Focus – Spotlight on the European Competitions: EPSO’s functioning through the lens of the European Parliament

As EPSO launched the long-awaited AD5 competition , which attracted approximately 170 ,000 candidates, concerns regarding the functioning of the body responsible for organizing competitions for the European civil service remain at the centre of public debate.

In its Resolution of 27 November 2025 on the functioning of EPSO, published on 24 April 2026 (C/2026/1720), the European Parliament delivers a particularly critical assessment of the shortcomings that have affected competition procedures in recent years. It highlights recurring technical, organisational and procedural deficiencies that have undermined citizens’ confidence in the Union’s selection and recruitment system and have had significant consequences for candidates.

The fundamental right to sound administration

As a reminder, the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the European Union are required, when conducting competitions and recruitment procedures, at every stage of the process, to comply with the duty of care and the principle of good administration.

These principles require the administration to take into account all relevant circumstances when making decisions affecting the situation of a candidate or staff member, while ensuring compliance with the principles of equal treatment and legal certainty.

The General Court recently reiterated the scope of these obligations in its judgment of 1 July 2026 in Case T-415/25, in which it held the Commission liable following the exclusion of a temporary staff member from an internal competition for failing to attend an oral test while he was on sick leave.

In that judgment, the General Court emphasised that the duty of care is particularly stringent where the physical or mental health of the person concerned is affected. In the case at issue, the Court found that the candidate had been wrongly excluded from the competition, that this error was only rectified several weeks later, and that he had subsequently been invited to attend the oral test while he remained on certified sick leave and had been medically recognised as incapable of regularly checking his professional email account.

The Court further noted that the candidate had acted with all due diligence by informing the competition secretariat as soon as he was in a position to do so and by promptly requesting an alternative examination date. Finally, the provisions of the notice of competition requiring candidates to notify the secretariat “as soon as possible” or to regularly monitor their mailbox had to be applied with a degree of flexibility in light of the particular circumstances of the case.

The European Parliament’s Concerns

This recent judgment of the General Court illustrates the broader concerns expressed by the European Parliament regarding the manner in which EPSO currently administers selection procedures.

The Parliament’s criticisms revolve around three main themes.

1. Maladministration and organisational shortcomings

The Parliament deplores the multiplication of technical incidents following the widespread introduction of remote testing, repeated postponements of examinations, procedural delays and communication difficulties experienced by candidates. It considers that these shortcomings have undermined the integrity, predictability and credibility of European competitions.

2. Excessive reliance on digitalisation and artificial intelligence in assessment methods

The Parliament criticises the growing dependence on remote testing, outsourced digital platforms and automated tools. It stresses the need to ensure effective human oversight throughout all stages of selection procedures and rejects any delegation to automated systems of decisions liable to affect candidates’ fundamental rights.

3. Risks to candidates’ rights: equality, transparency and effective redress

The Parliament points to concerns regarding disparities in the quality of tests across the different language versions offered, the accessibility of competitions for persons with disabilities, the lack of responses to candidates’ complaints, and the insufficient transparency of assessment criteria and redress mechanisms.

Against this background, the Parliament calls for a thorough reform of EPSO with a view to restoring the integrity, transparency, predictability and fairness of European competitions.

In particular, it calls on EPSO to reintroduce, alongside online testing, physical assessment and examination centres accessible to candidates, allowing them to choose the method by which they sit the tests and ensuring fair testing conditions.

Ultimately, the Parliament considers that the shortcomings currently observed do not merely prejudice candidates. They also risk compromising EPSO’s very mission, namely enabling the European institutions to recruit officials of the highest standard of ability, efficiency and integrity, selected on the broadest possible geographical basis from among the nationals of the Member States of the Union.

Caselaw – Failure to accrue pension rights in the event of unauthorised absences

In a recent judgment delivered on 16 July 2026 in PV v Commission (Case C-133/25 P), the Court of Justice of the European Union clarified whether periods of unjustified or irregular absence may be taken into account when calculating the pension rights of EU officials.

Facts

The appellant, an official of the European Commission since 2007, was absent from work between May 2014 and July 2016, claiming an inability to work due to psychological harassment in the workplace. However, the Commission’s medical advisers concluded that he was fit to resume his duties. Despite these findings, he neither returned to work nor attended the required medical examinations.

Considering these absences to be irregular or unjustified, the Commission adopted several decisions withholding part of his remuneration. Following an initial dismissal which was subsequently withdrawn, the appellant was reinstated in September 2017. Shortly thereafter, he again became absent without justification. At the end of a new disciplinary procedure, he was dismissed in November 2019.

