Over the years, a growing number of Contract Agents (CAs) serving in Delegations have found themselves in particularly vulnerable situations due to serious health conditions or pressing family circumstances. In many such cases, these agents were no longer able to return to their Delegation post and sought reassignment to Brussels on justified humanitarian grounds.
However, instead of being supported within a stable employment framework, these colleagues have often faced a deeply problematic administrative practice: the termination of their indefinite (3a) contracts, followed by re-engagement under fixed-term (3b) contracts. This shift has systematically placed them back into a cycle of precarious employment, ultimately exposing them to contract expiration after six years, with limited prospects for continuity.
This situation disproportionately affects the most vulnerable staff members—those already facing serious personal hardship—while becoming increasingly unsustainable with age, as reintegration into the labour market becomes more difficult.
In this context, ACIE proposes a critical re-examination of the Staff Regulations. The current application of a four-year limit for postings in Brussels is based on a fundamentally flawed interpretation of the legal framework. As demonstrated below, this limitation stems from a misreading of provisions that are not designed to apply to Contract Agents in Delegations.
The core argument against the current four-year limit on postings in Brussels for Contract Agents (CAs) in Delegations is that it is based on a legal concept that does not apply to them.
Article 3 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations refers to a “temporary reassignment” designed for officials serving in third countries. In that context, officials interrupt their (already temporary) posting abroad through a temporary reassignment to their permanent base or another position within the Union.
- Article 3 ►M112 Under the mobility procedure, an official assigned to a third country may, by decision of the Appointing Authority, be reassigned temporarily with his post to the seat of the institution or any other place of employment in the ►M128 Union ◄; such assignments, which shall not be preceded by a vacancy notice, may not be for more than four years.
This situation cannot be meaningfully applied “by analogy” to CAs in Delegations, as they operate under fundamentally different structural logics.
1. The Officials’ Model: Brussels as Permanent Base
The Staff Regulations are built on the premise that officials are based at the seat of the institution—Brussels or Luxembourg. Annex X contains “special and exceptional provisions” for officials serving in third countries.
Within this framework, Article 3 addresses a specific case: an official serving abroad who is temporarily reassigned to headquarters without a vacancy notice. This reassignment:
• interrupts an ongoing posting abroad
• is limited to a maximum of four years
Importantly, this rule only applies to such temporary interruptions.
When officials complete a normal posting in Delegation, they simply return to Brussels with no time limitation. They may remain at headquarters indefinitely, apply for other posts, request transfers, or take leave on personal grounds.
2. The CA Model: No Permanent Base, Only Rotation
The situation of Contract Agents is structurally different.
CAs in Delegations:
• have no permanent base
• operate under a system of continuous rotation between postings
A move to Brussels is therefore not a temporary interruption of an existing posting, but simply another step in the rotation cycle.
This leads to a fundamental mismatch:
• For officials, a temporary reassignment means a short interruption of an ongoing posting abroad, without any vacancy notice
• For CAs, Brussels is simply another duty station, accessed through vacancy notices and mobility exercises
Brussels cannot therefore be treated as a temporary reassignment for a CA, but must be considered a regular posting.
If an analogy is to be made, it should instead be drawn with the 12-year maximum duration of consecutive postings in Delegations for Officials.
3. The Mobility Framework Reveals the Contradiction
The administration’s own rules highlight the inconsistency.
Under Decision ADMIN(2020) 35:
• the standard duration of a CA posting in Delegation is 6 years
• flexibility exists for personal circumstances (e.g. family, medical reasons)
However, for Brussels:
• a rigid 4-year limit is imposed
• the posting is labelled “exceptional”
This creates a clear paradox:
A CA may serve 6 years in a Delegation, but only 4 years in Brussels, even though Brussels is treated in practice as a normal posting within the mobility exercise.
4. “By Analogy” Requires Adaptation
Article 118 CEOS states that Annex X applies to CAs “by analogy.”
In EU legal practice, this means:
👉 adaptation to the specific context
👉 not mechanical application
Applying Article 3 without adapting it to the CA framework introduces a rule that is incompatible with their employment structure.
A proper application by analogy would recognise that:
• Brussels is functionally equivalent to a Delegation posting
• it should therefore follow the same rotation rules
5. Practical Implications
This interpretation leads to several important conclusions:
• Brussels postings should follow the standard 6-year duration, as in Delegations
• Consecutive postings in Brussels should be allowed, reflecting the growing number of available posts at headquarters
• Flexibility provisions (family, medical, personal reasons) must apply equally to Brussels postings
The current practice—whereby Contract Agents in Delegations are required to terminate their 3a contracts and accept 3b contracts in order to remain in Brussels beyond four years—results in a loss of continuity, seniority, and Delegation-specific entitlements.
This practice is not only administratively harmful but also legally questionable. It is the direct consequence of a misapplication of Article 3 of Annex X and should therefore be discontinued.