|
2004 Promotions Exercise
Categories A, B, C, D – LA
Invitation to consult promotion files
Results of promotion committee meetings
List of priority points allocated in recognition of work undertaken in the
interests of the institution
Merit lists taking account of proposals by the promotion committees
Definitive promotion thresholds
List of promoted officials
- Invitation to consult promotion files
Article 25 of the Staff Regulations provides that any decision relating to
an individual must be communicated to the official concerned. Officials
are hereby invited to consult their promotion files in Sysper2.
- Results of promotion committee meetings
II.1 Reminder: the main stages of promotion
- The starting point for the promotions exercise is the end of the staff
reports exercise, when the DGs award each official a certain number of
priority points. This allocation is followed by the publication of the
merit lists(1), which serve as a basis for the presentation, within five
working days, of an appeal to the promotion committees against the
allocation of priority points.
- The promotion committees met in October. Each committee:
- proposed he allocation of points for work in the interests of the
institution (see point II.2.1 below);
- proposed the allocation of transitional points (see point II.2.2 below);
- examined the appeals received and recommended the allocation of priority
points following an appeal (see point II.2.3 below);
- proposed which of the officials with a point score equal to the
promotion threshold should be promoted in the current exercise (see point
II.3 below).
- The appointing authority is responsible for deciding on the allocation
of points following the committees’ recommendations, and deciding on
promotions. In the current exercise, the appointing authority accepted all
the committees' proposals concerning the allocation of points and their
proposals on the selection of ex-aequo officials.
- The merit lists showing the final number of points allocated following
the work of the committees, and the list of promoted officials, appear as
an annex to this Administrative Notice.
II.2 Allocation of points following the recommendations of the promotion
committees
II.2.1 Priority points for work in the interests of the Institution
(max. 2 points)
These points were allocated on the basis of information supplied to the
committees by the officials concerned and their reporting officers
(section 6.6 of the career development report), following verification
with the bodies concerned (EPSO, etc.) and taking account of the limited
number of points available.
The committees’ verifications mainly concerned:
- the conformity of the duties to Annex I to the General provisions for
implementing Article 45 of the Staff Regulations: the exhaustive list of
duties which may justify the allocation of additional priority points
includes:
- Chairman/member of a competition selection board or joint committee for
the selection of temporary staff (2 points),
- adviser to a selection board/marker of competition papers (1 point),
- Chairman/member of a joint committee (2 points).
- the amount of work involved and the degree of interest to the
institution: in this connection certain committees have proposed setting a
minimum number of days’ work required to qualify for points. This is the
case for the A committee (minimum of 1.5 declared working days), LA
committee (1.5 days), B committee (1 day) and C committee (1 day).
- whether or not the duties are part of the official’s normal activities.
Some officials made a “preemptive appeal” to the promotion committees with
a view to obtaining one or two points for activities undertaken in the
interests of the institution. The response to such appeals was the
allocation (or not) of points for work undertaken in the interests of the
institution.
II.2.2 Transitional points (max. 3 points)
These points were allocated to compensate any officials put at a
disadvantage by the transition from the old to the new promotion system.
Their allocation was not limited to officials who had appealed to the
promotion committee.
The recommendations for allocating these points varied slightly from one
committee to another based on the characteristics of each grade and
category.
The main themes were as follows:
- the transitional points provided for in Article 12(2)(a) of the General
provisions for implementing Article 45 of the Staff Regulations were, in
some cases(2), considered insufficient to guarantee that full account was
taken of merit over the period. Additional points could therefore be
awarded to officials whose performance was recognised as satisfactory in
their career development reports, but who might nevertheless experience a
slow-down in their career following the introduction of the new promotions
system, particularly during the transition phase or when promotion
thresholds will rise. Points allocated in this connection appear in the
official’s individual Sysper2 file under the heading “transitional
points”, with the comment “Compensation for annual increase of threshold";
- the specific situation (i.e. particular concentration of officials with
above-average seniority in the grade) of A7 officials on the External
Service promotion list led to one transitional point being awarded. This
point appears in the official’s individual Sysper2 file under the heading
“transitional point”, with the comment “Transitional E.S.”;
- the examination of certain individual cases also resulted in the
allocation of transitional points. These points appear in the official’s
individual Sysper2 file under the heading “transitional points”, with the
comment “Individual examination”;
- some appeals to the promotion committee resulted in the allocation of
this type of points when the committees considered that the problems cited
were mainly due to the transition.
II.2.3 Appeal points
It should be noted that proposals to allocate appeal points or not are
always the result of an individual examination.
