In July, the administration launched a discussion on the 7-year rule, an issue we had already been advocating for a while. It is an important opportunity to revise a rule that has significant consequences for the careers of contract and temporary agents.
The next meeting is currently foreseen for the end of September. As the discussion moves forward, we want to clarify what is at stake, explain our position and outline why we believe that a meaningful extension of the 7-year rule deserves serious consideration.
What is the idea behind the 7-year rule?
The 7-year rule regulates the maximum period during which a person can remain employed by the Commission on non-permanent contracts, combining CA 3B and TA engagements. In simple terms, an individual can normally spend up to seven years on non-permanent contracts within a 12-year rolling period.
There are, however, important exceptions and additional restrictions. It is possible to remain employed beyond seven years where this is justified in the interest of the service, as foreseen in the applicable rules. At the same time, other limits continue to apply. For example, CA 3B contracts are subject to a strict six-year limit under the staff regulations, including Article 88. This limit applies to the individual’s career in the Commission and cannot be subject to exceptions. When considering a transition to or between temporary agent contracts, the succession possibilities laid down in Article 6 of the latest TA decision must also be taken into account.
In short, the framework is complex. The interaction between CA and TA contracts, the six-year limit for CA 3B staff, the 7-year anti-cumulation rule and the 12-year rolling period can have a decisive impact on an individual’s career prospects and their duration, though extensions and transitions between contracts are not guaranteed. Rather, the framework provides limits to what is possible.
Our advocacy: why we raised this issue in 2024
We have already approached the administration on this issue, in June 2024, following the many questions we received from colleagues. At the time, many colleagues were receiving or considering TA contracts and wanted to understand how the 7-year rule could apply to their individual situations. The system lacked transparency and created significant uncertainty, following the many questions we received from colleagues.
We argued that there was a need for better and more transparent access for Contract Agents to temporary agent positions. In particular, we believed that the possibility of extending engagements beyond the normal limits, where appropriate, should not depend on an opaque or inconsistent process.
At the time, the administration explained that six years of professional experience in the Commission as CA 3B did not constitute sufficient justification for the continuation of a TA position in the interest of the service. It also argued that systematically converting contract agents’ engagements into temporary agent contracts – even for one year, to reach seven years – was not possible on a structural basis because of budgetary constraints.
The administration reminded that the possibility of derogating from the 7-year rule was introduced in 2011. Under this system, Commission departments could request an extension from DG HR where this is justified by the interest of the service. Such requests had to be supported by factors including the specialized skills and expertise of the agent, the service’s need to retain that knowledge and the absence of suitable reserve lists of successful candidates in the relevant field.
During the pandemic and the suspension of EPSO competitions, a more flexible approach was adopted in response to service needs and to ensure business continuity, particularly because of shortages of available reserve lists. The cumulation of contract and temporary agent engagements beyond seven years was therefore allowed with greater flexibility, including for CA 3B colleagues, provided that the requesting DG had the necessary budgetary coverage.
We understood the administration’s explanation. Nevertheless, we continued to believe that contract agents need clearer and more transparent pathways towards temporary agent positions.
How the 7-year rule resurfaced during the negotiation of the TA decision
The 7-year rule and the situation of contract agents resurfaced during discussions on the TA decision, which was finalised in July 2025. The review of that decision was seen as an opportunity to revisit this anti-cumulation rule and examine the possibility of extending it.
The Common Front of trade unions requested that this issue be examined. The current discussions follow the report submitted by the administration on the application of the 7-year rule and provide an important opportunity to move from discussion and analysis to tangible measures.
Why do we believe the 7-year rule should be extended?
A meaningful extension of the rule could bring advantages both for the institution and for staff.
Benefits for the institution
Allowing experienced colleagues to remain in non-permanent positions for longer could reduce unnecessary turnover and help preserve valuable institutional knowledge. When experienced staff leave solely because they have reached a contractual limit, the institution loses expertise that it has already invested time and resources in developing.
Recruitment, onboarding and training require considerable administrative effort and resources. Repeatedly replacing experienced colleagues means repeating these processes, often while newly recruited staff members need time to become fully familiar with their responsibilities, teams and institutional environment. Longer engagements could therefore reduce the recruitment burden and allow the institution to benefit more fully from the investment already made in its staff.
Retaining experienced colleagues can also contribute to greater continuity. Projects and services can be delivered more consistently when teams are not regularly disrupted by the departure of staff who have acquired valuable expertise. This is particularly relevant in specialised areas where knowledge cannot easily or immediately be replaced.
There is also an issue of talent retention. Many contract and temporary agents are highly skilled professionals who have already demonstrated their value to the institution. Offering better career perspectives reduces the risk of losing experienced staff to other organisations and can help maintain the Commission’s attractiveness as an employer in an increasingly competitive labour market.
Benefits for staff
For staff, longer engagement possibilities would provide greater stability and a clearer basis on which to plan both professional and personal lives. Increased security can also have a positive impact on motivation and engagement.
Retaining experienced colleagues for longer would also represent a recognition of the expertise they have acquired. It would send a clear message that professional commitment, performance and institutional knowledge are valued.
Longer engagement can also support career development. Colleagues have more time to develop competencies, take on greater responsibilities and take part in training and professional development.
