Personal Security Clearance: When International Careers Meet National Obstacles

Layla El Khadraoui

If you work in an EU Delegation as expatriate staff, you now need a valid Personal Security Clearance (PSC) as it has become a formal requirement for serving in Delegations. In practice, this rule applies across staff categories assigned abroad, and the institutions link it to their responsibility to protect people, assets and sensitive information in often complex security environments.

Although the requirement is imposed at EU level, the clearance itself is issued by your EU Member State, and national procedures vary greatly. This means that staff doing the same job for the same employer can face very different administrative hurdles depending on their nationality, residence history or personal background.

This USHU newsletter explains what PSC means in practice for expatriate colleagues in Delegations and why it has become such an important issue, indicating where the main problems and support gaps still remain.

1) PSC legal framework: where things stand

The EEAS adopted a Decision in November 2025 setting out PSC rules. However, that EEAS Decision does not apply to Commission staff. The Commission is now preparing its own separate Decision, reportedly aligned with the EEAS approach. What this means in practice is that staff still need more clarity on some very basic questions:

·      When will the Commission Decision be adopted?

·      How closely will it mirror the EEAS rules?

·      What will change for Commission staff already serving in Delegations?

·      Will it address the very real problems staff are already facing in national clearance procedures?

This follow-up is essential. A separate Commission framework cannot simply reproduce the same problems without proper safeguards for staff.

2) Administrative refusals by Member States: the real problem

In many cases, PSCs are refused or delayed not because of misconduct or identified security concerns, but because national authorities say they do not have enough information to verify a person’s background after long periods abroad, dual nationality, or a complex international profile.

In other words, colleagues may be treated as a “risk” simply because they have done what Delegation work requires: live and work internationally.

What we are seeing:

·      Staff of different categories can be affected.

·      Some Member States appear unable or unwilling to complete checks for nationals who have lived abroad for long periods.

·      The Commission and EEAS accept these refusals without deeper scrutiny or adequate staff support.

A colleague testified: “My PSC was refused because the authorities said they could not verify certain parts of my life abroad. However, no criminal offence, false declaration, prohibited contact, or any other specific security risk was ever identified, and the Member State itself acknowledged this. I was not invited to an interview, not asked to clarify anything, and not given the opportunity to provide additional documents before the refusal was issued.”

The above distinction matters. There is a big difference between a refusal based on specific, established security concerns, and a refusal based on administrative inability to verify information.

It creates a system where career opportunities can depend more on your nationality and your Member State’s administrative capacity than on your professional record. This could lead to structural inequalities where certain nationalities are being placed at a clear disadvantage.

3) Temporary fixes are not enough

In some cases, the Member State is resorting to issuing short PSC extensions as a temporary workaround for renewals or near-expiry situations. But these temporary fixes do not address nor solve the deeper issue.

The current approach leaves colleagues in uncertainty and fear, especially when institutions speak vaguely about “appropriate measures” without explaining what that means in practice.

Without proper communication, a temporary extension feels less like reassurance and more like a countdown.

4) Support gaps: staff are largely left on their own

The PSC requirement is imposed by the institutions, but staff are largely left alone to deal with the consequences.

What is missing?

·      No harmonised support framework across EU Member States.

·      No central guidance for staff on procedures or likely obstacles.

·      No structured institutional help with national authorities.

·      No clear support for appeals or follow-up when refusals occur.

·      No adequate safeguards for staff whose contracts or assignments may be affected.

·      No compensation for the significant costs related to following-up on PSC issues including appeals, legal support etc

For colleagues in Delegations, this can mean:

·      travelling back to their Member State for hearings or administrative steps,

·      taking leave to deal with procedures,

·      paying legal or procedural costs,

·      and carrying the emotional burden of possible non-renewal or job loss.

This isn’t just bureaucracy—it’s people’s jobs, family planning, wellbeing and mental health.

5) Why USHU is concerned

USHU is concerned because the current PSC approach appears to create a two-tier system.

Some colleagues can obtain PSCs relatively smoothly. Others face major barriers because of factors entirely outside their control:

·      nationality,

·      long residence abroad,

·      dual citizenship,

·      international family ties,

·      or a Member State’s limited administrative capacity.

This is especially hard on staff, and even more so for lower-paid staff such as Contract Agents, who may only be able to start their assignment in Delegations after receiving the national clearance—making delays and refusals even more damaging.

6) What needs to happen next

From USHU’s perspective, the priorities are clear.

We need:

·      Clear communication from the Commission on the PSC framework for its staff.

·      Transparency about refusals, extensions and applicable procedures.

·      Practical guidance for staff facing problems or appeals.

·      Institutional backing with Member States where procedures are blocked or opaque.

·      Equal treatment measures, including consideration of reimbursement of PSC-related costs, such as travel and legal fees.

·      Duty-of-care support, including legal and mental health support for affected staff.

Staff representatives have already urged the administration to engage directly with Member States, provide standardised support, consider temporary internal solutions or derogations, and prevent unfair contract consequences.

In parallel, concerns have also been raised about whether the institutions are meeting their obligations regarding equal treatment, proportionality, transparency and duty of care.

USHU is here to assist you

We know this issue is stressful and, for some colleagues, deeply unsettling. USHU will continue pushing for clearer rules, fairer treatment and real support for affected staff.

If you have questions, have received concerning communication about your PSC, or want to share your experience confidentially, please reach out to USHU. The more we hear from colleagues, the stronger our case for change will be.

You do not have to face this alone.