|
2006 Promotions Exercise
Categories A*, B*, C* and D*
----
-
Merit list
taking account of proposals by the promotion committees, including
promoted officials
- List of priority points
allocated in recognition of work undertaken in the interest of the
institution
- 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):
A.I. 37-2006 of 19 July 2006
(http://www.cc.cec/guide/publications/infoadm/2006/ia06037_en.html)
A.I. 41-2006 of 8 August 2006
(http://www.cc.cec/guide/publications/infoadm/2006/ia06041_en.html)
A.I. 44-2006 of 7 September 2006
(http://www.cc.cec/guide/publications/infoadm/2006/ia06044_en.html)
A.I. 47-2006 of 25 September 2006 (http://www.cc.cec/guide/publications/infoadm/2006/ia06047_en.html)
- The promotion committees met between 29 September and 18 October
2006. 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. It also decided on the list of
promoted 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 -
PPII (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/2006_exercice_en.html#legislation):
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: in this connection the committees
proposed setting the minimum time required to qualify for points at 1.5
days. However, for the A* and B* officials paid from research
appropriations in the general budget and due to the number of available
points, the minimum time required to qualify for PPII was set at 4 days.
A list of officials having devoted a certain number of days to the tasks
set out above was published in Administrative Notice
No 37-2006 of 19
July 2006.
Following some appeals made to the promotion committees with regard 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.
In the light of the role played by the PPII in the overall promotion
exercise and in view of statistics showing the number of officials who
have accumulated PPII over several years, the promotion committees
agreed to propose a variation in the criteria for awarding points next
year.
This means that in regard to the minimum amount of work involved to be
qualified for PPII in the 2007 promotion round, the committees propose
setting the minimum time required at 4 days.
It was also agreed that a mechanism would be devised and put in place in
the 2007 exercise to limit the number of PPII one official could obtain
over a fixed period.
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 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 2006, all the promotion committees used the same criteria as in 2005,
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 four 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 five 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 2.1 above);
- a proposal that appeal points be allocated;
- a proposal that no appeal points be allocated;
- the inclusion of one of a number of different comments in the
promotion file. The possible comments are as follows:
- a proposal that the appointing authority should ensure the promotion
of an official in a given year provided that the official's performance
is maintained at the same level as observed during the 2006 promotion
exercise;
- a proposal that the DG in question should allocate enough points to
ensure the promotion of a particular official in a given year provided
the performance is maintained at the level of 2006;
- a proposal that a DG should follow with a particular attention the
career of an official;
- a proposal that an official should seek the advice of the vocational
guidance service (the SCOP).
It should be noted in this context 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
above-mentioned 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 a Directorate-General, and in response to discrimination (unjustified
unequal treatment, or similar treatment in objectively different
situations).
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 or
the comment that may have been put (except the one related to the SCOP
due to the confidentiality principle).
If an appeal was considered to be unfounded, the official's dossier will
carry the following statement: "Your appeal has been examined by the
promotion committee. It was considered to be unfounded. The Appointing
Authority has upheld the opinion of the promotion committee. Therefore
you have not received any appeal points".
To locate a possible comment in your Sysper2 promotion file go to 'PC
priority points' and then 'appeal points'.
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* |
517 |
71 |
145 |
| B* |
194 |
31 |
56 |
| C* |
201 |
27 |
46 |
| D* |
5 |
0 |
0 |
| Total |
917 |
129 |
247 |
|
(Figures given for all budgets) |
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, 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 2006
promotion round as shown in each official's Sysper2 promotion file,
without prejudice to changes of category or administrative position
during 2006.
