confidence in the fairness and transparency of the Agency’s recruitment processes is no less imperative.

Those concerns bear with particular force on Contract Agents, for whom this type of selection procedure — affording access to TA posts — frequently constitutes one of the very few genuine opportunities for professional advancement.

Precisely because such opportunities are rare, and precisely because they matter so greatly to the colleagues concerned, recruitment and internal selection procedures must be beyond any reproach whatsoever.

It is not sufficient that they be fair: they must manifestly be seen to be fair. Any actual, potential or perceived conflict of interest must be prevented throughout the entirety of every recruitment and selection procedure — without exception and without compromise.

Every colleague is entitled to the absolute assurance that career opportunities are determined exclusively on merit, through procedures that are transparent, impartial and free from any favouritism or preferential treatment, whether actual or perceived.

Commitments are welcome, but they must now be translated into visible and tangible action

In this respect, we noted with satisfaction that both the parent DGs and EISMEA’s Senior Management have publicly acknowledged the demand of staff and their representatives that transparency and fairness in the procedures organised be treated as key priorities for the Agency. The present situation concerning this selection procedure constitutes the immediate test of that commitment.

We likewise noted the commitments given as to the utmost determination in combating harassment and inappropriate behaviour.

R&D fully supports those objectives — and expects that they now be translated into concrete, measurable action.

Staff concerns — including reports of inappropriate behaviour — must be examined objectively, independently, and with the full seriousness they warrant.

Staff confidence does not rest on fair procedures alone. It rests equally on the certainty that legitimate concerns may be raised — including before the CCC — without fear of any adverse consequence; that they will be duly and thoroughly examined; and that appropriate action will follow wherever it is warranted. Any departure from that standard would be incompatible with the obligations incumbent upon the Agency.

Conclusion : “A good example is worth more than a ton of words.” ¹

Only by ensuring that recruitment procedures are irreproachable, and that staff concerns are addressed with the seriousness they demand, will EISMEA be in a position to restore confidence in its governance and to demonstrate that trust, fairness and respect are not merely stated values but the guiding principles of its management.

We remain available to engage constructively with the Steering Committee in support of these shared objectives — and we expect that engagement to be met with the transparency, seriousness and concrete action that the situation demands.

Formal declarations and commitments matter — but it must never be forgotten that “a good example is worth more than a ton of words.”

Accordingly, with full regard for any further verification that may be ongoing, we hereby call upon you to provide adequate and substantive information on each of the points set out above concerning the decision to cancel selection procedure E.03 TA.

Cristiano Sebastiani,

Chair

—————————-

¹ St. Francis de Sales

Copy:

Mr Piotr Serafin Commissioner for Budget, Anti-Fraud and Public Administration

Mr Marc Lemaitre, Director-General, DG RTD — Lead Parent DG

Members of the EISMEA Steering Committee

Mr Stéphane Ouaki, Head of Department E, EISMEA

Ms Denisa Perrin, Head of Unit E.3, EISMEA

Staff