The Central Staff Committee of the EPO Explains Late March Meetings Coinciding With Commencement of the Non-Stop Strikes at Europe's Second-Largest Institution
March 30, 2026: Today, Europe's Second-Largest Institution (EPO) Goes on Strike That Can Last Until 2027. Nobody in the Media Covers This! (rolling strikes or mass strikes still going on)
The Central Staff Committee of the EPO told staff ahead of last week: "The “future salary adjustment procedure” will be on the agenda of the next GCC meeting of 23 April 2026."
The GCC in the context of the EPO stands for General Consultative Committee. "The simulations of the new salary adjustment procedure over the 12-year period 2014−2025 show a severe loss of purchasing power in double digits for all sites," the Committee wrote. "A fifth technical meeting took place on 25 March 2026. In preparation of the meeting, the administration sent a draft document defining the draft implementing rule for Article 64(6) of the Service Regulations."
For public access and transparency we convert the report into GemText, HTML, and plain text (bulletins):
Munich, 02-04-2026
sc26026cpFuture Salary Adjustment Procedure Report on the Fifth Technical Meeting of
25 March 2026
The “future salary adjustment procedure” will be on the agenda of the next GCC meeting of 23 April 2026. The simulations of the new salary adjustment procedure over the 12-year period 2014−2025 show a severe loss of purchasing power in double digits for all sites. A fifth technical meeting took place on 25 March 2026. In preparation of the meeting, the administration sent a draft document defining the draft implementing rule for Article 64(6) of the Service Regulations. This paper reports on the content of discussions.
The EPO departs from basic principles of remuneration
The main goal of a salary adjustment procedure is to ensure the maintenance of purchasing power. The two basic principles of remuneration policies among International Organisations are:
1) to maintain purchasing power i.e. the value of salaries and benefits, with purchasing power parities (PPPs) measuring the evolution of the prices of goods and services at specific locations relative to a reference (e.g. Brussels indexed on national HICP)
2) to ensure parallelism with wage inflation of civil servants (net of local inflation) via a specific indicator
No other International Organisation uses a “financial sustainability” principle on growth of salary mass with an arbitrary reference.
No adequate implementation of an overall growth of salary mass at Eurozone inflation
In the “orientations for a new salary adjustment procedure”1, the Office reaffirmed to the Administrative Council “the importance of having a mechanism to regulate the annual growth of the salary mass” and announced that “the new method would aim at aligning the growth of the EPO's salaries with a predefined reference index, such as the Eurozone HICP”.
The staff representation noted that the formula proposed by the Office in Articles 2 and 3 implements a weighted average of salary adjustments at Eurozone inflation in proportion to the distribution of employees in the countries of employment on 1 July of the calculation year. This formula is different from an overall growth of salary mass at Eurozone inflation, even when assuming a constant population and distribution of employees during the calculation year.
The administration was not in a position to react to our comment during the meeting and said that they would look into it and bring an answer later.
_____
1 CA/24/26, par. 10, 17 and 23
Even less than EZ inflation ±0.0% in three years
The document in Article 1(3) defines that after three years of operation, the Administrative Council may adjust the predefined reference of Eurozone inflation by adding a positive or negative spread to it, expressed in percentage points, taking into account the “evolution of the reference” and the “economic circumstances”.
The staff representation repeated that this clause would again be an unacceptable risk for staff and a breach of the purpose of a salary adjustment procedure. The basic principle of remuneration policies is to select the right indicators and to respect the result over time (stability) – not to change them based on recent outcomes. In addition, the conditions of “evolution of the reference” and “economic circumstances” are entirely vague. They do not appear to be linked to the financial situation of the Office nor to the evolution of costs of living in places of employment. The European Union institutions have a stable methodology applicable for 10 years, why can the Office not provide the same duration? Back in 2014, when the Office reviewed its six-year methodology, the Office considered that “[a] longer period [of application] would bring more stability to the EPO”2.
The administration replied that modifying the predefined reference does not change the rules of the game in the middle of the application cycle. In their view, the article only refers to a spread to change the “sensitivity” of the predefined reference during the cycle in order to take into account social and political elements.
The staff representation replied that such social and political elements are totally undefined and that the spread could bring salaries to a freeze.
No maintenance of purchasing power
The document in Article 1(2) defines that the adjustment of basic salary scales is based on a predefined reference set at Eurozone inflation. The formula includes for each place of employment the “purchasing power parity coefficients” with respect to Brussels but does not include national inflation (HICP) in Belgium.
