2005 Promotions Exercise
Categories A*, B*, C* and D*
----
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
2.1 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, 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 (see the
Administrative Notices at the following addresses:
http://www.cc.cec/guide/publications/infoadm/2005/ia05060_en.html; http://www.cc.cec/guide/publications/infoadm/2005/ia05068_en.html;
http://www.cc.cec/guide/publications/infoadm/2005/ia05071_en.html).
- The promotion committees met between 29 September and 19 October
2005. Each committee submitted to the appointing authority:
– a proposal on the allocation of points for work in the interests of
the institution (see point 2.2.1 below);
– a proposal on the allocation of transitional points (see point 2.2.2
below);
– a proposal on the allocation of priority points following an appeal
(see point 2.2.3 below);
– a proposal on which of the officials with a point score equal to the
promotion threshold should be promoted in the current exercise (see
point 2.3 below).
- On the basis of the proposals made by the promotion committees,
the appointing authority took decisions on the allocation of points
for work in the interests of the institution, transitional points and
priority points following an appeal. They also decided on the list of
promoted officials. 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 taking into account the points allocated by the
appointing authority following the work of the committees, and the
list of promoted officials, appear as an annex to this Administrative
Notice.
2.2 ALLOCATION OF POINTS FOLLOWING THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE
PROMOTION COMMITTEES
2.2.1 Priority points for work in the interests of the
Institution (max. 2 points)
These points were allocated on the basis of information supplied by
the Chairs of the joint committees, the European Personnel Selection
Office (EPSO) and the internal competitions Task Force.
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
(http://www.cc.cec/pers_admin/promotions/legislation_en.html#3): the
exhaustive list of duties which may justify the allocation of
additional priority points includes:
- Chair/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);
- Chair/member of a joint committee (2 points).
- the amount of work involved and the degree of interest to the
institution: in this connection the committees proposed setting the
minimum time required to qualify for points at 1.5 days.
A list of officials eligible to receive points for work in the
interests of the institution was published in Administrative Notice No
60-2005 of 22 July 2005.
http://www.cc.cec/guide/publications/infoadm/2005/ia05060_en.html
Following some appeals made to the promotion committees which referred
to the above list, additional information was requested by DG ADMIN
from the Chairs of the joint committees, EPSO and the Chairs of the
committees for selecting temporary staff.
That information was made known to each committee. It was taken into
account when drawing up the proposals on allocating points for work
undertaken in the interests of the institution. The committees had to
take account of the constraints linked to the limited budget of points
available for allocation.
In each individual promotion file, the response to an appeal lodged
takes the form of the allocation (or not) of points for work
undertaken in the interests of the institution.
2.2.2 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. In some cases, the points to compensate for career delay
provided for in Article 13(2)(a) of the General provisions for
implementing Article 45 of the Staff Regulations
(http://www.cc.cec/pers_admin/promotions/legislation_en.html#3) were
considered insufficient to guarantee taking satisfactory account of
merit over time.
The allocation of transitional points was not limited to officials who
had appealed to a promotion committee.
In 2005 all the promotion committees used the same criteria in order
to draw up a list of officials to whom it was proposed to allocate
transitional points.
The criteria are based on the following principles:
- Transitional points may be allocated to officials who risked
experiencing a slow down in their career despite having demonstrated
satisfactory performance.
- The number of points allocated is determined taking into account
the profile of the official concerned: a profile is determined on the
basis of the average merit marks obtained during the last three
appraisal rounds and of seniority in the grade.
- The examination of a limited number of individual cases also
resulted in the allocation of transitional points.
- The points allocated appear in the official’s individual file
under the heading “transitional points”.
2.2.3 Appeal points
It should be noted that proposals to allocate appeal points or not are
always the result of an individual examination.
Action taken and procedure followed by the committees
Appeals to the promotion committees gave rise to three types of action
depending on the nature of the appeal:
- a proposal that points be allocated for work in the interests of
the institution (see point 3.1 above);
- a proposal that appeal points be allocated;
- a proposal that no appeal 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 examine 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).