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:
| |
Operating and OLAF
budgets |
Research budget |
JRC budget |
| Promotion from grade |
Indicative* |
Proposed definitive threshold |
Indicative* |
Proposed definitive threshold |
Indicative* |
Proposed
definitive threshold |
| A*13 |
85 |
85 |
85 |
85 |
85 |
85 |
| A*12 |
98.5 |
98.5 |
98.5 |
98.5 |
95.5 |
98.5 |
| A*11 |
81 |
79 |
81 |
79 |
81 |
79 |
| A*10 |
71 |
67 |
71 |
67 |
73 |
73.5 |
| A*9 |
68 |
68 |
68 |
68 |
68 |
68 |
| A*8 |
66 |
60.5 |
66 |
60.5 |
66 |
60.5 |
| A*7 |
33 |
33 |
33 |
33 |
33 |
33 |
| A*6 |
51 |
26.5 |
51 |
26.5 |
51 |
26.5 |
| A*5 |
48 |
23 |
48 |
23 |
48 |
23 |
| B*10 |
95.5 |
95.5 |
95.5 |
95.5 |
95.5 |
95.5 |
| B*9 |
85 |
85 |
85 |
85 |
85 |
85 |
| B*8 |
82 |
79.5 |
82 |
79.5 |
82 |
79.5 |
| B*7 |
77.5 |
74 |
77.5 |
74 |
77.5 |
74 |
| B*6 |
73.5 |
71.5 |
73.5 |
71.5 |
73.5 |
71.5 |
| B*5 |
38 |
38 |
38 |
38 |
38 |
38 |
| B*4 |
51 |
41.5 |
51 |
41.5 |
51 |
41.5 |
| B*3 |
48 |
27 |
48 |
27 |
48 |
27 |
| C*6 |
94 |
94 |
94 |
94 |
94 |
94 |
| C*5 |
84.5 |
84.5 |
84.5 |
84.5 |
84.5 |
84.5 |
| C*4 |
75 |
72.5 |
75 |
72.5 |
75 |
72.5 |
| C*3 |
73.5 |
70.5 |
73.5 |
70.5 |
73.5 |
70.5 |
| C*2 |
38 |
38 |
38 |
38 |
38 |
38 |
| C*1 |
48 |
24.5 |
48 |
24.5 |
48 |
24.5 |
| D*4 |
93.5 |
94 |
- |
- |
93.5 |
94 |
| D*3 |
75 |
73 |
- |
- |
75 |
73 |
| D*2 |
50 |
50 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| * Indicative threshold published by DG ADMIN prior to the promotion
committee meetings |
- ARTICLE 45, PARAGRAPH 2 (ABILITY TO WORK IN A THIRD LANGUAGE)
The vast majority of promotions in 2006 take effect on 1 March for most
grades or 1 January for promotions to the grades A*13, B*11, C*7 and D*
5.
Nevertheless, some promotions will take effect from another date. If
these promotions enter into force on a date after 30 April 2006, the
provisions of Article 45, paragraph 2 relating to the ability to work
in a third language have to be applied. For example, officials who reach
two year's seniority in the grade on 16 April 2006 will see their
promotion take effect on 1 May 2006. They will therefore be subject to
the requirement to demonstrate the ability to work in a third language
(see article 10, paragraph 5 of the General Implementing Provisions of
the 2006 promotion
exercise-http://www.cc.cec/pers_admin/promotions/doc/DGE45_23122004_en.doc)
if they do not fall into one of the three following groups:
- they have already been promoted in their category;
- they were promoted while in a lower category and are now in a higher
category following a change of category;
- they are former temporary agents (for example a 'research' temporary
agent) already assigned to a higher grade (see Title II, articles 10 and
15 of the 'conditions of employment of other servants') while a
temporary agent and they have now become an official.
In the 2006 promotion round, over 330 officials were required to
demonstrate their ability to work in a third language before their
first promotion in 2006. A relatively small number of these officials
have not yet demonstrated their ability to work in a third language.
All those who succeed in the demonstration before 31 December 2006 will
be the subject of a separate promotion decision at a later stage. The
list of concerned promoted officials will also be published later.
There are three ways to demonstrate the ability work in a third
language:
- by succeeding in passing inter-institutional language courses at the
required level (during the transition period up to 31 December 2008 the
required level is level 4);
- through submitting an equivalent diploma and having it certified by
EPSO;
- by passing an official test at level 4.
As this is the first year of application of this part of the Staff
Regulations, DG ADMIN has arranged intensive language courses of 60
hours duration for all officials not succeeding the test and other
officials reluctant to be tested. All such officials will be offered a
second opportunity to pass the test in 2006.
- 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, or if they are seconded in the
interests of the service or they are on parental or family leave;
- 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 45, paragraph 2 of the staff regulations concerning the
ability to work in a third language before a first promotion
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. As explained above, point 6, an additional
residual list will be published at a later stage. For reasons of clarity
and convenience, the list of promoted officials 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
28-2006
of 18.06.2006.
- IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROMOTION DECISIONS
The 2006 promotions exercise comes under the Staff Regulations in force
since 1 May 2004.
Promotion decisions take effect either on 1 January 2006 (promotions to
grades A*13, B*11, C*7 and D*5) or on 1 March 2006 (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 the month when the minimum seniority is obtained.
Promotion decisions are currently being taken and will be finalised in
time for December 2006 salary transfers of most promoted officials.
|
