# Recommendation on the European Central Bank’s refusal to grant parental leave to a staff member on a short-term contract (case 1364/2025/ET)
- Author: European Ombudsman
- Date: 2026-06-29T00:00+02:00[Europe/Paris]
- [URL](https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/recommendation/en/228477)
---
> The complaint concerned the European Central Bank's (ECB) refusal to grant parental leave to a staff member employed under a temporary secondment contract (ESCB/IO) used for exchanges with national central banks and with a maximum duration of three years. The complainant argued that excluding staff on such contracts from parental leave breached the principle of equal treatment and the right to parental leave under Article 33(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
> 
> The ECB maintained that its rules were justified by the specific and temporary nature of ESCB/IO contracts, the need to ensure operational continuity, and the fact that staff retained access to parental leave under their national employment systems. It argued that Article 33(2) of the Charter does not confer an unconditional right to parental leave and that it retained discretion to determine the applicable conditions.
> 
> The Ombudsman found that the ECB had failed to demonstrate that refusing the fundamental right to parental leave for ESCB/IO staff was justified and proportionate, or that less restrictive measures could not be adopted. The Ombudsman also considered that the possibility of taking parental leave later under national law was not an adequate substitute for exercising that right when most relevant for the care of a young child.
> 
> The Ombudsman concluded that this constituted maladministration and recommended that the ECB review its rules on short-term employment to ensure proportionate access to parental leave, particularly for ESCB/IO contracts renewed beyond an initial period.
> 
Background to the complaint
---------------------------

**1.**The complainant worked at the European Central Bank (ECB) for three years during 2022 to 2025 and gave birth to a child during this time. At the ECB, she was employed under an 'ESCB/IO short-term employment contract'. This contract type is designed to allow temporary exchanges of staff between the ECB and national central banks, with specific terms and conditions. During her assignment, her employment relationship with her national bank was suspended.

**2.**Her original contract at the ECB was for one year. That contract was subsequently extended twice, bringing her total tenure to three years, the maximum period allowed under the applicable ESCB/IO rules.

**3.** In the spring of 2024, while pregnant with her first child, the complainant submitted a request[\[1\]](#_ftn1){#_ftnref1} for parental leave following the end of her maternity leave, given that she anticipated potential gaps in childcare arrangements.

**4.**In July 2024, the ECB rejected her request for parental leave. It explained that staff on short-term contracts are not entitled to parental leave under the applicable rules. The ECB added that granting parental leave to short-term staff could undermine the purpose of such contracts and suggested that she could consider part-time work or other flexible arrangements.

**5.**In September 2024, the complainant sought an administrative review of the ECB's decision. She noted that her contract with the ECB ran up to the maximum of three years and thus the decision could not be justified by the duration of her contract.

**6.**The ECB rejected the administrative review in November 2024. It argued, among other things, that if the ECB were to give ESCB/IO short-term staff the same right to parental leave as under the general Staff Rules, that is, a maximum of three years, this could lead to a short-term staff member spending most of their contract on such leave, which would undermine the purpose of the contract.

**7.** The ECB also referred to a judgment of the EU Court[\[2\]](#_ftn2){#_ftnref2} regarding the right of ECB ESCB/IO short-term staff to family allowances. The ECB said that the Court came to the conclusion that the fact that a short-term employee had no right to family allowances was not problematic. The Court held that, having regard to the objective pursued by the ESCB/IO programme, the ECB did not misuse its discretionary power relating to staff matters by establishing a specific compensation scheme in respect of the employee on a short-term contract, in so far as it is not apparent that the differentiation that the ECB made was inappropriate in relation to the objective pursued. The Court also found that as an employee of the ECB on a short-term contract in the context of the ESCB-IO programme, the applicant is in a situation characterised by particular constraints.

**8.** In December 2024, the complainant appealed the decision via a 'grievance procedure'[\[3\]](#_ftn3){#_ftnref3}. The ECB rejected it in January 2025, reiterating its reliance on the Court case previously referred to[\[4\]](#_ftn4){#_ftnref4} and maintaining that the different treatment of short-term staff was objectively justified by the nature and purpose of the ESCB/IO programme.

**9.**In May 2025, the complainant submitted a complaint to the European Ombudsman. She asked the Ombudsman to examine the ECB's practice and to recommend changes to ensure that staff in a situation such as hers could benefit from the right to parental leave.

