Civil Servants Increasingly Complain, Ministry of the Interior Leads the Way

The Civil Service Committee, an independent body that decides on complaints from civil servants and candidates for employment in the civil service, received a total of 1133 cases in 2025, of which 1054 were administrative and 79 non-administrative. This represents an increase of more than 30 percent in the number of administrative cases compared to 2024, when 701 were received. This is the largest annual influx of cases since 2017, when a sharp decline was recorded from the record levels of the mid-last decade, when the Committee resolved several thousand administrative cases in some years.

Ministry of the Interior Far Ahead of All

The data presented by the Committee in its annual report to the Government clearly shows where the largest number of disputes between civil servants and their employers arises. Of the 1054 administrative cases received in 2025, as many as 609, or nearly 58 percent, relate to decisions of the Ministry of the Interior. No other state body is even close to that number. In second place are courts of all levels (115 cases), and in third place is the Ministry of Finance, along with the Customs and Tax Administration (105 cases). Following are the Ministry of Justice, Administration and Digital Transformation with 50 cases, and the State Inspectorate with 49.

In other words, officials and employees working in the internal affairs system make up more than half of all those who complained in 2025 about decisions regarding their employment status, whether related to job placement, salary, transfer, evaluation, or termination of service.

The Committee does not provide a separate comment on the cause of this concentration in the report, but the structure of the cases indicates that it is the same trend affecting the entire civil service, which is structural changes.

Restructuring is the Main Driver of Complaints

According to the type of cases, the highest number of complaints received related to job placement (372), followed by the obligation to take the state exam (341) and the evaluation of civil servants (123). The Committee explicitly states that the increase in complaints regarding placement decisions is a consequence of structural changes in state administration bodies, which, given that the Ministry of the Interior accounts for the majority of the total number of cases, indicates that the reorganization efforts within that ministry were particularly intense during 2025.

More than Half of First-instance Decisions Annulled

Data on how cases are resolved show that the second-instance body very often does not accept the assessments of first-instance bodies, including the Ministry of the Interior.

Of the total of 894 resolved cases in 2025, the Committee annulled the first-instance decision in 512 cases, or 57 percent of the cases, and returned the case for re-resolution. The complaint was rejected in 34 percent of cases (300 cases), while the decision was completely annulled in 39 cases and modified in 18.

As the most common reason for annulling first-instance decisions, the Committee cites incorrectly and incompletely established factual situations and violations of procedural rules that may have affected the outcome. This is a formulation that points to systemic shortcomings in the preparation of decisions within first-instance bodies, and given the ratio of cases, the largest part of that burden falls precisely on the Ministry of the Interior.

Courts Generally Confirm the Committee’s Positions

Interestingly, despite the Committee massively annulling others’ decisions, its own decisions almost regularly pass judicial review. During 2025, 71 administrative disputes were initiated against the Committee’s decisions, which is only eight percent of the total resolved cases.

The competent administrative courts issued 96 judgments, of which in 54 cases the claim was rejected, and in only one case did the court decide contrary to the Committee’s legal interpretation in favor of the civil servant. The Committee emphasizes in the conclusion of the report that this confirms that only one percent of court judgments on the merits deviated from its decisions.

The Case of the State Inspectorate

A special case is a group of 19 cases relating to officials of the State Inspectorate. They were granted a more favorable status in placement by special law, but according to the report, the first-instance body ‘repeatedly stubbornly refused to act’ on the second-instance decisions of the Committee, despite the fact that the relevant officials have since retired.

The court ultimately annulled the decision by which the first-instance body suspended the procedure, deeming it an abuse of the normative framework, and ordered the payment of salary to the complainant according to the previous final decision.

The report also reveals a serious staffing deficit within the body itself. The Committee consists of eight appointed members, one of whom served as president, but only one official from the Ministry of Justice, Administration and Digital Transformation performs administrative tasks for the entire body. The Committee itself assesses in the report that this is too little for continuous and quality performance of tasks and calls for amendments to the Civil Servants Act to enable the establishment of its own professional service within the body.

Reduced Number of Unresolved Cases

Despite the increase in the influx of cases, the Committee states that during 2025 it continued to reduce the number of unresolved cases, thereby reducing the number of lawsuits due to failure to issue decisions within the prescribed time. However, as of December 31, 2025, a total of 773 administrative cases remained unresolved, of which as many as 479 were from 2025 alone (the highest number of complaints regarding placement, 178, and regarding the obligation to take the state exam, 188).

Additionally, the report states that 406,863 euros were planned for the Committee’s operations in 2025, while 372,956.90 euros were spent.

In its concluding assessment, the Committee warns that alongside structural changes in the civil service, the number of complaints is increasing and that it is essential to work on preventing future disputes, primarily through the education of officials who resolve civil service relations in first-instance bodies, and through the development of a clearer normative framework that would eliminate ambiguities in the application of certain civil service institutes.