The European Union’s Translation Centre (CdT), based in Luxembourg, celebrated this year three decades of providing linguistic services to European institutions. Behind the festive commemorations, tensions began to surface in late 2023, when translators in several language teams started warning of unsustainable workloads and uneven treatment between departments. According to them, departures and retirements were no longer systematically replaced, forcing remaining employees to shoulder between four to six times of their normal workload. 

As complaints accumulated, the Union Syndicale Luxembourg (USL) — one of the EU’s oldest and most influential public-service unions — stepped in. Representing a significant share of CdT employees, USL saw its membership triple in less than a year, it began collecting evidence of burnout cases, allegations of favouritism and concerns over governance. In February 2025, the union formally wrote to the Centre’s management, urging it to address what it described as a “structural crisis” affecting the core of the organisation: its translators.

USL launched a comprehensive anonymous workplace survey in March 2025 to document the scale of the problem. The questionnaire was sent to all 184 statutory staff members and achieved a 73% participation rate. “The questionnaire was designed with methodological rigour, drawing on approaches developed by the prestigious Pew Research Center. Such a response is statistically significant and cannot be dismissed as isolated discontent,” said Sorin Cristescu, USL representative and survey coordinator.

The survey’s findings, shared with CdT management and the Translation Centre’s governing board, revealed widespread dissatisfaction with workload, transparency, and representation. Yet, according to both the union and several employees, management’s reaction was described as “political” and “unconcerned”, further deepening the sense of frustration.

The survey included 11 optional questions grouped into six sections, covering workload, fairness, motivation, representation and workplace safety, plus a free-text field for comments. It remained open for one week and was conducted entirely anonymously through individual EU login links. The following chart presents an excerpt of the results, shared with management and the Centre’s governing board.

Less work means more work 

According to the Centre’s 2024 activity report, translators produced 491,728 pages of documents and EU trade marks last year, a 19% drop compared with 2023. On paper, it looks like a slowdown. But inside the Translation Centre, employees say it feels quite the opposite.

One employee with years of experience described a rapid shift toward AI-assisted translation and machine tools. “Yes, changes were necessary, but they were made too fast and things went too far,” he said. The employee continued: “Despite these new systems, the need for manual revision remains constant. We still have to double-check what the AI produces because of its hallucinations.”

Some EU agencies are required by regulation to use the Centre’s services, while others have begun turning to cheaper freelancers or in-house tools.

According to the internal survey conducted in early 2025, over three-quarters of translators said their assignments were “rarely or never sustainable” without harming their health or the quality of their work. For translators, “100%” represents the maximum daily load expected of one person. In practice, that figure is often multiplied several times over., confirmed a couple of translators. “We’re constantly covering for people who are gone,” another translator said. “The work just doesn’t stop — it’s redistributed, never reduced.” While the Centre continues to meet 99.7% of client deadlines, employees say those numbers mask the reality of chronic overwork. “The deadlines are always met,” one translator said, “but only because people work late into the night or through weekends.” The CdT also sends less work to freelancers. 

Several interviewees described the strain as both physical and psychological. “It’s not only the quantity,” said one employee. “It’s the atmosphere. When you’re overloaded every day, even small things — like unclear instructions or last-minute changes — become unbearable. You feel like you’re always failing, even when you’re doing the impossible.” 

“The overload is structural, not accidental,” said Sorin Cristescu of the Union Syndicale Luxembourg. “It seems to have become a management method, an invisible pressure, almost a weapon to push translators toward the exit.” The survey found that 60% of employees believed deadlines were too tight to meet under normal conditions. Staff who retire or leave are often not replaced unless a team drops below two or three members. 

“This week was calm — I only worked at 200%,” said one translator who has worked at the Centre for several years. “In recent months, it’s been closer to 500 or 600%. We used to translate around eight pages per day; now it’s well over ten.”

CdT said: “The agency fosters a results-oriented culture balanced with ensuring staff well-being, in full compliance with EU Staff Regulations. The recording of working time and leave is handled via the European Commission’s internal time management system. Overtime is generally discouraged except in exceptional circumstances linked to urgent client requests. When required, overtime is formally authorised, recorded, and compensated in line with applicable rules; mainly through compensatory time off.”