The inquiry
-----------

**10.**The Ombudsman opened an inquiry into the ECB's reasons for not granting the complainant parental leave. In the course of the inquiry, the Ombudsman held a meeting with representatives of the ECB and later received the complainant's comments on the meeting report. The ECB also sent a written reply in response to additional questions from the Ombudsman, as well as a further reply to the complainant's comments.

**11.** The Ombudsman noted the ECB's position that it is not bound by EU directives, including Directive 2019/1158 on work-life balance, and that it applies instead its own staff rules. The Ombudsman recalled, however, the EU Courts' case-law[\[5\]](#_ftn5){#_ftnref5} according to which, although directives are not binding as such on EU institutions, the principles laid down in directives may nevertheless be relied upon where those directives give specific expression to fundamental Treaty rules or general principles of EU law. The Courts have also held that a directive may become binding on an EU institution where, within its organisational autonomy, it has chosen to implement obligations laid down in that directive or has expressly referred to it in internal measures of general application.

**12.** Against this background, the Ombudsman sought clarification as to whether, by granting parental leave to certain categories of staff, the ECB had implemented Directive 2019/1158 in whole or in part, and whether it therefore considered the relevant case-law applicable. The Ombudsman further recalled that EU institutions, acting as employers, are required to respect fundamental rights based on Article 51(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union[\[6\]](#_ftn6){#_ftnref6} ('the Charter') and, in accordance with the duty of good faith, to take account of EU legislation establishing minimum standards to improve working conditions. In light of Article 33(2) of the Charter, which guarantees the right to parental leave, and the objectives of Directive 2019/1158, the Ombudsman invited the ECB to set out its view on how its staff rules applicable to ESCB/IO short-term staff were compatible with the right to parental leave as protected by EU law.

### Arguments presented to the Ombudsman

##### By the complainant

**13.** The complainant submits that, by refusing her access to parental leave and by strictly applying the existing rules on short-term employment, the ECB breached the principle of equal treatment and Article 33(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which guarantees the right to parental leave. She noted that the EU Charter lays down, in Article 33(2), that *"to reconcile family and professional life, everyone shall have the right to protection from dismissal for a reason connected with maternity and the right to paid maternity leave and to **parental leave following the birth or adoption of a child**."* (emphasis added).

**14.**She argues that staff on short-term contracts are treated less favourably than staff on comparable fixed-term and permanent contracts with regard to parental leave, solely on the basis of the duration and form of their contract. In her view, this constitutes unjustified discrimination contrary to EU law.

**15.**She submits that the purpose of parental leave, as reflected in EU law, is to enable parents to care for their child during the early years of life. The duration or temporary nature of an employment contract is not relevant to that objective and therefore cannot constitute an objective justification for excluding an entire category of staff.

**16.** The complainant contends that the ECB's reliance on particular EU case-law[***\[7\]***](#_ftn7){#_ftnref7} is misplaced, as that case concerned family allowances rather than parental leave, which is a distinct right set out in Article 33(2) of the Charter. She further notes that, unlike the applicant in that Court case, she would not benefit from parallel rights serving a similar purpose (in the Court case in question, those rights were other allowances and social security entitlements).

**17.**She also disputes the ECB's argument that her ability to take parental leave under national law upon returning to her home institution compensates for the impossibility to take parental leave during her employment at the ECB. Parental leave, she argues, may have a different value depending on when it is taken in the child's life, and a deferred right may amount, in practice, to a denial of that right.

**18.**She notes that the ECB's position on the timing of parental leave is simply inconsistent with its declared views on the purpose of such leave. In relation to its fixed term contracts, it has limited paid parental leave to the first three years of a child's life. It argued that infants and toddlers require more intensive care and attention, frequent medical appointments, and support for crucial developmental milestones. This period also allows for essential bonding and adjustment to parenthood, which are vital for both the child's and parents' well-being, according to the ECB. The complainant therefore finds it very inconsistent that the ECB argues that her taking parental leave later, after she leaves the ECB and when her child is older, in no way deprives her of that right.

**19.**She also argues that, to benefit from the complementary health insurance provided by the ECB, she had to suspend her affiliation to her social security provider in her home country. She thus argues that the ECB's claim that her national parental leave rights were in some way 'active' during her time at the ECB cannot be credible.

