2007 STAFF APPRAISAL EXERCISE
(1)
Reference period: 1 January to 31 December 2006
The appraisal exercise covering the 2006 calendar year is the fifth
one under the new system introduced in April 2002.
The general provisions implementing Article 43 of the Staff Regulations
adopted by the Commission on 23 December 2004 remain applicable for this
appraisal exercise.
Set out below is a reminder of the principles governing the appraisal, an
explanation of the modifications made since the last exercise and a description
of the different stages of the appraisal procedure.
- GENERAL PRINCIPLES
![](https://intracomm.ec.europa.eu/pers_admin/img/top.gif)
Each year the Commission appraises the performance of its staff. An
individual report, known as the CDR (Career Development Review) report,
is created on the basis of this appraisal. The report is drawn up using
the Sysper2 computer application. You can see the layout of the report
form at: http://www.cc.cec/pers_admin/appraisal/forms_en.html.
Who has to be appraised?
- All officials and members of the temporary staff who were in
active service or on secondment in the interests of the service
for a continuous period of at least one month in 2006 have to be
appraised.
- Exceptions:
- A report does not have to be drafted for jobholders(2)
who left the Community institutions in 2006 or who are going
to leave in 2007, unless they expressly request one from their
reporting officer.
- Officials or temporary staff occupying a position as a Director-General
or equivalent, or Director or equivalent, are assessed under
different arrangements and are thus not covered by this annual
exercise.
What period does the new appraisal exercise cover?
The reference period runs from 1 January to 31 December 2006.
What does the appraisal relate to?
It covers three areas:
- Efficiency is marked out of ten. Individual objectives
matched against appraisal criteria have been set for all jobholders;
performance will be assessed according to how far the jobholder
has achieved the objectives in his/her work.
- Abilities (“Competencies”) are marked out of six. Commission-wide
standards ( ) have been established by DG ADMIN, with the help of
the Joint Appraisal and Promotion Monitoring Committee. All Commission
departments must use these standards. The standards can however
be supplemented to cover aspects specific to each DG. In the case
of jobholders in management roles, abilities in leadership, staff
management and financial resources management must also be appraised.
- Aspects of Conduct in the service is marked out of four.
The appraisal of conduct covers aspects such as the ability to work
with others, motivation and service culture. The appraisal must
be carried out using common standards applicable for all Commission
departments, with specific standards developed by individual DGs
being added where necessary.
http://www.cc.cec/pers_admin/appraisal/2007_exercise_en.html#3
If objectives could not be set for 2006 for all the tasks performed
by the jobholder, the jobholder’s performance will be evaluated
by reference to factors of which he/she is aware, such as job description
or existing planning.
Please note that the individual merit of officials who were promoted
in 2006 is appraised against the merit of those in the grade to
which they were promoted. This can produce a situation where a performance
level identical to that recorded in 2005 can result in a different
assessment of merit in the higher grade.
What are the implementing rules?
The annual reports for 2006 and the interim reports that have to be
drawn up in 2007 are still governed by the general provisions implementing
Article 43 of the Staff Regulations adopted by the Commission on 23
December 2004.
Specific provisions are laid down for staff in the Commission's external
service, staff paid from the research part of the general budget and
staff on secondment as staff representatives.
http://www.cc.cec/pers_admin/appraisal/2007_exercise_en.html#7
- CHANGES MADE SINCE THE 2006 EXERCISE
![](https://intracomm.ec.europa.eu/pers_admin/img/top.gif)
As stated in point III, the average merit mark expected for each grade
for the new exercise is 14.65.
Just one change has been made to the CDR form and hence to the Sysper2
application. It concerns the evaluation of potential in connection with
the certification and attestation procedures.
- Certification procedure: When completing their self-assessment,
AST function group officials with no career restriction (former
B* officials) who wish to apply for this procedure must ask their
reporting officer to fill in the section marked “Potential”.
This section has been changed by the addition of a question concerning
primarily officials who have not been in a position to carry out
administrator-level duties. The reporting officer will be able,
where appropriate, to indicate any occasions on which the jobholder
has shown the potential to become a good administrator through his
or her efficiency, ability or conduct in the service.
- Remember, the “potential” section in the CDR is only to
be filled in if the jobholder explicitly requests it in his/her
self-assessment.