There may also be implications for pension and social rights. Longer careers within the institution can allow colleagues to accumulate additional pension rights and, for some, move closer or to reach the important 10-year threshold.
What about the budgetary impact?
Extending the potential duration of engagement on non-permanent contracts beyond seven years, and thereby improving career pathways, may involve additional costs. For example, some colleagues might become eligible for pension rights, though the impact to a specific level reportedly remains neutral. There could also potentially be an impact on the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme as colleagues grow older, although the direct impact would need to be accurately assessed and may not be easy to estimate.
However, any potential additional costs should be considered alongside the possible savings generated by lower turnover, fewer recruitment procedures, reduced onboarding and training costs, higher productivity among experienced staff, better retention of specialised expertise and a lower risk of operational disruption.
There is also an important human factor. Better career prospects and greater continuity can improve staff motivation and engagement. For many colleagues, the possibility of remaining in the institution for longer may also increase their chances of eventually becoming officials.
Why is this particularly important for contract agents?
The issue is particularly relevant for contract agents, especially CA 3B colleagues whose engagement ends after six years.
We believe that contract agents should have easier and more transparent opportunities to progress towards temporary agent positions. TA positions can offer a more meaningful career pathway and may provide better opportunities to participate in internal competitions leading to permanent employment.
A meaningful extension of the 7-year rule could therefore play a significant role in developing a genuine career pathway for contract agents and recognising their experience and talent. Remaining longer in the Commission through access to a TA position can provide substantially better opportunities to participate in internal competitions than remaining exclusively on a CA contract, which comes with significant limitations in that respect.
Internal competitions alone do not offer a meaningful solution for upgrading contract agents. The Staff Regulations and CEOS contain important limitations, included in Article 82(7), concerning the grades that can be accessed and the exclusion of certain function groups. There are also appointment limitations. For example, at this vert stage contract agents who succeed in an AST/SC internal competition appear to be offered a TA positions while waiting for the relevant appointment quotas to become available.
The renegotiation of the GIPs for contract agents could improve the situation in the short term in areas such as grading, recognition of experience, mobility, contract renewal policy and function group upgrades. However, within the current farmwork (Staff Regulations) such changes would not, by themselves, create additional grades or higher salary levels beyond those already available. For this reason, the extension of the 7-year rule remains an extremely important part of creating more meaningful career prospects for contract agents.
How is the Large-Scale Review (LSR) relevant?
One part of the LSR report issued in mid-July refers to a possible single-entry point to the Commission through TA positions. Under such a model, contract agents seeking to re-enter the system could potentially be treated as external candidates, with no specific recognition of their previous experience and contribution to the institution.
We discussed these implications in another article on the impact of the Large-Scale Review (LSR) on contract staff. Colleagues can still (until the end of September) submit their comments on the LSR first public report through the dedicated feedback channel.
If the proposed single-entry-point model were confirmed, the interaction with the 7-year rule could become particularly important. A former CA who re-enters the Commission as a TA could, because of the anti-cumulation rule, face a shorter maximum possible duration of engagement on a TA position than an external candidate entering directly as a TA without previous non-permanent employment in the Commission.
This is why we believe that any extension of the 7-year rule should be meaningful enough to avoid automatically placing a former CA at a disadvantage compared with an external candidate when moving into a TA position.
How does the concept of permanence on non-permanent contracts come into play?
Some non-permanent contracts, such as CA 3A and TA 2f contracts in agencies, can be extended for an indefinite period. However, these contracts are not considered for the purpose of calculating the 7-year rule in the Commission.
The rule is based on a calculation over a 12-year rolling period. If the objective is to ensure that a CA who has completed six years of engagement can subsequently access the maximum possible duration of a TA contract, particularly if the proposed single-entry model is confirmed, then both the definition of permanence and the application of the 12-year rolling period may need to be reconsidered. Alternatively, specific measures could be introduced to ensure that a former CA can re-enter the Commission as a TA on equal terms with an external candidate, at least regarding the potential maximum duration of the TA contract.
This is not about increasing the number of non-permanent staff
Our support for extending the 7-year rule should not be interpreted as support for increasing the number of non-permanent staff in the Commission. The proportion of non-permanent staff is already quite significant, and in the longer term those colleagues should be internalised (obtain permanent contracts). As already confirmed by the of the Court of Justice of the European Union (EUCJ) in its recent judgment from 13 May 2026 (Case C-155/25, Commission v Italy) that Member States must take effective measures to prevent the abusive use of such contracts where they are used to meet needs that are, in reality, permanent. It shows a striking contradiction in the Commission’s approach to fixed-term employment. More about this court judgment here.
However, colleagues who have already entered the institution on non-permanent contracts should be given meaningful opportunities to develop their careers and, ultimately, to become officials. For contract agents in particular, access to a temporary agent position can provide an important bridge towards that objective.
Speak up!
We regularly receive questions from colleagues about the application of the 7-year rule. Interest in the issue was particularly strong in 2024 and then again during the first half of 2026.
The discussion is continuing, with the next meeting currently scheduled for the last Friday of September. This is therefore the right moment to make your voice heard. If you would like to share your comments or reflections, or if you would like to discuss how the 7-year rule may apply to your situation, please get in touch with us.