**20.**With regard to the ECB's argument that EU employment directives do not apply to its staff, the complainant points out that the ECB has recently amended its Staff Rules for fixed-term and permanent staff to introduce paid parental leave in line with Directive 2019/1158. In this context, maintaining a complete exclusion of short-term staff from this right is increasingly difficult to justify, particularly where such staff may work for the ECB for up to three consecutive years. She believes the ECB's justification, that ESCB/IO staff only work on specific short-term projects, where an absence due to parental leave would be heavily disruptive, is not supported by the facts. She argues that she and other staff on such contracts were recruited for day-to-day activities, akin to those carried out by staff on permanent or fixed-term contracts.

**21.** Lastly, the complainant notes that the ECB's arguments in relation to the right to *paid* parental leave cannot apply to her case, since she was requesting *unpaid* parental leave. Unpaid parental leave would not have a negative budgetary impact on the ECB.

### By the ECB

##### The legal framework

**22.**The ECB submits that its decision on the complainant's request complies with the Conditions and Rules for Short-Term Employment, which benefit from a presumption of legality.

**23.**EU directives, including Directive 2019/1158, are addressed to Member States and are not binding on EU institutions as such. The ECB acknowledges the case-law according to which directives may be relied upon in certain circumstances, including where they reflect general principles of EU law, where an institution has chosen to implement them, or pursuant to the duty of good faith. The ECB argues, however, that it has not undertaken to implement that Directive in full and it therefore retains discretion to determine the categories of staff covered by its parental leave framework.

###### Distinction between categories of staff

**24.**The ECB relies on settled case-law recognising that EU institutions may establish different categories of staff and employment regimes. It submits that differences in treatment are permissible where they are objectively justified. Staff employed under ESCB/IO short-term contracts constitute a distinct category, subject to a separate legal and factual framework.

###### Nature of ESCB/IO short-term contracts

**25.**The ECB submits that ESCB/IO short-term contracts are secondment-based and temporary in nature. They are designed to promote cooperation within the European System of Central Banks and the single supervisory mechanism through predefined short-term assignments. Such contracts remain linked to the employment relationship with the sending national institution and are subject to specific constraints, including uncertainty regarding their renewal after an initial period.

**26.**ESCB/IO contracts are accompanied by a distinct set of conditions and benefits. These include, in particular, travel and accommodation allowances and more flexible termination arrangements. Those elements reflect the specific and temporary character of the contracts.

###### Justification for excluding the right to parental leave

**27.**In light of the specific characteristics of ESCB/IO short-term contracts, the ECB submits that extending parental leave to ESCB/IO staff would undermine the purpose of the programme, which is to foster close collaboration through temporary assignments. Giving such staff the right to parental leave could lead to operational disruption, particularly in situations where several staff members are absent simultaneously. The ECB considered a pro rata approach to parental leave for ESCB/IO short-term contracts, but it rejected this option because a clear eligibility threshold is necessary to ensure organisational predictability and business continuity.

###### Distinction between maternity and parental leave

**28.**The ECB distinguishes parental leave from maternity leave, as maternity leave is immediate and non-deferrable. By contrast, parental leave may be taken flexibly over time. This difference has distinct implications for workforce planning in the context of temporary assignments.

###### Continued access to parental leave under national law

**29.**The ECB submits that ESCB/IO short-term staff maintain their employment relationship with their home institution during and after their assignment, thus ensuring that they retain access to parental leave under the applicable national system.

**30.**In this case, the complainant could thus claim parental leave under national law upon returning to her home institution. On that basis, the ECB concludes that ESCB/IO staff are not deprived of the right to parental leave.

**31.** The difference in treatment compared with fixed-term and permanent staff, who do not retain such an entitlement at national level, falls within its margin of discretion[\[8\]](#_ftn8){#_ftnref8}.

**32.**The ECB acknowledges that the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union is binding on EU institutions. It submits, however, that Article 33(2) does not establish an unconditional right to paid parental leave. Employers retain discretion to determine the conditions governing the exercise of that right.

### The Ombudsman's assessment leading to a recommendation

**33.**The Ombudsman notes that the ECB applied the rules governing short-term employment as they currently stand. Those rules do not provide for parental leave for staff on ESCB/IO short-term contracts.

**34.** However, compliance with internal rules does not exhaust an EU institution's obligations under EU law. As the ECB acknowledges, it is bound by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, including Article 33(2), which establishes the right to parental leave. While that provision in the Charter does not define the detailed conditions governing the exercise of that right, the discretion enjoyed by the ECB is not unlimited, as will be set out below. The ECB's statement that there is no unconditional right to *paid* parental leave is not relevant in this case, given that the complainant's request was for *unpaid*parental leave.