Following his dismissal, he applied for an early retirement pension. By decision of 20 July 2020, the PMO rejected the application on the ground that he had accumulated only 9 years, 3 months and 22 days of pensionable service, which was below the ten years of service required under Article 77 of the Staff Regulations. The periods corresponding to his irregular or unjustified absences had not been taken into account for the accrual of pension rights.

Proceedings

After the rejection of his pension application, the appellant lodged several administrative complaints, all of which were dismissed by the Commission. He then brought an action before the General Court of the European Union against that decision and related measures. By judgment of 19 June 2024 (Case T-78/21), the General Court dismissed the action. The appellant subsequently appealed to the Court of Justice, which dismissed the appeal in its entirety.

Exclusion of periods of irregular or unjustified absence from the calculation of pension rights

The central issue before the Court was whether periods of irregular or unjustified absence could be taken into account when calculating the length of service giving entitlement to a retirement pension under Article 77 of the Staff Regulations.

The Court first recalled that Articles 59(3) and 60 of the Staff Regulations provide for identical consequences in cases of duly established unjustified or irregular absence. Such absences are first deducted from the official’s annual leave entitlement and, once annual leave has been exhausted, the official loses entitlement to remuneration for the period concerned.

The Court therefore confirmed the General Court’s finding that an official in such a situation can no longer contribute to the Joint Pension Scheme of the European Union Institutions and, consequently, cannot accrue additional pension rights for the period concerned.

The Court further emphasised that, pursuant to Article 3(a) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations, only periods of service for which contributions to the pension scheme have actually been paid may be taken into account in calculating pensionable years of service. It therefore rejected the appellant’s argument that pension contributions had been deducted from his salary during the periods at issue, stressing that the decisive factor is whether remuneration was genuinely due.

Where an irregular or unjustified absence is established after annual leave has been exhausted, no remuneration is payable and no pension rights can accrue for the relevant period. The Commission was therefore entitled to exclude those periods from the calculation of the appellant’s pensionable service.

In this regard, the Court expressly stated that this does not amount to the withdrawal of previously acquired pension rights, since no such rights had ever accrued in respect of those periods.

No infringement of the principle of ne bis in idem

The appellant argued that excluding the periods of irregular or unjustified absence from the calculation of his pension rights constituted a second sanction in addition to his dismissal.

The Court rejected this argument, holding that the consequence follows directly from the Staff Regulations governing remuneration and the pension scheme. The only disciplinary sanction imposed on the appellant was his dismissal. The fact that no pensionable years of service accrued during the relevant periods is an automatic consequence of the absence of remuneration and does not have a disciplinary character.

Accordingly, the principle of ne bis in idem was not applicable, since the exclusion of those periods from the pension calculation is merely a legal consequence flowing from the pension rules rather than a second penalty.

Belgian Law – Amendments to the Code of Economic Law concerning consumer credit agreements

by Dominique BOGAERT, Partner

By a law adopted on 20 July 2026, the Belgian legislature transposed into national law the Credit agreements for consumers Directive (CCD II – Directive (EU) 2023/2225). This transposition strengthens the rules aimed at preventing over-indebtedness in connection with credit agreements concluded with consumers. These provisions have been incorporated into Book VII of the Belgian Code of Economic Law.

Lenders are now subject to stricter obligations regarding the assessment of consumers’ creditworthiness and the prevention of over-indebtedness. In particular, they must implement processes and policies enabling the early identification of consumers experiencing financial difficulties and direct them towards easily accessible debt-advice services.

Their duty to advise consumers has also been strengthened. Lenders must identify the credit solution most appropriate to the consumer’s financial situation. Recommendations made by lenders and credit intermediaries must be based solely on the consumer’s best interests and must be provided on a durable medium. These advisory services may not be remunerated.

The rules governing pre-contractual information and advertising have likewise been clarified and tightened.

In particular, the Code of Economic Law introduces safeguards concerning the consumer’s consent to enter into a credit agreement or to purchase ancillary services. Standard options, including pre-ticked boxes, are not sufficient to establish the consumer’s consent.

The new provisions also reaffirm the obligations of lenders and credit intermediaries to act honestly, transparently and professionally when designing credit products, advertising such products, granting credit, providing advisory services, supplying ancillary services and performing credit agreements.

The scope of the legislation has also been expanded to include microcredits below €200 and unsecured renovation loans exceeding €100,000. It also now covers buy now, pay later (BNPL) arrangements, except where they provide for repayment within a very short period (for example, 14 days) and involve no fees or interest.

The new provisions apply to credit agreements concluded from 20 November 2026 onwards.