CERTIFICATION PROCEDURE, 2008 EXERCISE:

Draft list of admitted applicants and draft list of pre-selected applicants

• DRAFT LIST OF ADMITTED APPLICANTS
• THE DRAFT LIST OF PRE-SELECTED APPLICANTS
• APPEAL PROCEDURE
• CHECKS DONE BY DG ADMIN
• NEXT STAGES IN THE PROCEDURE
• THE COMPULSORY "CERTIFICATION" TRAINING PROGRAMME
• CONTACT DETAILS

Following the call for applications for the 2008 exercise of the certification procedure, issued by means of Administrative Notice N° 44-2008 , 806 signed applications were registered. The officials who applied are invited to read what follows.

1. DRAFT LIST OF ADMITTED APPLICANTS
   
   The draft list of 775 officials whose applications are considered as admitted is given in annex 1 .
   
   The names of the officials in grades 5 upwards of the Assistants' function group who, on the date of publication of the call for applications, were appointed to a permanent post at the Commission and were in active employment, on parental leave, on family leave or seconded in the interests of the service and who applied for the 2008 certification exercise are on the draft list of admitted applicants provided they meet each of the two following criteria:
    
   • As at 16 January 2009, have acquired a minimum of 3 years seniority in the AST career with no restriction and in grade AST5 or above.
      
   • Have the potential required to take on the functions of an administrator positively assessed in at least one of the annual CDRs covering the years 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007.
      
2. THE DRAFT LIST OF PRE-SELECTED APPLICANTS
   
   All admitted applicants were granted points and two rankings were established as follows.
   
   2.1. Points according to merit
   
   An average of the 3 best merit marks for the 6 last evaluation periods was calculated.
   
   All the merit marks obtained in CDRs established by the Commission services and covering the evaluation periods 2001-02, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007 were taken into account (therefore, according to the career, a maximum of 6 merit marks). Partial CDRs were taken into account by applying a pro rata according to the evaluation period covered by partial and annual CDRs. Probation reports and CDRs covering periods when the official was in the C or D career path were not taken into account.
   
   2.2. Points according to the level of education
   
   The admitted candidates were awarded points according to their level of education – as demonstrated by qualifications/diplomas officially recognised by the Member state or the third country in which they were issued – as follows:
    

   Highest level of education of the candidate		Points
   a)	Primary education	0
   b)	Secondary education (not giving access to higher education)
   c)	Secondary education (giving access to higher education)	2
   d)	Higher education (higher non-university degree or short university cycle of a legal duration of at least 2 years)	4
   e)	University level education of a legal duration of at least 3 years	6
   f)	University level education of a legal duration of at least 4 years	8
   g)	University level education – third stage

   A candidate was granted points corresponding to the highest education level he/she reached – and not corresponding to the number of diplomas obtained (only one allocation of points, even in case multiple diplomas).
   
   2.3. Points according to the recent professional experience acquired in the institutions in the 17 fields where the Commission has identified needs
   
   0 to 17 points were granted as follows to the admitted candidates who acquired, over the last 10 years, a professional experience within the institutions in at least one of the 17 areas of needs⁽¹⁾ :
    

   • 2 points awarded for every full year of professional experience acquired between 1 January 2003 and 31 December 2008; if the professional experience acquired does not amount to a full year, 2 twelfths of a point was awarded for every full month.
      
   • 1,25 point awarded for every full year of professional experience acquired between 1 January 1999 and 31 December 2002; if the professional experience acquired does not amount to a full year, 1,25/12ths of a point was awarded for every full month.

   2.4. Two scores for each admitted candidate
   
   Each candidate admitted to the 2008 certification exercise was awarded two scores on the basis of the points defined above and of the following weighting:

   SCORE 1

   Combining the points granted for merit (with a weighting of 60%) and the points granted for the recent professional experience in the 17 areas of need (with a weighting of 40%)

   Points according to merit (average on 20 points)	Weighting of 60%: (points obtained / 2) * 0,6	à 0 to 6 points	à Score 1 from 0 to 10 points
   Points according to the professional experience (maximum of 17 points)	Weighting of 40%: (points obtained / 1,7) * 0,4	à 0 to 4 points

   
    

   SCORE 2

   Combining the points granted for merit (with a weighting of 60%) and the points granted for the level of education demonstrated by an officially recognised qualification/diploma (with a weighting of 40%)

   Points according to merit (average on 20 points)	Weighting of 60%: (points obtained / 2) * 0,6	à 0 to 6 points	à Score 2 from 0 to 10 points
   Points according to the level of education (maximum of 8 points)	Weighting of 40%: (points obtained / 0,8) * 0,4	à 0 to 4 points

   2.5. Two lists established
   
   Two provisional ranking were established as follows:
    

   LIST 1

   Ranking of the admitted candidates according to scores 1 (combining points granted for merit and for recent professional experience in the 17 areas of need)

   LIST 2

   Ranking of the admitted candidates according to scores 2 (combining the points granted for merit and for the level of education demonstrated by an officially recognised qualification/diploma)

   2.6. Number and list of provisionally pre-selected candidates
   
   In view of pre-selecting a minimum of 220 candidates – i.e. twice the number of officials who shall be authorised to follow the training programme as a result of the 2008 certification exercise –, the 239 best-ranked admitted candidates are listed on the draft list of pre-selected candidates. This unique list is published in annex 2 .
   
