Hundreds of state temporary workers are terminated today with only ten days' notice due to the closure of European funds.

At the end of August 2026, there is no record in the General Courts of a state law in process dedicated exclusively and nominally to the hiring of interim staff linked to European funds. The regulation of these figures is based on general public employment rules and provisions linked to the Recovery Plan, but not on a clearly identifiable “bill on interim staff for European funds” whose processing can be followed as a single file.

From the European Union's point of view, the underlying problem is not a specific type of interim staff, but the abuse of temporariness in the public sector. Brussels has conditioned part of the Recovery Plan disbursements on Spain adopting effective measures to reduce this temporariness and sanction abuse, which includes many interim staff hired to manage projects funded with European funds.

1. State framework and links with European funds

The current regulatory architecture has been built in several layers:

• In 2021, Law 20/2021 on the reduction of temporariness was approved, which amended the Basic Statute of the Public Employee and set, among other elements, strict time limits on interim appointments due to vacancies. This law is already in force and is not currently under processing.
• Various royal decree-laws linked to the Recovery Plan have allowed strengthening staff funded by European funds (MRR, REACT-EU, etc.), but those decrees were already ratified or expired in the previous legislature; the available information does not currently identify a new specific royal decree-law on interim staff for European funds in the ratification phase.
• The Government and the European Commission have negotiated an additional package of measures to respond to the rulings of the CJEU and the Supreme Court on interim staff. According to specialized press, part of the pending European funds (around several hundred million) are associated with the reform of the Public Function Law, but this reform addresses temporariness generally, not creating a differentiated category of “interim staff for European funds.”

The parliamentary and political news consulted describe the Public Function Law as a regulation under processing in the Congress, with intense debate on how to treat interim staff, but without presenting it as a specific regulation for interim staff financed with EU funds. The processing is conditioned by disagreements between groups (for example, threats not to support the law if a stronger solution for interim staff is not given), which contributes to its slowdown.

2. Related but not specific initiatives

In the parliamentary database, for example, there is a Non-Law Proposal from the Socialist Group on support for the management capacities of European funds in small municipalities (file 161/003178, in the Congress), pending debate. It focuses on strengthening the capacity to capture and execute funds, and in its statement of reasons it refers to administrative and human resources complexity, but it does not directly regulate the legal status of interim staff nor create a special regime for them.

Other key texts for the execution of European funds (such as economic bills or organizational reforms linked to the Recovery Plan) have been blocked or slowed down for political reasons, according to the press, and some have even been withdrawn from the formal package of “reforms linked to EU funds.” In any case, those texts are also not presented as a monographic regulation of the hiring of interim staff.

3. Role of regional and sectoral regulations

A very relevant part of the specific cases of “interim staff for European funds” is being regulated at the regional and sectoral level, outside the General Courts. For example:

• The Community of Madrid has approved a modification of its public function regulations to extend up to four years the duration of certain interim appointments in temporary programs funded by European funds and the Recovery and Resilience Mechanism, adapting to the basic state legislation.
• In health, drafts of the new Statutory Framework for statutory personnel and human resources plans (such as those of INGESA) include limits on the duration of interim status and rules for cessation aligned with state reforms, without expressly differentiating by the funding source of the position.

These regional regulations follow their own parliamentary processing in regional parliaments or are approved by decree/order, and are designed to align the execution of European funds with the temporariness limits set at the state and European level.

4. Summary

In summary, the current situation is a regulatory mosaic:

• At the state level, the reduction of temporariness (including that of interim staff managing European funds) is based on already approved rules and a Public Function Law under processing, but there is no specific and unique law on “interim staff for European funds” with an easily identifiable file.
• At the regional level, specific adjustments are being approved to adapt the duration and conditions of interim staff to the schedules of projects funded by the EU.

Without a more concrete reference (bill or royal decree-law number), only this general picture can be offered: the issue is addressed transversally in several ongoing or already approved reforms, rather than in a single parliamentary regulation dedicated exclusively to interim staff linked to European funds.

The information extracted from the tools has not returned, in a usable way, the specific articles enumerating the current functions of the Directorate General of Public Function (DGFP). Nevertheless, it is possible to explain in an indicative manner what its main areas of competence are in practice within the General State Administration, as they are usually formulated in the royal decrees of basic organic structure of ministries.

Firstly, the DGFP is the management body responsible for the public function and human resources policy of the General State Administration. Under this idea are grouped functions such as proposing and developing the basic regulations on state public employment, defining criteria for workforce planning, and preparing guidelines for the management of civil servant and labor personnel.

A second central block is the planning and organization of human resources. It is usually assigned tasks such as preparing studies and proposals on personnel needs, determining criteria for programming human resources in ministries and agencies, and coordinating instruments such as job position listings, staffing, and other job classification systems.

In connection with the above, the DGFP usually takes the initiative in matters of public employment offer. This includes coordinating the annual proposal of the public employment offer of the General State Administration and its state public sector, establishing general criteria for selection processes, and monitoring the execution of the offer (calls, test development, effective provision of positions).

Another classic area is the legal regime of personnel. The royal decrees of organic structure usually assign the DGFP the preparation of regulatory projects and the interpretation and development of public function legislation: access, career progression, provision of positions, administrative situations, incompatibilities, working hours and schedules, permits and licenses, as well as general criteria on performance evaluation, productivity, and complementary remuneration, in coordination with the Treasury when appropriate.

It is also typically entrusted with the coordination of collective bargaining and social dialogue within the scope of the General State Administration. This includes preparing the department's positions in general negotiation tables, technical interlocution with the most representative trade unions, and issuing guidelines for negotiation in sectoral or departmental areas, respecting the competences of other bodies but ensuring a common position of the Administration.