Burnout and departures

Several translation teams are now operating at a fraction of their original size. According to multiple sources, both the English and German units have seen their headcount shrink sharply in recent years. “One team that used to have eight or nine members is now down to just three or four,” said one translator. The staff turnover rate in 2024 was 5.3% according to the Consolidated Annual Activity Report 2024, lower than the one from 2023 (10.2%).

When translators retire or leave, some positions remain vacant for months or indefinitely. An employee that has worked for several years mentioned, “Once a person leaves, the team leader or manager should always justify whether the position should be replaced.” Paperjam has checked the job page on the website of the CdT a few times during this investigation, with always the same message: “There are currently no job vacancies available.”

“As long as a team still has two or three members, it’s considered sufficient,” said another source. This approach has created severe imbalances between language units. Some teams are overloaded, while others face uncertainty due to reduced client demand. “People are switching between very different types of texts in the same day: legal, technical, administrative,” explained one translator. “It’s exhausting and the quality suffers.”

The human consequences are visible. According to internal testimonies, around ten staff members left last year, while several others went on sick leave linked to burnout. “I didn’t take sick leave, but I was close,” said one translator. “It’s not just the workload; it’s the atmosphere. You always feel at your limit.” The survey also showcased that 66.2% of translators were considering leaving the CdT due to the management approach. 

CdT explained to Paperjam: “Being self-financed, the Centre recruits responsibly to remain cost-efficient and responsive to market demand. Recruitment is therefore driven by workload projections and business planning cycles. At present, operational coverage is fully ensured with the existing mix of in-house expertise and external flexible resources. We continuously assess operational needs and regularly launch targeted recruitment procedures and create reserve lists to ensure future readiness.”

Morale is at rock bottom

Beyond exhaustion, several employees described an atmosphere of intimidation and psychological pressure inside the Translation Centre. 61% of translators said in the survey that management didn’t show genuine respect for their contribution.

Some testimonies describe follow-up conversations reportedly held after employees express critical views during internal discussions. These exchanges, while courteous in tone, were perceived as a form of pressure discouraging staff from speaking openly. According to staff, the Centre’s response to these allegations has been limited to encouraging employees to contact psychologists or counsellors made available through the European Commission.

The internal survey confirmed these fears. 43% of respondents said they do not feel or rarely feel protected from harassment, threats or undue pressure. Several staff members reported witnessing or experiencing inappropriate comments, unwanted personal remarks, or reprisals after raising concerns. “Even one case of harassment is already too many,” reminds Sorin Cristescu. “When people are afraid to speak, the workplace is no longer safe.”

On its website — and reportedly on the walls of its Luxembourg office — the Translation Centre highlights five core values: performance and excellence, stakeholder focus, staff recognition, integrity and transparency. A couple of employees said these principles are displayed alongside a list of internal “dos and don’ts” meant to guide workplace behaviour. But to them, the message feels increasingly symbolic. “The ones who talk the most about those values should be the first to respect them,” one translator remarked, pointing to the growing gap between official rhetoric and daily experience.

“I don’t think the employees would refuse to work a bit more, but there’s no recognition for extra efforts,” mentioned one employee. A clear majority of respondents stated in the survey that their efforts were rarely or never acknowledged in a way that motivated them. In the translation department, this statement was shared by almost three quarters of the translators. Moreover, two employees testified they felt the “environment was toxic” and also reported hearing colleagues saying they felt lied to, disrespected or harassed. 

Unbalanced governance and favouritism 

Beyond the growing workload, many staff members describe a system of governance dominated by a small circle of the same individuals, who sit or used to sit simultaneously on several key committees. According to internal testimonies and documents reviewed by Paperjam, these bodies include the Change Board, the Selection Committee, the Business Development Team, the Workload Board and the Staff Committee.

“It’s always the same people,” said one translator. “They sit on the Change Board, the Selection Committee, and even the Staff Committee. It’s impossible for these bodies to stay independent.” Employees said the situation worsened after a major reorganisation in 2024, when several former section heads were reassigned and new posts were filled. 

“The director simply nominated people she wanted,” said another employee. “Even when an internal call was opened, the result was already known.” The practice, according to the union, undermines the principles of fairness and transparency enshrined in EU staff regulations.