   The provisionally pre-selected candidates are the highest-ranked admitted candidates on the two lists as follows:
    

   • the candidates with a ranking better or equal to the 158th position on list 1 (including ex aequo); and
      
   • the candidates with a ranking better or equal to the 111th position on list 2 (including ex aequo).
      
3. APPEAL PROCEDURE
   
   The applicants can check how their application was processed and the results in terms of admission and ranking. The number of points obtained and their ranking in the two lists are available in their “certification” file in Sysper2.
   
   The non-admitted candidates who consider they meet the admission criteria and the candidates who contest the number of points obtained and their ranking may lodge a substantiated appeal before the Joint committee for the certification procedure within 10 working days following the publication of this Administrative Notice.
   
   This appeal has to be lodged via their « certification » file in Sysper2, by clicking on the “Launch an appeal” button. The appeal has to be substantiated: a free-text area of unlimited size will be available; documents supporting the appeal have to be enclosed (via the “Annexes” tab).
   
   If, for some reason, an official is prevented from accessing Sysper2, he/she may lodge an appeal by sending a substantiated note to:
   European Commission

Unit ADMIN A/6 « Certification procedure appeals »
MO 34 5/15
B-1049 Brussels
The note must be sent within 10 working days, as evidenced by the postmark.

4. CHECKS DONE BY DG ADMIN
   
   DG ADMIN has checked – against the documents contained in the personal files – the level of education and principal language declared by the best-ranked candidates in their application forms. In case of non-conformity, DG ADMIN has modified the certification application form accordingly and has added a comment. In case the candidates disagree with the modification, they have the possibility to launch a motivated appeal (see point 3).
   
   Concerning the level of education, on the basis of a proposal made by the Joint committee, the appointing authority has decided to grant the same number of points (8) to the candidates with a university level education of at least 4 years and with a third stage. Therefore, even if it has been noticed that a candidate erroneously declared a third stage level of education instead of a university level of education of at least 4 years, the application was not be corrected. This absence of correction will have no incidence on the number of points granted. Also, no conclusion for the following certification exercises or for any future event in relation to their career can be drawn by the candidates in this situation.
    
5. NEXT STAGES IN THE PROCEDURE
   
   After examination of the appeals by the Joint committee, the appointing authority shall publish the final list of admitted candidates and the final list of pre-selected candidates.
   
   The DG and services of the pre-selected candidates (according to the assignment on the date of signature of their application) shall provide a motivated opinion on the basis of a comparative analysis of the pre-selected applications. This analysis by the DGs and services shall be based on the needs of the services and in particular on the 3 criteria defined by the general implementation provisions adopted on 20/11/07⁽²⁾ :
    
   • responsibilities and duties currently performed by the pre-selected applicants as mentioned in their job description or other relevant documents, and how these responsibilities and duties are carried out by the applicants;
      
   • versatility of the pre-selected candidates on the basis of the various functions performed and responsibilities held within the European Institutions;
      
   • relevant training courses followed as mentioned in their training passport; ability to work in Community languages as required by the service; ability to follow a training programme in French or English (given that the candidates may not follow the training in their principal language).

   Common evaluation grids and guidelines for allocating the points and establishing the ranking, were established by the appointing authority after consulting the Joint committee for the certification procedure. They are available for consultation by the candidates on the PersAdmin website dedicated to the certification procedure .
   
   On the basis of the order of priority established by the DGs and services, DG ADMIN shall establish a ranking and publish the draft list of the 110 best-ranked pre-selected candidates. The pre-selected candidate will then have the possibility to lodge a substantiated appeal before the Joint committee for the certification procedure.
    

6. THE COMPULSORY "CERTIFICATION" TRAINING PROGRAMME
   
   Courses and exams will take place in Brussels and Luxembourg and be organised in English and French. A sufficient level of linguistic knowledge is essential and no official will be allowed to follow the programme in his/her principal language.
   
   The training programme will start at the end of May 2009 as follows:
    
   • Block 1: from 26 May to 19 June 2009 (every day except on Wednesdays 10 and 17 June and on Monday 1^st June);
      
   • Block 2: from 21 September to 9 October 2009 (every day except on Wednesdays 23 and 30 September and on 7 October);
      
   • Individual study period between the 2 blocks.

   EAS shall organise information sessions for the candidates authorised to follow the training. These sessions shall take place in Brussels (7 May 2009 pm) and Luxembourg (8 May 2009 am).
   You will find more information on the calendar and on the content of the training on the EAS web site.
    

7. CONTACT DETAILS
   
   If you have any queries, you can contact ADMIN/A.6:
   
   Tel.: 93640
   E-mail: ADMIN PROCEDURE DE CERTIFICATION
   PersAdmin web site / Certification

__________________
Footnotes 

⁽¹⁾ The Commission has identified particular needs in the following 17 fields: Planning, quality management and evaluation; Policies; Legal; Inter-institutional relations; External relations; Information, communication and publications; Budget, finance and contracts; Programmes, projects, actions and funds; Compliance and infringement handling; Statistics; Control and inspection; Audit; Analysis and advice; Scientific research; Human resources management; Linguistics; Information technology.

⁽²⁾ Decision C(2007) 5694 of 20 November 2007 laying down the general provisions for implementing Article 45a of the Staff Regulations.