- The reporting officer will now have to indicate, using a
drop-down menu, any duties usually performed by administrators
that the jobholder has performed during 2006. The reporting
officer will also be able to indicate any occasions on which
the jobholder has shown the potential to become a good administrator
through his/her efficiency, ability or conduct in the service.
- It will be up to the countersigning officer to decide, on
the basis of the reporting officer’s comments, whether or not
the jobholder has shown the potential to become a good administrator.
Carryover and certification procedure: if a report is carried
over, the “Potential” section is also considered to have been carried
over as it appeared in the previous CDR. If the official was considered
to have the potential to carry out the duties of an administrator, he
or she will be assumed to have also demonstrated this potential during
2006 too; if he or she was not considered to have this potential, then
carrying over the previous report will imply that they have not been
able to demonstrate it in 2006.
Attestation procedure: AST officials affected by the attestation
procedure (former C* and D* officials) will no longer have to request
the appraisal of their “potential” as part of the CDR. As from the attestation
exercise that should be launched mid-2007, all information needed to
process the applications –including information regarding the potential
– will be gathered in the attestation application form itself. Therefore,
in case of a carry over of the latest CDR, the "potential" heading will
not be taken into account for the attestation exercise to be launched
mid-2007.
- SUCCESSIVE STAGES OF THE APPRAISAL EXERCISE
![](https://intracomm.ec.europa.eu/pers_admin/img/top.gif)
In most DGs the appraisal exercise for 2006 will begin on 15 January
2007. Generally speaking, the annual CDRs must be finalised by the end
of April at the latest. For staff employed in the external service,
there will be provision for a specific procedure and specific deadlines.
The priority point quotas allocated to the DGs for the promotion exercise
will be calculated on the basis of the number of annual CDRs declared
closed by 15 June 2007.
Who acts as reporting officer, countersigning officer and appeal
assessor?
As a rule the reporting officer is the jobholder’s head of unit, the
countersigning officer the Director, and the appeal assessor the Director-General.
The reporting officer will be the person who was the jobholder’s head
of unit on 31 December 2006. The duties of countersigning officer and
appeal assessor are performed by the Director and Director-General at
the time they are called upon to play a role in the procedure.
What are the stages in the appraisal procedure?
The appraisal procedure is managed by the Sysper2 computer application.
If jobholders are unable to access Sysper2 for an appreciable period,
other forms of written communication may be used.
The stages of the appraisal procedure are as follows:
- Statistics for the previous appraisal and promotions exercises
(see point IV below)
- Expected merit mark average per grade
In the light of earlier appraisal exercises, the expected merit
mark average per grade for each Directorate-General is fixed at
14.65 for 2006.
This expected average should not be seen as an instruction or a
factor diminishing the reporting officer's independence and discretion
when appraising a jobholder against the applicable standards.
- Definition of appraisal standards
The point of appraisal standards is to harmonise appraisals within
a DG, to facilitate dialogue between the reporting officer and the
official being appraised and to make it easier to compare the comments
made in the appraisal.
As mentioned above, DG ADMIN, with the help of the Joint Appraisal
and Promotion Monitoring Committee, has established common standards
for appraising competencies and conduct. These common standards
must be used for the two relevant sections. The common standards
may however be supplemented by standards specific to each DG.
The common standards can be consulted at the following address:
http://www.cc.cec/pers_admin/appraisal/2007_exercise_en.html#3
- Writing a self-assessment
When asked to do so by his/her reporting officer, the jobholder
must write a self-assessment within eight working days. It is strongly
recommended that the jobholder refer to the appraisal standards
at this crucial stage.
Jobholders must indicate in their self-assessment whether they have
been elected to represent the staff or appointed or delegated by
a staff committee or union. If so, they must divide their self-assessment
into two separate sections so that the reporting officer can consult
the ad hoc group only on the part relating to activities carried
out in the jobholder's capacity as elected, appointed or delegated
representative.
These rules do not apply to officials on full-time or half-time
secondment as staff representatives, for whom other arrangements
are made, in particular the drawing up of a CDR report in due form
by the ad hoc group.
- The formal dialogue
Not more than ten working days after submission of the self-assessment,
the reporting officer will hold a dialogue with the jobholder to
discuss his/her performance in 2006, set objectives and agree the
training map for 2007 and possibly later.