The staff representation repeated that the aim of a salary adjustment procedure is to maintain purchasing power i.e. the value of salaries and benefits. This is not the same as purchasing power parity which is only a sub-clause intended to ensure equal treatment across different places of employment. A procedure which does not respect the evolution of the prices of goods and services at the reference country (HICP BE) would not respect the principle of maintaining purchasing power at all for any site.
The administration did not deny the absence of principle of maintaining purchasing power. No parallelism with civil servants The document confirms the removal of the specific indicator from the formula, and hence the abolition of the principle of parallelism with wage inflation of civil servants.
The staff representation asked that the specific indicator is still calculated so that any positive contribution from this indicator is considered in the calculation of the savings made by the Office at the expense of staff. Indeed, the last six-year period 2020−2025 showed a negative contribution of the specific indicator but it is usually followed by a period of positive contribution. Such a comparison would be helpful in the review discussions with the Administrative Council after three years of operation. By showing that the specific indicator would have had a positive contribution, the Office could avoid that the delegations ask for a negative spread to be applied to the reference of Eurozone inflation.
The administration replied that they refuse to calculate the specific indicator and justified their position by arguing that a positive contribution of this specific indicator remains of speculative nature.
____
2 CA/23/14, par. 40
The staff representatives insisted that the specific indicator is still calculated in order to allow a factual comparison.
No adequate implementation of the freeze in salaries
In the “orientations for a new salary adjustment procedure”3, the Office declared that “[a]s in the current method, […] the exception clause, showing solidarity with the member states in the case of an economic downturn, would be maintained […]”
The exception clause defines that when the real gross domestic product (GDP) of the Contracting States varies below −3%, there is no adjustment to the basic salary scales and allowances until the nominal GDP has recovered its level prior to the decrease that triggered the application of the freeze. Currently, the regulations define that the value of adjustment calculations shall then form the basis of the calculation for a future adjustment. The document in Article 7(1)(b) now defines that the predefined reference of that calculation year will be added to the predefined reference of a future adjustment. This is not the same.
The staff representation pointed out that if the Office reaffirmed to the Administrative Council its intention to maintain the exception clause, then such a redrafting came as surprise as the effect of the clause is changed. Currently, if an adjustment of 2% is frozen, then the GDP recovers and the adjustment is 3%, the future adjustment is the result of the following compounding 1.02 x 1.03 = 1.0506 i.e. 5.06%. The new regulations do not make mathematical sense as they foresee an addition of percentages 2% + 3% = 5%.
The administration ironized that they would indeed from now on add the percentages instead of compounding.
Lump-sum compensation in case the yearly adjustment is below national inflation HICP
The document in Article 8 introduces a “cost of living supplement” consisting of a lump-sum compensation paid out when the adjustment is below national inflation HICP in proportion of the difference and of the monthly remuneration during the application year. This supplement has no cumulative or compound effect and does not create any rights to a tax adjustment.
First, the staff representation repeated that lump-sum compensation is no adequate substitute to decent salary adjustments. Second, the staff representation noted that national inflation HICP is not the right reference for determining the evolution of costs of living. Indeed, national inflation HICP is calculated on a much broader territory than the purchasing power parity coefficients which reflect the typical basket of international staff. The evolution of costs of living is correctly reflected by national inflation HICP in Belgium multiplied by the evolution of the purchasing power parity coefficient. This is what was done so far in the underlying methodology. Third, the fact that the supplement has no cumulative nor compound effect confirms that this new mechanism does not address the principle of maintaining purchasing power at all.
The administration did not bring any substantiated reply and just provocatively asked if the staff representation would prefer that this mechanism is removed.
The staff representation replied that the Office should care about doing things right.
The staff representation addressed the fact that the supplement does not create any rights to a tax adjustment under Article 42 of the Pension Scheme Regulations. In the view of the staff representation, if a mechanism is part of the adjustment procedure applicable to pensions, then it should be equally subject to the tax adjustment. The staff representation then asked whether the “costs of living supplement” would be subject to the internal tax and shown as such on the salary slips.
_____
3 CA/24/26, par. 28
The administration replied that the “costs of living supplement” would not be subject to internal tax.
The staff representation pointed out the risks of taxation of the supplement for active employees by national authorities as it would not fall under the exception of Article 16 PPI.
Correction of mistakes in the data
The document in Article 9(2) mentions that the “[i]f there was a mistake in [the] data, the President may submit a proposal to correct the basic salary scales, allowances of the supplement for costs of living”.
The staff representation noted that the current regulations mention a deadline for the President to submit the proposal to correct the basic salary scales, i.e. the next meeting of the Administrative Council, and that the salary scales would be modified retroactively.
