The publication of the new internal competition COM/AD/106/2026 [1] in the field of Competition and Digital policies once again raises serious questions about the coherence of the Commission’s internal competitions strategy and its approach to talent management.
Over the past year, the administration repeatedly presented the new generation of internal competitions as a more inclusive system, notably by opening certain competitions across function groups. This was presented as an important shift following years of criticism regarding blocked career perspectives and structural limitations affecting many colleagues.
Indeed, the recent AD7 cross-category competition represented a genuine breakthrough after almost 18 years since the last comparable cross-category internal competition COM/INT/EU10/08/AD5 published in 2008.
Generation 2004 [2] consistently pushed for this change for years. In numerous notes, meetings and articles [3], we repeatedly highlighted the structural discrimination created by a system where AST colleagues were systematically excluded from most internal AD competitions while being told that certification [4] should remain their primary pathway.
At the same time, the European Court of Auditors itself recommended broader cross-category mobility and criticised the limitations of existing career structures in a special report [5].
It is important to recall that this new plan for more open internal competitions was already announced more than a year ago, yet the concrete implementation only effectively started this year. This long delay already created frustration and uncertainty among many colleagues who had been waiting for clearer and more inclusive career opportunities.
However, the reality of the new system is already revealing major contradictions.
The recent AD7 cross-category competition reportedly attracted an extremely high number of candidates – estimated at around 6,000 applicants. This clearly demonstrates the enormous demand among colleagues for genuine internal career mobility opportunities after years of blocked perspectives.
Against this background, the publication of COM/AD/106/2026 is difficult to understand.
What makes the situation particularly striking is that the competition concerns highly specialised case-handler profiles in DG COMP at AD6 level, an area where many AST colleagues have already been performing operational case-handler functions for years, sometimes for over a decade.
Several AST colleagues currently working in DG COMP have contacted Generation 2004 expressing frustration and incomprehension regarding their exclusion from this competition despite:
- years of directly relevant operational experience,
- appraisal reports confirming case-handler responsibilities,
- and the practical reality that they already perform duties very similar to those carried out by AD colleagues.
At the same time, the competition allows participation of Contract Agents FGIV, while excluding AST officials, who may in some cases have significantly longer institutional and operational experience in the relevant field.
Temporary Agents also continue to benefit from broader eligibility across many competitions.
This creates a growing perception of inconsistency and selective eligibility in the application of the Commission’s “new approach” to internal competitions.
The issue is not opposition to opening competitions to Contract Agents or Temporary Agents. Generation 2004 has always supported broader inclusiveness across staff categories.
The real issue is the continued exclusion of AST colleagues from competitions for which many of them already perform the substantive work in practice.
This raises a fundamental question:
Is the institution genuinely recognising experience, competence and internal talent — or is it still relying primarily on formal staff categories disconnected from operational reality?
This discussion is particularly important in the current context of the Large-Scale Review [6], where the administration repeatedly speaks about modernisation, agility, talent management and the need to build a more attractive and inclusive administration.
At the same time, senior management and HR leadership increasingly acknowledge the broader need to provide clearer and more inclusive career perspectives for different staff categories to ensure the long-term sustainability and attractiveness of the European civil service.
Against this background, competitions that continue excluding colleagues who already perform the relevant operational work appear to move in the opposite direction.
Even more striking is the fact that this AD6 competition appears significantly lighter in structure than the recent AD7 cross-category competition, which attracted thousands of candidates and included broader eligibility conditions. This inevitably raises questions as to why the administration is still cherry-picking who may compete and who must remain excluded.
The administration must stop relying on selective eligibility approaches that artificially separate colleagues who in practice already perform very similar work.
If colleagues are potentially eligible based on their experience, functions, and competences, they should be allowed to participate and compete fairly.
This is precisely what a modern, efficient public administration should do.
The administration cannot simultaneously promote a modern and inclusive talent-management approach while maintaining practices that allow some staff categories to participate and systematically exclude others who may possess the same experience, expertise and operational responsibilities.
In the 21st century, an organisation that continues wasting in-house talent while increasingly operating in a skills-based environment risks reinforcing label-based hierarchies instead of recognising real competences and experience. Such an approach not only undermines staff motivation and career development but also risks misusing the budget entrusted to the institution by failing to make full use of the expertise already available internally.
For many AST colleagues, the current situation is particularly difficult to accept because this competition concerns precisely the type of specialised operational work that they have been carrying out for years.
In practice, many AST case handlers already:
- analyse complex files,
- draft substantive documents,
- participate in investigations and negotiations,
- coordinate with stakeholders,
- and contribute directly to operational decision-making processes.
Yet when internal career opportunities arise, these same colleagues may suddenly be considered ineligible.
This creates frustration not only because of the exclusion itself, but because it sends a contradictory message regarding professional recognition inside the institution.
The broader concern is therefore not limited to one competition.
It concerns the overall credibility and coherence of the Commission’s new talent-management strategy.
If the objective is genuinely to modernise the institution, improve mobility and retain experienced staff, then internal competitions must progressively reflect the operational realities of today’s administration, not career structures designed decades ago.
Generation 2004 [2] completely denounces this type of selective and inconsistent approach to internal mobility and career development. The European Commission should move towards a genuinely open, competence-based and inclusive system that recognises talent and operational reality rather than reproducing rigid category-based barriers disconnected from the actual work performed inside the institution.
Generation 2004 will continue following this issue closely and assessing with affected colleagues possible next steps, including requests for clarification regarding the justification for the eligibility criteria applied in this competition.
Because after almost two decades of systematic exclusion from most cross-category opportunities, many colleagues expected that the promised opening of internal competitions would finally lead to a more coherent and fair system.
The extremely high number of applicants in the recent AD7 competition shows very clearly that the demand for fair and meaningful internal career opportunities is real and massive.
The current competition unfortunately risks reinforcing the opposite perception.