In organizational terms, the DGFP is usually responsible for maintaining and managing personnel records and information systems: central registers of civil servant and labor personnel, job position databases, integrated human resources information systems, as well as preparing official statistics on state public employment. These functions are formulated so that the Directorate General acts as a reference and coordination body so that the different departments feed and use these systems homogeneously.

Additionally, it is usually assigned competences in inter-administrative relations and coordination with autonomous communities in public function matters. This usually translates into preparing the work of the Sectoral Conference on Public Administration and other cooperation bodies, preparing reports on regional regulatory projects when they affect the basic regime of public employment, and promoting common criteria in areas such as selection, training, or evaluation.

Finally, it is common for the organic royal decrees to entrust the DGFP with the promotion of modernization, professionalization, and training programs for personnel of the General State Administration. Although the main responsibility for training execution lies with the National Institute of Public Administration, the Directorate General provides guidelines on professional competencies, new profiles, digitalization of personnel management, and adaptation of the public function to broader administrative reforms.

In summary, therefore, the Directorate General of Public Function acts as the reference body to design and coordinate the personnel policy of the General State Administration: it defines the regulatory framework, plans and organizes human resources, promotes the public employment offer, directs public function policy in its legal and collective bargaining aspects, and maintains the information and coordination systems that make homogeneous management of state public employment possible.

The dismissal of interim civil servants in the General State Administration (AGE) is strongly conditioned by the Basic Statute of the Public Employee (EBEP) and specific state public function regulations. It is not a “free” dismissal: it must be based on a legally provided cause, follow a minimum procedure, and respect the defense guarantees of the interested party.

1. Basic regulatory framework

The general regime is in Royal Legislative Decree 5/2015, which approves the revised text of the EBEP. Its article on interim civil servants:

• Defines that they are appointed for justified reasons of necessity and urgency to perform functions typical of career civil servants.
• Links the appointment to specific causes: unfilled vacancy, temporary substitution, temporary program, or excess/accumulation of tasks.
• Establishes that the Administration must formalize ex officio the termination of the interim status in certain cases, without right to compensation except in the case of exceeding maximum deadlines.

Additionally, Law 20/2021, on measures to reduce temporariness in public employment, has reinforced the duration limits of interim status and introduced economic compensation when the Administration exceeds the maximum deadlines.

2. Objective causes for dismissal

The EBEP (art. 10, in its current wording) and Order APU/1461/2002 (which regulates the selection and appointment of interim staff in the AGE) essentially include the following causes for dismissal:

• Regulated coverage of the position by a career civil servant, by any of the provision or access systems established.
• Suppression or elimination of the position for organizational reasons.
• Expiration of the authorized term stated in the appointment.
• End of the cause that gave rise to the interim status:
  • Reinstatement of the substituted holder or extinction of their right to reserve the position.
  • Conclusion of the temporary program for which the interim was appointed.
  • End of the excess or accumulation of tasks.
• In the AGE, Order APU/1461/2002 adds as a cause that “the urgency reasons that motivated the interim coverage no longer exist”, which requires justification of why that urgency has disappeared.

In all these cases, dismissal is a due act if the cause actually exists, but procedural guarantees must be followed.

3. Failure to meet appointment requirements

Both the EBEP and the development regulations foresee that if after the appointment it is verified that the interim did not meet the required qualifications (degree, nationality, etc.), the access actions may be annulled and the appointment revoked. In practice:

• The lack of requirements must be objectively proven.
• The interested party has the right to prior hearing and to submit allegations.
• The dismissal resolution must be motivated and notified.

4. Dismissal as a consequence of disciplinary sanction

In disciplinary matters, the EBEP provides for the sanction of separation from service of civil servants, and specifies that, in the case of interim staff, this sanction entails revocation of the appointment, reserved for very serious offenses. To impose it:

• It is mandatory to process a disciplinary procedure with full defense guarantees.
• There must be separation between the investigating and sanctioning bodies and respect for the principles of effectiveness, speed, and procedural economy.
• The sanctioning resolution, which entails definitive dismissal, must be motivated and appealable.

5. Minimum procedural guarantees

Although the EBEP does not detail a specific dismissal procedure for interim staff, general administrative procedure legislation applies. Consequently, for a valid dismissal, at least the following must be met:

• Identification and motivation of the legal cause justifying the dismissal (position coverage, elimination, end of program, sanction, etc.).
• Formal notification to the interim civil servant, indicating facts, legal grounds, effective date, and available appeals.
• Respect for the principles of equality and non-arbitrariness, avoiding using dismissal for purposes other than those provided in the regulation.
• Possibility to appeal the dismissal (administrative appeal and, if applicable, contentious-administrative appeal).

Additionally, when the Administration exceeds the maximum periods of interim status, the EBEP establishes an economic compensation of up to twenty days of fixed remuneration per year of service (maximum twelve months), without prejudice to the fact that dismissal remains mandatory once the position is covered or the cause of interim status has disappeared.

6. Differences with temporary labor personnel

The main difference is the nature of the relationship:

• The interim has a statutory relationship subject to the EBEP; their dismissal is based on the causes and administrative procedures described.
• Temporary labor personnel are governed by employment contracts and labor regulations; termination is subject to the causes and guarantees of the Workers' Statute and social jurisdiction.

However, the EBEP also provides for a specific economic compensation for temporary labor personnel when the Administration exceeds the maximum periods of permanence, calculated similarly as twenty days of fixed salary per year of service (maximum twelve months), which is added — if applicable — to the labor indemnity that may correspond.