The administration replied that the Office processes for social dialogue do not always allow to be ready for the next meeting of the Administrative Council and therefore the precise deadline needs to be removed. The administration added that the Office intends to make any correction and would therefore reintroduce the term “retroactively”.
Allowances
The document in Article 9(5) defines that allowances are adjusted by the predefined reference set at Eurozone inflation.
The staff representation noted that Young Child Allowance and the Education Allowance should be adjusted according to the evolution of the costs.
The administration did not answer to this request.
Conclusion
The staff representation concluded that the Office proposal severely departs from remuneration policies among International Organisations, does not correctly implement the orientations presented in the Administrative Council, is full of legal risks and does not make mathematical sense.
The fifth technical meeting showed regression rather than progress in the discussions.
A sixth meeting on the “future salary adjustment procedure” is foreseen to take place on 31 March 2026.
The Central Staff Committee
This last part refers to a meeting to "take place on 31 March 2026." The report for that too became available, as recently as yesterday. "A sixth technical meeting took place on 31 March 2026," they said yesterday. "The administration sent an updated document the night before at 20.00 hrs. The amendments introduce a “high inflation clause” capping adjustments if Eurozone inflation is above 6% and abolish any obligation for the Office to take due account of recommendations by the Co-ordinating Committee of Government Budget Experts."
Here's the report from that:
Munich, 10-04-2026
sc26027cpFuture Salary Adjustment Procedure
Report on the Sixth Technical Meeting of
31 March 2026The “future salary adjustment procedure” will be on the agenda of the next GCC meeting of 23 April 2026. The simulations of the new salary adjustment procedure over the 12-year period 2014−2025 show a severe loss of purchasing power in double digits for all sites. A sixth technical meeting took place on 31 March 2026. The administration sent an updated document the night before at 20.00 hrs. The amendments introduce a “high inflation clause” capping adjustments if Eurozone inflation is above 6% and abolish any obligation for the Office to take due account of recommendations by the Co-ordinating Committee of Government Budget Experts. This paper reports on the content of the discussions.
The EPO departs from basic principles of remuneration
The main goal of a salary adjustment procedure is to ensure the maintenance of purchasing power. The two basic principles of remuneration policies among International Organisations are:
1) to maintain purchasing power i.e. the value of salaries and benefits, with purchasing power parities (PPPs) measuring the evolution of the prices of goods and services at specific locations relative to a reference (e.g. Brussels indexed on national HICP);
2) to ensure parallelism with wage inflation of civil servants (net of local inflation) via a specific indicator.
No other International Organisation uses a “financial sustainability” principle on growth of salary mass with an arbitrary reference.
A new “high inflation clause” capping adjustments if Eurozone inflation is above 6%
The administration explained that the new “high inflation clause” is introduced following feedback made by the delegations in the Administrative Council meeting of 18 and 19 March 2026. The staff representation asked why the document provided for the previous technical meeting of 25 March 2026 did not already include the “high inflation clause”. The administration replied that the clause was not yet drafted and the document was not ready earlier. They gave no explanation for why it was not mentioned in the previous meeting.
The administration explained that some delegations request to freeze EPO salaries and to have at least an “emergency break” in case of high inflation. In the first technical meetings, the administration had already considered to include such a mechanism under the name “safeguard clause” but decided not to include it in the “orientations for a new salary adjustment procedure”1 submitted in the March Council meeting. However, according to the administration, the number of “adverse delegations” in this meeting was higher than planned. Consequently, the President decided thereafter to re-introduce such a mechanism under the name “high inflation clause”.
____
1 CA/24/26
The staff representation recalled that the “safeguard clause” was a red flag2 and that this applies to the new “high inflation clause” of same nature. Such a clause bears legal risks as it goes against the principle of stability. The ILOAT jurisprudence indicates that the results of a salary adjustment method are to be stable, foreseeable and clearly understood.
The administration explained that the “high inflation clause” caps adjustments if Eurozone inflation is above 6%. They argued that the threshold of 6% is relatively high when considering the forecasts of the European Central Bank3. According to these forecasts, Eurozone inflation might peak at 6.3% only in the severe scenario of a long war in the Middle East with more destruction of infrastructure. They admitted that the “high inflation clause” would have been triggered in the adjustment for 2022 (applied in 2023)4. They added that however the figures show that this would have been the only occurrence in the last 20 years.
The staff representation replied that back in 2020, the Office assumed that Eurozone inflation would have remained around 2%. However, the last six-year cycle showed much higher figures during 3 years of application of the current methodology5.