**35.**The Ombudsman further acknowledges the ECB's argument that EU institutions may establish different categories of staff and that differences in treatment may be objectively justified. This principle is well established in the case-law. However, the existence of distinct categories of staff cannot, in itself, justify a refusal of a fundamental right.

**36.**According to Article 52(1) of the Charter, any limitation on the exercise of the rights and freedoms recognised by the Charter must be provided for by law and respect the essence of those rights and freedoms. Subject to the principle of proportionality, limitations may be made only if they are necessary and genuinely meet objectives of general interest recognised by the Union or the need to protect the rights and freedoms of others. The Ombudsman considers that the ECB's refusal to grant ESCB/IO short-term staff any parental leave does not fulfil the Charter's conditions for limiting that right. As will be set out below, the ECB has not demonstrated that the organisational challenges it invokes constitute 'objectives of general interest recognised by the Union' capable of justifying such a far-reaching limitation - a blanket refusal - of the right concerned.

**37.** Relating to this aspect of fundamental rights, the Ombudsman notes that the Court case on which the ECB relies on in its argumentation examined the application of Article 24 of the Charter, which lays down a general principle that children have the right to the protection and care, and not Article 33(2), which establishes the right to parental leave. The Court found that it was not possible to infer from Article 24 a specific obligation on the part of the ECB to establish a special scheme of family allowances. The Ombudsman notes that the situation in this case is very different in that parental leave is not a right that would need to be *inferred* from the Charter, but a clearly established right on its own.

**38.** The Ombudsman also notes that the ECB considered, but rejected, a pro rata approach to parental leave on the basis that a clear eligibility threshold was necessary to ensure organisational predictability and business continuity. In this regard, and while the Ombudsman notes that the ECB is not generally bound by EU employment legislation, the EU Directive 2019/1158 on work-life balance for parents and carers[\[9\]](#_ftn9){#_ftnref9} allows for a qualifying period of up to one year of employment before giving access to parental leave. The Ombudsman considers that EU legislation may serve as inspiration to EU institutions on how to implement the right to parental leave.

**39.** Against this background, the Ombudsman considers that the ECB should not have dismissed alternative solutions, such as a pro rata entitlement to parental leave. A pro rata entitlement could have represented a reasonable and proportionate means of balancing the interests of the institution with the right of staff members to take parental leave, particularly given that the complainant's request in question concerned unpaid leave. The Ombudsman recognises that extending parental leave arrangements to staff employed under short-term contracts, who also retain an employment relationship with a national employer, may require tailored and potentially imperfect solutions. However, the existence of practical difficulties does not justify excluding such staff entirely from access to parental leave. In the Ombudsman's view, the ECB should have explored whether an adapted form of parental leave that reflected the specific circumstances of this category of staff could have been made available. [\[10\]](#_ftn10){#_ftnref10}

**40.**The ECB further relies on the specific nature of ESCB/IO short-term contracts, which it describes as temporary, secondment-based assignments linked to the sending institution and designed to support predefined, short-term exchanges. The Ombudsman does not dispute that the contracts may have those characteristics. The Ombudsman nevertheless observes that the complainant was employed at the ECB for a rather long period, 36 months, corresponding to the maximum duration permitted under the applicable rules.

**41.**Regarding the nature of contracts, the ECB's Rules for Short-Term Employment list the conditions for such contracts and successive contracts. The contracts essentially allow posts to be filled temporarily to replace staff absent for medical or other reasons, or to obtain specific expertise on an ad hoc basis or manage a temporary increase in workload. However, the ECB has not demonstrated that the tasks performed by the complainant during her 36 months working for the ECB were limited to short-term or project-based exchanges, as opposed to forming part of the ECB's ongoing activities. In these circumstances, there is an indication that the use of ESCB/IO short-term contracts may, in practice, extend beyond the narrowly defined purpose invoked by the ECB.

**42.**The ECB further argues that granting parental leave to ESCB/IO short-term staff could lead to operational disruption, particularly where several staff members are absent simultaneously. However, the ECB has not provided concrete evidence to substantiate that risk in the present context, nor has it demonstrated that such disruption could not be mitigated through less restrictive measures. In this regard, the Ombudsman notes that the EU Directive 2019/1158, which again may serve as inspiration, allows employers to postpone parental leave for a reasonable period, in case such leave would seriously disrupt the good functioning of the employer.

