Mobility within the European External Action Service (EEAS) is governed by two administrative decisions on the organisation of an annual internal mobility exercise (ADMIN(2015)14, Ref. Ares(2015)1451726) and implementing
guidelines Ref. (ARES(2024)2219672) that outline the legal framework and set clear guidelines for the mobility process.

However, Generation 2004 has observed significant discrepancies between these rules and their application in practice. Specifically, the principles outlined in these decisions are not consistently applied during the mobility exercises, leading to confusion and dissatisfaction among staff and management involved in the recruitment process.

Since the inclusion of temporary agents in the mobility exercise, which in fact has started to be used as a hidden manner of recruitment of this staff category, the legislator’s intention to maintain clarity in recruitment, ensuring that officials would be placed in roles matching their skill sets and positions is not anymore respected.

The current guidelines define three categories of staff eligible for mobility:

1. Type One: Officials.
2. Type Two: Temporary agents who are verifiably members of a national diplomatic service and who were sent from Ministries of Foreign Affairs of Member States.
3. Type Three: Temporary agents who come from national public administrations other than Ministries of Foreign Affairs like Ministries of Defence, Intelligence, Home Affairs, Justice, Cooperation, Development, etc.

While officials and TA type 2 are to be treated the same, according to internal admin decisions, TA type 3 face specific restrictions. They can only participate in the mobility exercise if three conditions are met:

• They must be current temporary agents, with a valid and ongoing contract covering the interval of the possible post to be assigned within the mobility exercise.
• Can apply only to posts placed in services having attributions, namely in crisis management, security and IT;
• Their participation is only permissible when no suitable officials or TA type 2 are available.

Unfortunately, in practice, this rule is often ignored. There have been cases where the mobility exercise has been misused as a recruitment tool as by the end of the mobility exercise new contracts were offered in certain cases to cover the interval of the post assigned within the mobility exercise.

In addition there were also cases where TA type 3 were allowed to fill in positions even when officials or TA type 2 could have been considered.

Moreover, the distinction between generalists and specialists—staff occupying posts of a specialised or technical nature or those recruited through specialised competitions—has been blurred. While specialists are supposed to be recruited on an ad hoc basis, this provision is not consistently applied.

To make matters worse, there is pressure for all staff to participate in the mobility exercise, regardless of their position or expertise. This is especially concerning for those in specialised roles, where mobility may not be appropriate or beneficial.

When is mobility applicable?

According to the guidelines, mobility should be applied:

• For generalist staff, after four years, with the possibility of a one-year extension, and agreed upon in advance with their management.
• For specialist staff, after up to six years, but only on a voluntary basis and in the interest of the service.

However, in reality, there is little clarity or transparency regarding when and how mobility is enforced. Many staff members report being compelled to participate in mobility, even when it does not align with their role or the needs of the service.

Generation 2004’s proposals for improvement

To address these issues, Generation 2004 has developed two concrete proposals:

1. Identify positions requiring specialised or technical knowledge in advance: Positions that demand specialised or technical expertise should be clearly identified and excluded from the general mobility exercise. Both the staff occupying these roles and their management should be fully informed about the nature of these positions and the rationale for their exclusion from mobility.
2. Ad hoc mobility managed by HR: The ad hoc mobility process should be managed transparently by HR, ensuring clarity about when positions will be opened for mobility. This will provide much-needed predictability and planning, enabling staff to make informed decisions about their career paths.

Conclusions

Generation 2004 is not opposed to the principles of mobility. We recognise the value of movement and fresh perspectives within the EEAS. However, the current process lacks transparency and does not adhere to the established rules and guidelines. This creates frustration among staff and undermines the integrity of the system.

We believe that by implementing our proposals, the EEAS can strike a balance between organisational needs and staff development, ensuring that mobility is fair, transparent, planned, predictable and in the best interest of the service.

We are committed to working with the administration to find the best solutions for the EEAS personnel, fostering a culture of trust, fairness, and mutual respect. Let’s work together to make the mobility process a positive and constructive experience for all.

If you share our concerns or have additional ideas, we encourage you to get involved and share your feedback. Together, we can create a system that works for everyone!

As always, we would love to hear from you. Please do not hesitate to get in touch with us or leave a comment below. 

If you appreciate our work, consider becoming a member of Generation 2004.