The administration argued that the “high inflation clause” might not have an impact on the salary scales in the next cycle.
The staff representation replied that a clause should serve a legitimate and understandable purpose. Staff representation added that the basic principle of remuneration policies is to select the right indicators and to respect the result over time (stability) – not to add a “high inflation clause” based on an absolute value and hope that it will not be triggered.
The staff representation added that, should inflation reach high levels near the end of the six-year period, Article 7(3) could result in a substantial additional cut of salary adjustments. For example, if Eurozone inflation reaches 10% in the sixth year, 4% would be permanently lost from salaries and pensions for every remaining year of staff careers and retirement.
The administration took note of the comment on “high inflation” happening in the last year of application of the methodology.
The staff representation concluded that the “high inflation clause” is yet another “sustainability clause” in disguise with complicated mechanisms of “carry-forward” and “one-off lump sum”. These were exactly the mechanisms that the Office presented in the orientation paper as overly complex, leading to unexpected outcomes, and not necessary anymore6.
Amendments to Article 64 ServRegs
The document proposes to amend Article 64 ServRegs on the determination of remuneration. Such amendments were never discussed nor hinted before and go beyond any request from the Council delegations.
The staff representation expressed concerns regarding the modification of the sentence “The remuneration of the employees shall be subject to periodic review” which defined an absolute right to an adjustment i.e. “periodic review”. The document proposes to remove this absolute right and to condition it to Council acceptance with the modified sentence: “The remuneration of the employees will be adjusted periodically by the Administrative Council”.
The administration explained that their intent was to replace the verb “shall” by “will” for clarity reasons.
_____
2 “Future Orientations on the Salary Adjustment Procedure: Report on the Third Technical Meeting of 20 January 2026”, CSC paper of 27-01-2026 (sc26011cp)
3 “ECB staff macroeconomic projections for the euro area, March 2026”
4 CA/79/25, par. 29 & “Comments on GCC/DOC 23/2025”, par. 119
5 CA/79/25, par. 29
6 CA/24/26, par. 18 and 27
The staff representation was not convinced by this argument as the amendments consist in more than verb replacement and requested to revert to the previous wording.
The staff representation objected to the proposed deletion of the obligation for the Office to take due account “so far as applicable to that procedure, of recommendations by the Co-ordinating Committee of Government Budget Experts.”
The administration replied that this requirement is obsolete as the Office does not take into account recommendations by the Co-ordinating Committee of Government Budget Experts for a number of years already. They added that the Office is free to do whatever it wants without any guidance.
The staff representation replied that the fact that the Office neither duly applies the Service Regulations nor follows guidance from experts is nothing to be proud of.
The administration replied that the Office will still have meetings with Eurostat and the International Service for Remuneration and Pension (ISRP), and does not intend to change the documentation provided to staff representation on ours and related salary adjustment procedures. The documentation will still contain reports from the Co-ordinating Committee on Remuneration.
No adequate implementation of an overall growth of salary mass at Eurozone inflation
In the “orientations for a new salary adjustment procedure”7, the Office reaffirmed to the Administrative Council “the importance of having a mechanism to regulate the annual growth of the salary mass” and announced that “the new method would aim at aligning the growth of the EPO's salaries with a predefined reference index, such as the Eurozone HICP”.
In the fifth technical meeting8, the staff representation noted that the formula proposed by the Office in Articles 2 and 3 implements a weighted average of salary adjustments at Eurozone inflation in proportion to the distribution of employees in the countries of employment on 1 July of the calculation year. This formula is different from an overall growth of salary mass at Eurozone inflation, even when assuming a constant population and distribution of employees during the calculation year.
The updated document now replaces the wording “basic salary mass variation resulting from the application of the growth factors with the predefined factor” by “weighted average of the growth factors for Austria, Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands”. Instead of correcting their mistake, the administration persists and signs. Staff representatives expressed frustration that their input results only in superficial rewording of legal text, frequently to the detriment of staff, rather than any genuine effort to address the concerns raised in a substantive manner. In this context, meetings appear to function merely as a litmus test for potential legal vulnerabilities, rather than as a forum for meaningful dialogue or resolution.
The administration explained that the wording was amended to take into account the comments made by the staff representation in the previous meeting.
The staff representation replied that the combination of Articles 2 and 3 fails to define the aim of the salary adjustment procedure. Staff representation pointed out that the administration deleted the aim of the formula instead of defining the new aim of the formula.
The administration insisted that they see no requirement to mention the aim of the formula and that they only need to describe the formula.