II.2.3.1 Action taken and procedure followed by the committees
Appeals to the promotion committees gave rise to four types of action
depending on the nature of the appeal;
- a proposal that points be allocated for work in the interests of the
institution,
- a proposal that transitional points be allocated,
- a proposal that appeal points be allocated,
- a proposal that no additional points be allocated.
It should be noted in this connection that the committees are not
authorised, inter alia, to
- call into question the results of the assessment procedure (CDR);
- assume the role of the DGs with regard to the allocation of priority
points.
The main cases in which the committees act in response to appeals – other
than the abovementioned considerations relating to points for activities
in the interests of the institution and transitional points – are
therefore in response to manifest errors in the number of priority points
allocated by the Directorate-General, and in response to discrimination
(unjustified unequal treatment, or similar treatment in objectively
different situations).
II.2.3.2 Response to an appeal
The officials concerned are invited to consult their Sysper2 files to
check the number of points allocated to them following their appeal.
An award of zero points means the appeal is rejected.
The above description of the action taken and procedure followed by the
committees should help officials to understand the decision to allocate
priority points or not, as reflected in the Sysper2 file.
This Administrative Notice, together with the Sysper2 file, which each
person is invited to consult, serves as a reply from the promotion
committees to the appeals submitted.
II.2.3.3 Publication of the number of points allocated following the
examination of appeals
Pursuant to Article 8(3) of the General provisions for implementing
Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, the number of appeal points allocated
by each promotion committee is published below:
| Category |
No of appeals
|
No of people
who
received appeal points |
Total appeal points |
| A |
495 |
65 |
115.5 |
| B |
218 |
11 |
21 |
| C |
209 |
44 |
66 |
| D |
7 |
3 |
7 |
| LA |
87 |
18 |
25.5 |
| |
1016 |
141 |
235 |
II.3 Selection of ex-aequo officials
The criteria used to select ex-aequo officials are contained in Article
10(1) of the General provisions for implementing Article 45 of the Staff
Regulations, which provides that:
“… the committees shall take account of subsidiary factors such as, in
particular, seniority in the grade and factors relating to equal
opportunities or the nature of the duties undertaken.”
The promotion committees used these criteria, in particular that of
seniority in the grade, to choose between the ex-aequo officials.
- Publication of
the list of priority points
 allocated in recognition of
work undertaken in the interests of the institution
The list of officials who have been allocated 1 or 2 points under Article
9 of the general provisions for implementing Article 45 of the Staff
Regulations appears as an annex to this Notice.
- Fixing the total number of priority points allocated to each official
and the publication of
merit lists
taking account of proposals by the
promotion committees
Article 10 of the General provisions for implementing Article 45 of the
Staff Regulations provides that:
“Once the promotion committees' work has been completed, the
Director-General for Personnel and Administration shall finally lay down
the total number of priority points allocated to each official in the
context of the promotion round.”
“Amended merit lists shall be drawn up taking into account the decisions
taken under [the preceding] paragraph and the proposals made by the
promotion committees […].”
The Director-General for Personnel and Administration has laid down the
total number of priority points allocated in the context of the 2004
promotion round as shown in each official's Sysper2 promotion file.
This Administrative Notice serves as the publication of the definitive
merit list. The list includes officials who are within five points of the
definitive promotion threshold. The list shows each official’s name,
assignment(3) and the total number of points obtained in the promotion
exercise.
Some officials will find that their points total has increased following
the work of the promotion committees. These changes are the result of
proposals by the promotion committees and the decision by the appointing
authority to allocate points for one or more of the following reasons:
work in the interests of the institution (point II.2.1 above), transition
(point II.2.2 above) or a successful appeal to a promotion committee
(point II.2.3 above).
A detailed break-down of any points allocated is accessible to each
official (including those whose names do not appear on the lists published
below) in their Sysper2 promotion file.
