Brussels, 2 October 2026

Note to the attention of

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

and

Mr Dan Jørgensen, Commissioner for Energy and Housing

Subject: Staff reductions decided by the ITER Organization (IO) in July 2026: serious reputational, procedural and legal concerns, and the role and responsibilities of the European Commission and Euratom

Ref.:

• Our note of 12 August 2026 addressed to Pietro Barabaschi, Director-General of the ITER Organization, and Mr J. Panek, Head of the European Delegation to the ITER Council and Director for Nuclear Energy, Safety and ITER, raising serious concerns regarding the process followed, the implications for programme delivery, and the urgent need for meaningful social dialogue on the staff reductions decided by the ITER Organization (IO) in July 2026 ( read )
• Our note of 19 August 2026 to the attention of Mr S. Quest and Ms C. Gauer (read)
• Note of 25 September 2026 from Ms C. Gauer, Mr S. Quest and Mr P. Leardini addressed to us (read)

We are writing to you further to the response referred to above, recently provided by the three Commission Directorates-General concerned, regarding the issues we raised in relation to the recent staff measures adopted within ITER.

In our previous correspondence, we drew attention to a number of serious questions concerning the role and responsibilities of the European Commission and Euratom within the governance of ITER, particularly in light of Euratom’s position as the ITER Member responsible for the largest share of the project’s construction costs.

We also recall again that President von der Leyen has consistently affirmed that representatives of the Commission serving within international or intergovernmental bodies are expected, in the exercise of their mandate, to act in accordance with the principles of the rule of law, sound administration, transparency and the social standards upheld by the European Union.

These responsibilities must be considered in light of the scale of the Union’s financial commitment to ITER. The Union has committed substantial budgetary resources to the project over successive Multiannual Financial Frameworks. For the 2021–2027 period alone, the maximum level of Euratom commitments for ITER was set at EUR 5.614 billion in current prices.

Moreover, under the Commission’s proposal for the 2028–2034 Multiannual Financial Framework, a further EUR 5.794 billion in current prices is earmarked for ITER.

Commissioner Serafin has repeatedly underlined the difficulties surrounding the negotiations on the next MFF and the challenges involved in securing support for the Commission’s budgetary proposals.

In that context, we believe that the Commission’s ability credibly to defend a further allocation of EUR 5.794 billion to ITER necessarily depends on its capacity to provide the budgetary authority and European taxpayers with credible assurances as to the governance, accountability and sound management of the project.

This is precisely why the reply we have received is a matter of concern.

After almost two months of internal consultations involving three Directorates-General, the substance of the answer appears to be that the Commission bears no meaningful responsibility and has no effective role in relation to, decisions concerning internal matters at ITER.

Such a position raises an obvious question: if the Commission considers itself unable to exercise meaningful scrutiny over decisions taken within ITER’s governance structures, how does it intend to provide the budgetary authority and European taxpayers with sufficient assurances regarding the governance and proper management of the additional EUR 5.794 billion which it is proposing to allocate to the project?

Our concern is reinforced by the fact that the Commission’s reply does not address the specific and very factual questions we had submitted.

We still do not know what position was taken by the Commission- Euratom representative when the contested staff measures and the procedural circumstances surrounding them, were considered by the ITER Council.

We do not know whether the Commission representative expressed concerns, opposed any element of the measures concerned, supported them or abstained.

Nor have we received an answer as to whether the amendments to the ITER Staff Regulations were, as had reportedly been the practice in the past, submitted to DG HR or to other competent Commission services for prior legal assessment.

We fully understand that these questions may be sensitive. Their sensitivity, however, cannot justify avoiding them.

There is an important distinction between stating that the Commission does not manage ITER staff on a day-to-day basis and concluding from this that it bears no responsibility in this matter. It is more concerning still to decline to answer specific questions regarding the positions taken by the Commission’s representative within the ITER Council when decisions of this nature are submitted to that body.

Our questions concern precisely the latter issue. They relate to accountability for the exercise of the Commission’s institutional role, the existence and effectiveness of internal legal scrutiny, and the extent to which the Commission exercises the level of oversight that may reasonably be expected of the principal financial contributor to ITER.

The matter has already attracted media attention, and further political and public scrutiny can reasonably be expected, including in the context of the forthcoming discharge procedures.

That is why it is particularly important that the Commission’s position be confirmed at political level and not remain confined to an administrative reply from the services concerned.

This is all the more necessary given the potential implications for the Commission’s institutional accountability, its role within ITER’s governance structures and, more broadly, the assurances it will be expected to provide to the budgetary authority regarding the sound management and effective oversight of substantial Union funding.

Against the background of the forthcoming MFF negotiations, the European Parliament’s discharge procedures, and the increasing level of political and public scrutiny surrounding this matter, we therefore consider that these issues warrant clarification at the political level of the Commission.

We would accordingly be grateful if you could indicate:

• the position taken by the Commission representative in the ITER Council when the contested measures were discussed and/or adopted;
• whether the Commission representative raised any legal, procedural or staff-policy concerns;
• whether the proposed amendments to the Staff Regulations were submitted to DG HR, the Legal Service or any other competent Commission service before their adoption;
• whether an inter-service coordination process took place before the Commission position was established;
• and, more generally, how the Commission reconciles its stated lack of competence in relation to these matters with its responsibility to ensure appropriate oversight of a project for which it is seeking a further EUR 5.794 billion in Union funding.

We believe that clear answers to these questions are necessary not only in the interests of the staff concerned, but also from the broader standpoint of institutional accountability, the forthcoming discharge procedure and the credibility of the Commission’s position in the negotiations on the next MFF.

We therefore hope that you will be able to provide the necessary clarification and confirm the Commission’s position at political level.

We would, of course, welcome the opportunity to discuss these matters with you directly.

Cristiano Sebastiani, Renouveau & Démocratie

Nicolas Mavraganis, USF

Georges Vlandas, U4U

Copy: 

Mr B. Seibert, Head of Cabinet of the President

Ms T. Ribera Executive Vice-President Clean, Just and Competitive Transition

Mr B. Budka, President of the Committee of Industrie, Research and Energy of the European Parliament

Ms I. Juhansone, Mr P. Leardini, Ms M. Zieba, Mr F. Ziegler (SG)

Ms C. Gauer, Mr J. Panek, Mr M. Coppola DG ENER

Mr S. Quest, Mr C. Roques, Mr C. Linder, Ms M. Silva Mendes, Mr S. Demirdjiev, Ms M. Mathe, Mr L. Duluc (DG HR)

Mr P. Barabaschi, Director general of ITER Organisation

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

Staff Annexes : 3