Luxembourg, 15 September 2020

Union Syndicale Luxembourg is deeply concerned about new rumours…


And this is happening whereas the ‘CHAFEA’ crisis is far from being resolved, particularly on the social level, because in reality the least bad solution — mentioned at the start and which aims to boost the interinstitutional job market in Luxembourg in order to find drop-off posts for CHAFEA agents who do not wish to move to Brussels for many reasons, including of family-nature — does not seem to have been activated with the necessary intensity and at the required level…

Therefore it may mean (except for a more proactive approach): dozens of CHAFEA agents are in danger to increase the unemployment figures in Luxembourg!

 But what about this new ‘summer’ episode? DGs SANTE and ENER Luxembourg: are they in the spotlight?!

  • The management of health crises is carried out by the services of DG SANTE in Luxembourg. This is based on a 2013 decision by the Council and Parliament. This decision establishes a Committee of Member States: the Health Security Committee that has met in Senningen Castle since the beginning and organises audio meetings in times of crisis. The management is carried out within a specialized unit of DG SANTE C3.
  • The Commission, according to these rumours, intends to propose a new approach to crisis management, due to the coronavirus pandemic. This would be coordinated by the General Secretariat. According to the elements which USL has become aware of, it would be a question of centralizing the crisis management within the Commission with DG ECHO (Civil Protection Mechanism), and thus of relocating to Brussels part of the responsibility currently devolved to the services actually performing this task… namely DG SANTE for health crises and DG ENER for nuclear crises… These two services affected are located in Luxembourg!

This requires verification… certainly

The objectives pursued by the European Commission are certainly justified by the need to combat the pandemic and any other crisis with the most relevant and effective means.
USL shares this concern… but the way in which to achieve this goal deserves, we believe, a more in-depth reflection with due respect concerning the Luxembourg seat. A fortiori, in what way would the Commission services in Luxembourg not be suited to face this resizing of anti-crisis instruments adequately, especially where they already have a solid experience behind them!

 Luxembourg: less attractive for staff than Brussels? The question comes back… but still no answer                                            

Would it not be advisable to remain more attentive to the need not to continuously remove tasks from the services in Luxembourg, which would be weakening the presence of the Commission on the site, to the benefit of Brussels!


Resistance of EU officials to come to work in Luxembourg is intensifying,

The difficulties of local recruitment are growing,

The quality of the European public service in Luxembourg is hampered,

The geographical balance is deteriorating…

What is the Commission waiting for to draw the consequences of the multiannual analyses of ESTAT and of the AERINC Study organized by the European executive about the cost of living in Luxembourg which, in both cases, concluded that there is a disparity of purchasing power in Luxembourg compared to Brussels of nearly 20% (ESTAT) and 10.5% (AERINC) — the difference in the figures is explained by the fact that the latter was carried out with regard to the entire Grand-Region.

 When will there be a correction coefficient for Luxembourg?


                    Miguel Vicente Núñez

                       USL President