- Definitive promotion thresholds
The promotion committees have proposed fixing the following definitive
promotion thresholds:
| Promotion from grade |
Indicative threshold
published by
DG ADMIN
prior to the promotion
committee meetings |
Proposed definitive threshold
Operating budget |
Proposed definitive threshold
OLAF |
Proposed definitive threshold
Research budget |
| A5 |
49 |
50 |
50 |
49.5 |
| A6 |
44.5 |
45 |
45 |
45 |
| A7 |
44.5 |
44.5 |
44.5 |
44 |
| A8 |
29 |
30 |
- |
30 |
| LA5 |
49 |
50 |
- |
- |
| LA6 |
43.5 |
44 |
- |
- |
| LA7 |
43 |
44 |
- |
- |
| LA8 |
26 |
29 |
- |
- |
| B2 |
50.5 |
51,5 |
51.5
|
51 |
| B3 |
48.5 |
49 |
48.5 |
49 |
| B4 |
45.5 |
46.5 |
46.5
|
46.5 |
| B5
|
30.5
|
31 |
31 |
30.5 |
| C2 |
50 |
51 |
51 |
51 |
| C3 |
47.5 |
48.5 |
48.5 |
48 |
| C4 |
45.5 |
46 |
46 |
46 |
| C5 |
34 |
35.5 |
35 |
35.5 |
| D2 |
45.5 |
46 |
- |
- |
| D3 |
41 |
41.5 |
- |
- |
-
List of promoted officials
The promotion committees' proposals were submitted to the appointing
authority. Each appointing authority adopted decisions on promotions,
taking into account:
- the available budget;
- the provisions of Article 45(1) and (4) of the (old) Staff Regulations
on the minimum seniority in the grade required to qualify for promotion
(to be read in conjunction with Article 13(3) of the general provisions
for implementing Article 45 of the Staff Regulations);
- the principle that officials may be promoted only if they are in active
employment in the Commission in the relevant grade at the time the
promotion decision is adopted;
- the principle that any decision on the promotion of an official who is
the subject of disciplinary proceedings is suspended until the results of
those proceedings are known;
- the principle of the comparison of merit over time, in particular as
described in the general provisions for implementing Article 45 of the
Staff Regulations and the case-law of the Courts of Justice and First
Instance.
Article 10(4) of the General provisions for implementing Article 45 of the
Staff Regulations provides that:
“The appointing authority shall, on the basis of the merit lists[…],
decide on the list of officials to be promoted. That list shall be
communicated to the staff.”
The list of promoted officials is published in an annex to this
Administrative Notice. For reasons of clarity and convenience, it is
published together with the merit lists taking account of proposals by the
promotion committees, the promoted officials being indicated by the letter
“P” after their total number of points.
Under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations, “Any person to whom these
Staff Regulations apply may submit to the appointing authority a complaint
against an act adversely affecting him or her, either where the said
authority has taken a decision or where it has failed to adopt a measure
prescribed by the Staff Regulations. A complaint must be made within three
months.”
The complaints procedure is explained in Administrative Notice 110-2004 of
10.09.2004.
- Implementation of the promotion decisions
The 2004 promotions exercise comes under the “old” Staff Regulations in
force until 1 May 2004. Consequently, promotion decisions:
- are based on the career structure (categories/grades) in force until 1
May 2004 (for example: officials who were grade A6 until 1 May 2004 will
be promoted to grade A5 as it existed until 1 May 2004 and will then be
reclassified as A*11 under the careers structure in force since 1 May
2004.
- will lead to salary increases and grade and step classification in
accordance with Article 46 of the “old” Staff Regulations. In this
connection, it may be useful to summarise the mechanism prescribed by
Article 46:
- calculating the “notional salary” of the official in his grade prior to
promotion as a result of salary progression(4) (for example, an official with
12 months’ seniority on the date on which the promotion comes into effect
will have a “notional salary” of his basic salary (step 3) + a pro rata
calculation of his salary progression (in this example: 12/24 of the value
of a step in his current grade);
- the addition of this “notional salary” to the value of a step in the
new grade
- positioning the official in the new grade at the nearest step to the
“notional salary” (although the basic salary for the step in question must
not exceed the “notional salary”);
- converting any difference between the “notional salary” and the new
basic salary (the result of the positioning under stage c) above) into
“seniority in the step” in the new step (applying the procedure in step a)
above in the new grade).
Promotion decisions take effect on 1 January 2004 (promotions to grades
A4/LA4, A6/LA6, B2, B4, C2, C4, D2) or on 1 April 2006 (other grades).(5) The
promotion of officials who, on one of the two dates, do not have the
minimum seniority required, will take effect on the first day of the month
following which the minimum seniority is obtained, and no later than 30
April 2004.
Promotion decisions are currently being taken and will be finalised in
time for December 2004 salary transfers.
FOOTNOTES
_________________
(1) See.
Administrative Notices
114-2004 of 20 September 2004,
AN 119-2004 of 27 September
2004, AN 121-2004 of 11
October 2004.
(2) In this
context, the B and C
committees used transitional
points awarded by the
promotion committee.
(3)
Important note: the assignment
used to compile this list is
that registered on 16 November
2004 and may therefore differ
from that of 31 December 2003
which was used as a basis for
establishing the merit lists
prior to the consultation of
the promotion committees.
(4)
Unless the official has
already reached the last step
in the grade.
(5) With the
exception of
research/JRC/scientific and
technical services staff, who
have a slightly different
career structure, cf. Annex IB
to the (old) Staff
Regulations.
|