**43.** As regards the distinction drawn between maternity leave and parental leave, the Ombudsman accepts that the two types of leave differ in certain respects, including as regards timing and flexibility. However, that distinction does not, in itself, explain why parental leave should be excluded *entirely* for a category of staff.

**44.**The ECB further submits that ESCB/IO short-term staff retain access to parental leave under their national system upon returning to their home institution and are therefore not deprived of that right. In that regard, the Ombudsman notes that the possibility of exercising parental leave at a later stage, under a different employment context, cannot be regarded as equivalent to the right to take such leave at the time when it is most relevant for the care of a young child. A deferred entitlement could, in practice, undermine the effective exercise of the right. The ECB itself appears to have taken a similar position when deciding to limit the parental leave for staff on fixed-term contracts to the first three years of a child's life based on the additional care and attention needed by this age group. The Ombudsman further notes that, if a similar three-year rule is applied under the relevant national system, staff on an ESCB/IO short-term contract lasting 36 months could no longer benefit from parental leave once they come back to their home institution, which means they would be, in fact, deprived of that right, contrary to the ECB's argument.

**45.**On the basis of the above, and noting in particular Article 33(2) of the Charter, the Ombudsman does not find justified the ECB's outright refusal to grant parental leave for staff employed under ESCB/IO short-term contracts.

**46.**To remedy this instance of maladministration, the Ombudsman makes a recommendation to the ECB.

Recommendation
--------------

On the basis of the inquiry into this complaint, the Ombudsman makes the following recommendation to the European Central Bank:

**The** **European Central Bank should re-examine its rules on short-term employment, in particular for ESCB/IO contracts that are renewed beyond an initial period, with a view to ensuring that access to parental leave is not excluded in a blanket manner but regulated in a proportionate way that takes account of the duration of service.**

The European Central Bank and the complainant will be informed of this recommendation. In accordance with Article 4(2) of the Statute of the European Ombudsman, the European Central Bank shall send a detailed opinion by 30 September 2026.

Teresa Anjinho  
European Ombudsman

<br />

Strasbourg, 29/06/2026

[\[1\]](#_ftnref1){#_ftn1} Under Article 7.1.1 of the ECB Rules for Short-Term Employment.

[\[2\]](#_ftnref2){#_ftn2} Judgment of the General Court of 12 March 2020, *XB v. ECB, T-484/18,* <https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62018TJ0484>

[\[3\]](#_ftnref3){#_ftn3} Under the ECB's rules for short term employment, an employee may request a decision about a matter concerning them. If the ECB rejects the request, the employee can request an administrative review. If this is rejected and the employee is still dissatisfied, they may lodge a "grievance procedure" to obtain the ECB's final position on the matter.

[\[4\]](#_ftnref4){#_ftn4} Judgment of the General Court of 12 March 2020, *XB v. ECB, T-484/18,* <https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62018TJ0484>

[\[5\]](#_ftnref5){#_ftn5} Judgment of the General Court (Appeal Chamber) of 8 November 2012, *Strack v. Commission, T-268/11 P,* <https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:62011TJ0268_SUM>

[\[6\]](#_ftnref6){#_ftn6} https://www.europarl.europa.eu/charter/pdf/text_en.pdf

[\[7\]](#_ftnref7){#_ftn7} Judgment of the General Court of 12 March 2020, *XB v. ECB, T-484/18,* <https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62018TJ0484>

[\[8\]](#_ftnref8){#_ftn8} Referring to Judgment of the General Court of 12 March 2020, *XB v. ECB, T-484/18,* <https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62018TJ0484>

[\[9\]](#_ftnref9){#_ftn9} DIRECTIVE (EU) 2019/1158 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 20 June 2019 on work-life balance for parents and carers and repealing Council Directive 2010/18/EU, Article 5(4) https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2019.188.01.0079.01.ENG

[\[10\]](#_ftnref10){#_ftn10} The Ombudsman notes that Commission Decision C(2008)6866 on seconded national experts (SNEs) specifies that the Commission may authorise suspensions of periods of secondment at the request of the SNE or their employer, and with the latter's agreement. The period of suspension shall not be counted in the period of secondment (Article 9). Such mechanisms can provide for parental leave at national level, while still continuing a secondment after a period of leave.