The self-assessment and the appraisal standards set for the Directorate-General
must be systematically discussed during the dialogue.
The reporting officer must indicate the merit mark to be awarded
to the jobholder, to within one point.
The objectives established for 2007 must be consistent with the
work programme of the DG and the unit.
The reporting officer must consult the ad hoc group if the jobholder
has mentioned in his/her self-assessment any activities carried
out in his or her capacity as elected, appointed or delegated representative.
At the end of the dialogue, the reporting officer will draw up a
draft report taking into account the opinion of the ad hoc group
where appropriate.
- The two concertation phases
As mentioned above, once at least two thirds of the CDRs have been
drafted for a given grade in a Directorate, the countersigning officer
has to meet the reporting officers to compare relative merits and
harmonise the merit points proposed.
The Director-General also meets the countersigning officers to perform
a similar check at Directorate-General level.
- The career development review report is drawn up
After these concertations, the reporting officer and the countersigning
officer finalise the CDR. The report is then given to the jobholder.
The jobholder has five working days to accept the report without
comment, to accept it with the addition of comments or to reject
it, giving reasons for doing so.
- Appeal channels
If the jobholder refuses to accept the report, the countersigning
officer must hold a second dialogue with the jobholder within ten
working days. The jobholder may be accompanied at the dialogue by
another official. The jobholder, the reporting officer or the countersigning
officer may also request that the reporting officer be present at
the second dialogue. After this dialogue the countersigning officer
confirms the report or amends it within five working days. The jobholder
will be notified of the report and will have ten working days in
which to indicate whether he/she accepts it. If the jobholder does
not accept it he/she is required to give reasons.
Refusal to accept the report at this stage automatically means that
it will be referred to the Joint Evaluation Committee. The committee
considers appeals within ten working days. It does not replace either
the reporting officer or the countersigning officer but checks that
the procedure has been complied with and that the report has been
drawn up in accordance with the appraisal standards laid down for
the Directorate-General concerned. A list of members of the Joint
Evaluation Committees (JECs) will be made available in the next
few weeks.
The jobholder, the reporting officer, the countersigning officer
and the appeal assessor will be notified of the JEC's opinion. If
the opinion was adopted by a vote, the notification will state how
many votes were cast for and against. Within five working days the
appeal assessor has to confirm or amend the report. The appeal assessor
must give reasons for a decision that departs from the recommendations
contained in the JEC's opinion.
The report is then closed and the jobholder notified. If at this
stage of the procedure the jobholder still does not accept the report,
he/she can make a complaint to the appointing authority under Article
90 of the Staff Regulations.
- Special provisions for jobholders of the same grade as their
reporting officers
Where the unit head shares the same grade as the jobholder, the
countersigning officer will take part in the dialogue if the jobholder,
reporting officer or countersigning officer so requests. The countersigning
officer will add written comments in the section of the report reserved
for this purpose. The Joint Evaluation Committee pays particular
attention to appeals filed by a jobholder who is the same grade
as his/her reporting officer. If, following such an appeal, the
Joint Evaluation Committee fails to issue an opinion or to issue
a unanimous opinion, the appeal assessor must hold a dialogue with
the jobholder before confirming or amending the report.
- STATISTICS FOR THE MOST RECENT APPRAISAL AND PROMOTION EXERCISES
![](https://intracomm.ec.europa.eu/pers_admin/img/top.gif)
Detailed statistics on the 2006 appraisal and promotion exercises
can be consulted in the Annexes as follows:
- Annex II contains the promotion rates (number of officials
promoted compared with number of officials in the grade).
- Annex III sets out the distribution of merit marks by grade.
- Annex IV lists the distribution of DG priority points
by Directorate-General and by grade eligible for promotion.
- Annex V sets out details of seniority in grade, age and
career profile of promoted officials.
- Annex VI indicates the distribution, by Directorate-General,
of priority points awarded for activities in the interests of
the Institution.
Staff should note the following:
- The cohort taken into account for the statistics on merit
marks is the staff assigned to the Directorate-General in question
on 31 December 2005.
- In the interests of confidentiality the statistics are not
published if there are fewer than three staff in a given grade
or where the distribution of merit marks makes it possible to
identify the merit mark obtained by individual members of staff.