____
7 CA/24/26, par. 10, 17 and 23
8 “Future Salary Adjustment Procedure: Report on the Fifth Technical Meeting of 25 March 2026”, CSC paper of 02-04-2026 (sc26026cp)
The staff representation answered that for a salary adjustment procedure to be understood, the aim should be mentioned. This is all the more important if the orientations tabled in the March Council presented a different aim. Without a specific context, the formula is to be regarded as arbitrary.
The administration defended that they checked the formula of “overall growth of salary mass at Eurozone inflation” as raised by the staff representation and found out that the result would be 0.1% higher than what the Office defines in Articles 2 and 3.
The staff representation replied that such a difference is far from negligible when it comes to salary adjustments compounded over time. Staff representation indicated that if the purchasing power parities between the bigger sites diverge significantly, the difference in calculation becomes bigger.
Furthermore, the staff representation referred to a similar situation six years ago, when they had drawn attention to computational problems with the current salary adjustment procedure. Their concerns had been casually dismissed by the administration at the time. Later, during the actual implementation, the administration realised that parities had been breached. After three years, the problems had become so serious that a workaround had to be used to revert to the underlying methodology. Against this background, the staff representation urged that the computational problems now be taken seriously.
Other amendments
Following the requests of the staff representation in the fifth technical meeting, the updated document reintroduces the principle of retroactivity in the correction of basic salary scales if there is a mistake in the data. However, the deadline for the President to submit the correction to the Administrative Council is still deleted.
The “exception clause” is also amended to define that the percentages will be added with compounding effect.
Two lump sums
The updated document now contains two lump sums:
1) “a cost of living supplement” in Article 8 consisting of a lump-sum compensation paid out when the adjustment is below national inflation HICP in proportion of the difference and of the monthly remuneration during the application year. This supplement has no cumulative or compound effect and does not create any rights to a tax adjustment.
2) “a one-off lump sum” in case the “high inflation clause” was triggered and carried-forward excess remains in the last year of the six-year cycle
The staff representation stated that this “inflation” of lump sums is not acceptable in a salary adjustment procedure which shall aim at adjusting the salary scales. Lump sums are no adequate substitute to decent salary adjustments.
The staff representation addressed again the fact that none of the lump sums will create any rights to a tax adjustment under Article 42 of the Pension Scheme Regulations. In the view of the staff representation, if a mechanism is part of the adjustment procedure applicable to pensions, then it should be equally subject to the tax adjustment. The staff representation then asked whether these lump sums would be subject to the internal tax and shown as such on the salary slips.
The administration repeated that these lump sums shall be considered to be emoluments, like bonuses, and would not be subject to internal tax.
The staff representation pointed out the risks of taxation of the lump sums for active employees by national authorities as they would not fall under the exception of Article 16 PPI.
Allowances
The document in Article 9(5) defines that allowances are adjusted by the predefined reference set at Eurozone inflation.
The staff representation noted that the Young Child Allowance and the Education Allowance should be adjusted according to the evolution of the costs. By adjusting the education allowance ceilings at a rate slower than the actual evolution of costs was continuously limiting access of new staff and those with young children from many international schools, particularly those able to educate children with special needs.
The administration provocatively answered that our host states provide public education free of charge and implied that they failed to understand to which education costs the staff representation was referring to.
The staff representation reminded the administration that the purchasing power parities calculated by ISRP contain a component relating to education costs which needs to be looked at, and that above all, the Office is an International Organisation with employees from 39 Contracting States who need to register their children in international schools near their place of employment. The evolution of the costs of these schools must be considered.
The administration replied that this topic should not be part of a discussion on the salary adjustment procedure and that a review of the Education and Childcare reform is planned anyway in the fourth quarter of 2026. The administration was not in a position to give details on the methodology of the review.
Conclusion
The staff representation concluded that the Office proposal severely departs from remuneration policies among International Organisations, does not correctly implement the orientations presented in the Administrative Council, is full of legal risks and does not make mathematical sense.
The administration considers that they do not need to explain the aim of the methodology and do not need to follow any guidance from experts. Their attitude is extremely worrying, especially in light of the previous massive failure of the in-house designed method currently in force.
The newly introduced “high inflation clause” is a red flag and a provocation to staff. Instead of giving an adequate answer to the mobilisation of staff, the President is pouring oil on the flame.
The final proposal will be submitted in the GCC meeting of 23 April 2026.
The Central Staff Committee
The fifth meeting report and sixth meeting report show some of the concerns leading up to the mass strikes, which are still going on (we'll cover the status quo soon).
EPO Cocaingate recently turned 6 months. We still have an ongoing series about it. █
