{"id":19429,"date":"2026-06-19T12:09:59","date_gmt":"2026-06-19T10:09:59","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.daldewolf.com\/?p=19429"},"modified":"2026-06-19T12:23:03","modified_gmt":"2026-06-19T10:23:03","slug":"the-officil-may-2026-issue-111","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.daldewolf.com\/en\/the-officil-may-2026-issue-111\/","title":{"rendered":"THE OFFICI@L \u2013 May 2026 \u2013 Issue 111"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"<\/div><\/div>

The OFFICI@L – Issue 111 – May 2026, our newsletter dedicated to European Union officials, has just been published. It is available in both French and English.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>

Editorial<\/h1>\n

Dear Reader,<\/em><\/p>\n

For this 111th edition of our newsletter, we propose a focus on the regime governing outside activities in the European civil service<\/a>, a natural extension of the case-law commentary published in our previous issue.<\/em><\/p>\n

In terms of case law, our attention has been drawn to a recent judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union clarifying the notion of so-called “passive” or “collective” harassment<\/a> and the evidentiary requirements attached to it.<\/em><\/p>\n

Finally, with the warmer months approaching, our “Belgian Law” section will review the various forms of cycling-mobility support<\/a> available to EU staff residing in Brussels and Belgium.<\/em><\/p>\n

Is there a topic that interests you or raises questions? Share it with us: a future issue of The Official could explore it and offer you a unique perspective.<\/em><\/p>\n

We look forward to receiving your suggestions at: theofficial@daldewolf.com<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n

The DALDEWOLF team<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>

\"\"<\/div><\/div>

DALDEWOLF<\/strong>
\n– European Union Law and Human Rights<\/strong><\/em>
\nTHIERRY BONTINCK – ANA\u00cfS GUILLERME – LUCIE MARCHAL – CELIA ANDR\u00c9 – PAULINE BAUDOUX – TELMA BONNENFANT – SABRINA NAPOLITANO – FEDERICO PATUELLI<\/p>\n

– Belgian Law<\/strong><\/em>
\nDOMINIQUE BOGAERT<\/p>\n

in partnership with PERSPECTIVES law firm<\/strong>:
\n– Family Law<\/strong><\/em>
\nCANDICE FASTREZ<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>

<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/section>
<\/div>

Focus – Outside activities in the European civil service<\/strong><\/h2>\n
    \n
  1. \n

    Legal framework<\/h3>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    The rules governing outside activities in the European civil service are based primarily on the Staff Regulations and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants (CEOS), in particular Articles 11, 11a, 12b and 16 of the Staff Regulations. Thus, an official must perform his or her duties and conduct himself or herself solely with the interests of the Union in mind (Article 11) and must refrain from any act or conduct that might bring his or her office into disrepute (Article 12).<\/p>\n

    Furthermore, the Commission Decision of 29 June 2018 on outside activities specifies both the scope of the activities concerned (any activity, whether remunerated or not, outside the staff member\u2019s duties and which cannot be regarded as a mere leisure activity) and the procedures for monitoring by the Appointing Authority (AIPN).<\/p>\n

      \n
    1. \n

      The prior authorisation regime<\/h3>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      The cardinal principle remains that of prior authorisation. In accordance with Article 12b of the Staff Regulations, any staff member wishing to engage in an outside activity must obtain the authorisation of the Appointing Authority, which may only be refused if the activity interferes with the staff member\u2019s duties or is incompatible with the interests of the institution. Furthermore, the staff member must inform the Appointing Authority of any change to the activity or mandate occurring after their request for authorisation. Authorisation may be withdrawn if the activity or mandate no longer meets the conditions.<\/p>\n

      Certain activities are prohibited or subject to strict control (Article 5): activities carried out during working hours and not covered by duly approved leave, which interfere with the staff member\u2019s duties, create a conflict of interest or undermine public confidence, and activities which, taken alone or in combination with other authorised external activities, result in remuneration exceeding the ceiling referred to in Article 7(1), namely \u20ac10,000 per calendar year (after deduction of taxes or other charges related to such activities).<\/p>\n

      Conversely, the 2018 decision introduces a mechanism of \u2018implicit permission\u2019 (Article 4) for certain activities considered to be inherently compatible. This applies in particular to activities that are unpaid or do not generate income, carried out in a private capacity (not in a professional capacity, nor on behalf of a commercial entity), outside working hours or during duly approved leave, and which do not compromise the impartiality or reputation of the institution.<\/p>\n

      As regards the period of validity of the authorisation, a new application must be submitted for any extension or renewal of the activity or assignment (at least two months before the expiry of the previous authorisation).<\/p>\n

        \n
      1. \n

        Specific rules depending on the situation<\/h3>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

        The decision also sets out specific rules depending on the situation.<\/p>\n

        In the case of part-time work: A member of staff who has chosen to work part-time may only undertake unpaid external activities (Art. 9). As regards staff members who have been offered only a part-time contract (structural part-time), the decision formally recognises that they may carry out both unpaid and paid external activities (with no remuneration cap) (Art. 10).<\/p>\n

        In the case of leave on personal grounds, certain activities do not need to be declared if they are unpaid, non-professional, unrelated to a commercial entity and have no impact on the institution\u2019s reputation; this includes, in particular, charitable, educational, cultural, sporting or political activities.<\/p>\n

        Following the termination of service, a notification regime applies for two years. Indeed, using a specific form, staff members must inform the Commission of their intention to undertake a professional activity at least 30 days before the scheduled start date and must not commence this activity before receiving explicit or implicit authorisation.<\/p>\n

          \n
        1. \n

          The consequences of a breach<\/h3>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

          Failure to comply with the applicable rules exposes the staff member to significant legal consequences[1]<\/a>. Indeed, the decision expressly provides that any breach of the rules on outside activities may give rise to disciplinary sanctions in accordance with Article 86 of the Staff Regulations.<\/p>\n

          In substance, breaches may result in particular from the absence of prior authorisation; the pursuit of an activity incompatible with the institution\u2019s interests; or the improper use of information or of the official\u2019s status for private purposes.<\/p>\n

          Furthermore, certain obligations remain in force after the official has ceased their duties, as mentioned previously.<\/p>\n

            \n
          1. \n

            Best practices<\/h3>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

            A proactive approach to transparency is essential: any activity likely to fall within the scope of statutory scrutiny must be declared, ideally in advance and with a complete file (including, in particular, details regarding remuneration).<\/p>\n

            Next, the official must carry out a thorough risk assessment, taking into account not only actual conflicts of interest but also the appearance of such conflicts, which is particularly sensitive in the European institutional environment. The limits set by the decision must be strictly observed, as must the prohibition on using the institution\u2019s non-public resources or information.<\/p>\n

            Finally, vigilance must continue after the end of service, with particular attention paid to compliance with the duties of honesty and discretion regarding the acceptance of certain posts or benefits (Article 16 of the Staff Regulations).<\/p>\n

            [1]<\/span><\/a> We refer you to Order T-214\/25, IR v Council, of 10 February 2026, discussed in our April 2026 issue.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>