CdT defended itself stating that “Membership overlap can occur in small or specialised organisations to ensure continuity, expertise, and efficient decision-making. In some cases, this is even explicitly required by law.“

“When the same individuals appear across all decision-making levels, checks and balances disappear,” said Sorin Cristescu. “That’s how favouritism and conflicts of interest take root.” Several staff members also expressed concern over what they called “preferential recruitment channels” in certain departments. While EU staff regulations require a balanced geographical representation, internal data shows a disproportionate number of Spanish and Greek nationals in specific operational or technical teams.

“It’s strange,” said one employee. “You’d expect to see more French or German staff because they’re geographically closer to Luxembourg. But instead, there’s a large group of Spanish and Greek colleagues. No one really knows why.” Although this distribution is not illegal, both staff and the union said it raised questions about recruitment objectivity and the influence of personal networks.

“It may not break the rules,” another translator noted, “but it breaks trust. People start thinking that nationality matters more than merit.” The internal survey echoed these perceptions: nearly 80% of translators said recruitment and promotion procedures were rarely or never fair, while 69% of the employees shared the same concern. When asked about the consistency of internal standards, 60% of respondents said they were rarely or not at all applied equally across staff, with disparities often linked to nationality or position.

“Nothing” happened 

The director of the CdT, Ildiko Horvath, replied in an email following the results of the survey stating that “the well-being of the employees is very important and she is addressing the issues raised […]” However, according to multiple employees, the response that followed was largely dismissive.

“The director replied that she didn’t recognise the problems described,” said one staff member. “It was a very political answer, polite, but empty. Nothing changed afterwards.”Several translators confirmed that, after the letter, no structural measures were implemented. Some team leaders reportedly tried to “listen more” or adjust targets informally, but the workload and governance issues remained untouched.

In 2024, the Centre’s HR department conducted its own internal well-being survey, which achieved a 67% response rate. According to management, 74% of staff rated their overall well-being at six or above on a ten-point scale. CdT stated “that a large majority of staff report strong overall well-being, manageable workloads and a high sense of collegial connection.” The results would have been later invoked to downplay or discredit the independent survey carried out by the Union Syndicale Luxembourg. A couple employees testified the questions were biased. 

During March 2025, a few days after the results of the survey were shown, a meeting of the Centre’s Administrative Board, which brings together representatives of EU institutions and client agencies, the letter was briefly discussed. Yet, no real action was taken. “The Management Board showed neither surprise nor concern at the results. One might think that, unfortunately, these are the results they actually want,” said Sorin Cristescu. 

“They saw the figures and the testimonies. But they said nothing,” said one translator. Union representatives believe this silence reflects the Centre’s unique financial model: unlike most EU bodies, it is self-funded through paid translation services. As client agencies cut costs or turn to machine translation, the Centre’s revenues have declined, creating a management culture focused on output rather than staff well-being. In 2024, the Centre’s total expenditure reached €42.5 million, with a negative budget outturn of €4.9 million, a sharp deterioration from the small deficit recorded the previous year. Revenues fell by almost 14%, largely due to a drop in the number of pages translated and invoiced.

When asked about the director’s communication, 59% of total employees (and 79% of translators) felt it didn’t accurately reflect the workplace reality of the Management Board. 

“The problem is structural,” said Sorin Cristescu. “When you have to operate like a private company but under public rules, you end up treating people like resources, not colleagues.” One employee also described symbolic actions that seemed designed to restore morale. “It’s ironic,” he added. Even gestures intended to foster team spirit, such as celebratory events or internal campaigns, were viewed by some employees as disconnected from the daily reality. “When people are burning out, it’s hard to celebrate,” concluded one translator.

The director of CdT, has recently been promoted to Deputy Director-General of the Directorate-General for Translation (DGT) of the European Commission. A role she’s supposed to take in the beginning of 2026. A reward for good management? 

Contacted, the CdT has stated that they “closely monitor and take staff well-being very seriously,” and that “the agency enforces a strict zero-tolerance policy towards harassment. Robust governance mechanisms are in place, including rotation principles, clear rules on conflict of interest, declaration-of-interest procedures, observer roles, and the requirement for documented, reasoned decisions. Oversight is further ensured by internal control systems, audits and compliance monitoring.”