For example, if all the staff in a given grade in a Directorate-General
have been awarded the same merit mark, each person in that grade
is thus in a position to know what the others got. The same
is true if an individual is awarded X while all the others are
awarded Y. The person with X can work out the merit mark awarded
to the others.
- The cohort taken into account for the statistics on priority
points is the staff assigned to the Directorate-General in question
on 31 December 2005 in grades qualifying for priority points.
- The statistics for officials promoted in 2006 cover officials
paid from the operating part of the general budget who in 2006
were in a grade from which it was possible to gain promotion
and who were employed in Commission departments and the Offices
(including OLAF) on 31 December 2005.
- Seniority in grade for promoted officials is calculated
to the nearest day, by calculating the time between the date
when the 2006 promotions take effect and the date of entry into
the grade.
- The standard deviation from the average time spent in a
grade by promoted officials gives an indication of the dispersion
of the cohort in relation to the average: the smaller the standard
deviation, the higher the proportion of promoted officials with
a seniority close to the average.
- The average time spent in the grade is that given for promoted
officials paid from the operating part of the general budget
in the promotion exercises for 2000 to 2004. For grades A*12,
B*10, C*6 and D*4, average seniority is taken to be the seniority
of the officials promoted in the 2005 promotion exercise.
- A promoted official has a “normal career profile” if
his/her seniority in the grade is equal to the average time
spent in the grade in the years 2000-2004, plus or minus
one standard deviation.
- A promoted official has a “fast career profile” if his/her
seniority in the grade is lower than the average time spent
in the grade in the years 2000-2004, minus one standard
deviation.
- A promoted official has a “slow career profile” if his/her
seniority in the grade is higher than the average time spent
in the grade in the years 2000-2004, plus one standard deviation.
ANNEX I
![](https://intracomm.ec.europa.eu/pers_admin/img/top.gif)
LIST OF TASKS USUALLY PERFORMED BY ADMINISTRATORS
AD tasks (43)
- Strategic analysis
- Socio-economic analysis
- Policy analysis
- Economic assessment
- Policy development
- Staff policy planning
- Policy monitoring
- Policy coordination
- Producing legislation
- Managing legislation
- Legal analysis and advice
- Verification of legislation and infringement handling
- Inter-institutional relations
- Representation and negotiation
- External relations
- Planning and programming
- Programme management
- Project / process management
- Quality management and evaluation
- Management of IT services
- Technical analysis and advice
- Management and planning
- Management of unit staff
- People management
- Personnel administration supervision of
procedures relating to the management of teams (appraisal,
promotion, training, performance, missions, etc.) and career
management
- Linguistic assistance, revision and support
- Translation
- Interpreting
- Internal co-ordination and consultation
- Interdepartmental co-ordination and consultation
- Horizontal coordination
- Information, communication, publication
- External communication
- Internal communication: production of information
reports and planning of information meetings (for members of
the unit, the hierarchy, the Commission, etc.)
- Contract management
- Budget and finance: supervision and monitoring of
the unit’s financial and budgetary transactions, of the
internal budget allocation for the unit and of productivity
of expenditure
- Budget and finance: endorsement of requests for
payment, examination of annual reports and reports on
closure of measures
- Statistics
- Technical assistance
- Control and inspection.
- Internal audit
- External audit
- Laboratory and scientific work
|
ANNEX II
2006 PROMOTION EXERCISE
PROMOTION
RATES
ANNEX III
2006 EVALUATION EXERCISE
DISTRIBUTION OF
MARKS IN THE ANNUAL REPORTS COVERING THE YEAR 2005 (OFFICIALS)
ANNEX IV
2006 PROMOTION EXERCISE
DISTRIBUTION OF DG PRIORITY POINTS
ANNEX V
2006 PROMOTION EXERCISE
SENIORITY IN
GRADE, AGE AND CAREER PROFILE OF PROMOTED OFFICIALS
(Officials paid from the operating part of the general budget)
ANNEX VI
2006 PROMOTION EXERCISE
DISTRIBUTION BY DIRECTORATE-GENERAL OF PRIORITY POINTS AWARDED FOR ACTIVITIES
IN THE INTERESTS OF THE INSTITUTION
________________
Footnotes
(1) Other than officials or temporary staff occupying the positions of
Director-General or equivalent, or Director or equivalent.
(2) The term 'jobholder' covers both officials and temporary members
of staff.
|