For officials in grades A*12, B*10, C*6 and D*4, the promotion
committees considered that all the appeals lodged related both to the
allocation of priority points for 2004 and to that for 2005, whether
or not this was specified in the text of the appeal. All the appeal
points allocated to officials in these grades were incorporated into
the 2005 promotion file, whether they related to the allocation for
2004 or 2005.
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.
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* |
577 |
8 |
307,5 |
| B* |
238 |
21 |
45 |
| C* |
215 |
33 |
45,5 |
| D* |
18 |
1 |
1 |
| Total |
1048 |
153 |
399 |
2.3 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
(http://www.cc.cec/pers_admin/promotions/legislation_en.html#3), 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
(http://www.cc.cec/pers_admin/promotions/legislation_en.html#3) 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
(http://www.cc.cec/pers_admin/promotions/legislation_en.html#3) 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 2005
promotion round as shown in each official's Sysper2 promotion file,
without prejudice to changes of category or administrative position
during 2005.
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
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 2.2.1 above), transition
(point 2.2.2 above) or a successful appeal to a promotion committee
(point 2.2.3 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 |
| A*12 |
76 |
76.5 |
76.5 |
76 |
| A*11 |
66 |
66 |
66 |
66 |
| A*10 |
58.5 |
60 |
60 |
58.5 |
| A*8 |
57.5 |
58.5 |
58.5 |
57.5 |
| A*7 |
33 |
33 |
33 |
33 |
| B*10 |
76 |
76.5 |
76.5 |
76 |
| B*8 |
66.5 |
67.5 |
67.5 |
66.5 |
| B*7 |
62.5 |
63.5 |
63.5 |
62.5 |
| B*6 |
59.5 |
61 |
61 |
59.5 |
| B*5 |
38 |
38 |
38 |
38 |
| C*6 |
74 |
75 |
75 |
74 |
| C*5 |
67 |
68 |
68 |
67 |
| C*4 |
61 |
62 |
62 |
61 |
| C*3 |
59 |
60 |
60 |
59 |
| C*2 |
38 |
38 |
38 |
38 |
| D*4 |
73.5 |
74.5 |
74.5 |
73.5 |
| D*3 |
62 |
63 |
63 |
62 |
| D*2 |
50.5 |
51.5 |
- |
50.5 |
- 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) of the Staff Regulations on the
minimum seniority in the grade required to qualify for promotion;
- 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
(http://www.cc.cec/pers_admin/promotions/legislation_en.html#3) 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
(http://www.cc.cec/pers_admin/promotions/legislation_en.html#3) 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 2005 promotions exercise comes under the Staff Regulations in force
since 1 May 2004.
Promotion decisions take effect on 1 January 2005 (promotions to grades
A*13, B*11, C*7 and D*5) or on 1 March 2005 (other grades). 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.
Promotion decisions are currently being taken and will be finalised in
time for December 2005 salary transfers.
- PROMOTION RATES
Detailed statistics for the 2005 promotion exercise are being prepared
and will be published shortly.
The table below only indicates the promotion rate per grade for
officials paid from the administrative appropriations in the general
budget. The table demonstrates clearly that these rates have increased
in comparison with the rates for the 2004 promotion exercise.
| Grade |
2004 promotion rates* |
2005 promotion rates 2005 |
| A*12 |
|
3% |
| A*11 |
13% |
14% |
| A*10 |
19% |
21% |
| A*8 |
19% |
22% |
| A*7 |
46% |
62% |
| B* |
10 |
5% |
| B*8 |
10% |
14% |
| B*7 |
13% |
19% |
| B*6 |
14% |
19% |
| B*5 |
28% |
27% |
| C*6 |
|
5% |
| C*5
|
10%
|
12% |
| C*4
|
14% |
20% |
| C*3
|
17%
|
21% |
| C*2
|
30%
|
30% |
| D*4
|
|
5% |
| D*3
|
15%
|
19% |
| D*2
|
41%
|
73% |
* For the A* category, the promotion rates indicated for 2004 are the
average rates noted for A and LA officials.
|
