*Update 18.03 we’ve seen the undated FAQs and apply it to [*] below. ‘If you wish to be notified about the publication of an internal competition, you have the possibility to subscribe to the administrative notices’ alerts via this link: Administrative Notices – message alert system.’*

Original article: Opportunities Announced, But Do They Truly Deliver?  The European Commission has announced its internal competitions planning for 2025-2027, introducing more frequent competitions and cross-category mobility up to AD10. This appears to be a positive development at first glance, but a deeper analysis of eligibility criteria and staff demographics raises serious concerns about how inclusive and effective these competitions will be in addressing long-standing career progression issues. While the Commission claims that this move aligns with Recommendation 3(c) of the European Court of Auditors’ (ECA) Special Report 24/2024 – which called for internal competitions to be opened across function groups – the reality reveals systemic exclusions that leave behind a significant portion of staff, particularly AST10-11, AST/SC, and Contract Agents below FGIV.  Additionally, many AD12 colleagues remain entirely excluded promotion with limited career mobility 

Who Benefits and Who is Left Behind? A Data-Driven Breakdown 

While some categories have gained access to competitions, the structure of eligibility rules ensures that a significant proportion of staff remain locked out. 

1. Internal Competitions Timeline (2025-2027)

The following competitions have been announced: 

Year	Generalist Competitions	Specialist Competitions
2025	AD7, AST3, AD5	Financial risk officers (AD7+), Case handlers (AD5+), Interpreters (AD5, AD7), ICT experts (AD6)
2026	AD12, AST2, AD6, AD5	Health specialists (AD7+), Interpreters (AD5, AD7), ICT experts (AD7+)
2027	AD10, AST/SC2, AD5	Case handlers (AD5+), Other profiles

• Key Takeaways: Cross-category competitions for AST stop at AD10, meaning that AST10 and AST11 remain entirely blocked from career progression. 
• AST7 are only eligible for AD7 competition, which is not a real promotion – it is a lateral move that requires additional waiting period to be eligible for AD10 competition later. 

• AST/SC competitions are insufficient despite a large number of staff in these roles. 

2. Internal Competition Eligibility Breakdown for All Function Groups and Grades

Administrators (AD) – Who Benefits? 

Grade	Number of AD Staff	Competition Eligibility
AD11	1232	Eligible for AD12 competition
AD10	1702	Eligible for AD12 competition
AD9	2132	Eligible for AD10 competition
AD8	1600	Eligible for AD10 competition
AD7	1862	Must wait for promotion to participate in AD10
AD6	732	Eligible for AD7 competition
AD5	1281	Eligible for AD6 and AD7 competitions

 

Source: Draft General Budget of the European Union – Working Document Part II, June 2024 

• Impact: AD11 and AD12 staff have limited options, with only AD12 competitions available. For AD12 promotion as a senior expert are often limited to lucky few close to the hierarchy, while most lower AD grades have access to multiple competitions.  

 AST Staff – The Missing Higher Grades 

Grade	Number of AST Staff	Competition Eligibility
AST11	135	No competition available
AST10	227	No competition available
AST9	815	Eligible for AD10
AST7	1114	Eligible for AD7, but must wait for promotion to participate in AD10
AST6	1169	Eligible for AD7
AST5	1045	Eligible for AD7
AST4	478	Eligible for AD6
AST3	486	Eligible for AD5
AST2	46	Eligible for AST3
AST1	288	Eligible for AST2

Source: DRAFT GENERAL BUDGET OF THE EUROPEAN UNION – Working Document Part II, June 2024 

• Key Issue: AST10-11 remain fully excluded. Despite performing AD-level tasks, they cannot apply for AD competitions. AST7 is facing an indirect block, as they must first be promoted to apply for AD10. 

• Impact: Those who joined in the 2004-2006 enlargement (often at AST1/AST3) are now in AST7-10 but have no career mobility under the current plan. 

AST Access to AD Function Group: Certification Alone is Not a Viable Path 

The Commission argues that ASTs have access to the AD function group through the certification procedure. However, this is not a realistic alternative for most ASTs because: 

• Certification is highly competitive and has a low success rate, making it inaccessible to most AST staff. 

• Certification resets seniority to zero, causing significant financial disadvantages compared to an internal AD competition. 

• Certification does not offer the same career flexibility as internal competitions, which allow for faster promotions within the AD function group. 

For AST7 staff, applying for AD7 via internal competition is a better option than certification, as it avoids losing seniority. However, the lack of a salary increase makes it a career transition rather than real career progression. 

 AST/SC Staff – A Neglected Category 

Grade	Number of AST/SC Staff	Competition Eligibility
SC6	0	No competition available
SC5	37	No competition available
SC4	75	We’re waiting for confirmation of whether you are eligible for AST3 competition (similar salary to AST/SC4)[*]
SC3	144	Eligible for AST3 competition
SC2	423	Eligible for AST3 competition
SC1	739	Eligible for AST/SC2, AST2 and AST3 competitions

Source: DRAFT GENERAL BUDGET OF THE EUROPEAN UNION – Working Document Part II, June 2024

• Key Issue: AST/SC staff are nearly entirely excluded from internal competitions, with only SC2 receiving a competition slot. 

• Impact: No long-term career growth available for AST/SC grades. 

 

The -2 Grade Rule: An Arbitrary Block to Career Progression 

• The requirement that candidates be at least two grades below the competition level serves as an artificial restriction[*]. 

• The condition to hold a university degree: we’re with the Court of Auditors on the function groups needing updating.[**]. 

• Experienced AST and AST/SC staff with approximately 15+ years of service are still unable to progress to roles that match their responsibilities. At the same time, their extensive work experience is not recognised.  

• Other EU institutions (e.g., the European Parliament and Court of Justice) do not impose such rigid limitations, making their career systems more flexible and fairer. 

Contract Agents – Some Improvements for FG IV but Still Extremely Limited

Function Group	Nr of CA Staff	Competition Eligibility
FGIV	3795	Allowed to AD5 and AD6 competitions but only with the very restrictive quota limits imposed by art.82(7) of CEOS
FGIII	1434	Allowed for AST2 competition. Only one competition available in the period 2025 –2027 [***] (in addition to quota limits imposed by art.82(7) of CEOS)
FGII	1947	Allowed for AST/SC2 competition. Only one competition available in the period 2025 –2027 [***] (in addition to quota limits imposed by art.82(7) of CEOS)
FGI	654	No competitions due to restriction imposed in art.82(7) of CEOS

Source: DRAFT GENERAL BUDGET OF THE EUROPEAN UNION – Working Document Part II, June 2024

• Key Issue: Despite almost 8,000 contract agents in the Commission, mostly FGIV colleagues have access to internal competitions (with very restrictive appointment quotas) 

• Impact: Apart from a single competition for FGII and III, opportunities remain highly restricted in frequency, quotas, grades, and eligible function groups (see Article 82 § 7 of CEOS). For many, especially CA3A after promotion, available grades often offer lower salaries, making these competitions unattractive. 

• FGI is excluded from internal completions altogether[****]. 

• No real, impactful alterative opportunities for internal advancement (e.g. largely unexplored screening, extremely slow reclassification for CA3As) 

Conclusion: A Tactical Announcement That Falls Short of Real Change 

While the Commission may claim progress with the 2025-2027 internal competition cycle, the data reveals a more concerning reality: 

• More than 50% of staff remain excluded or severely restricted from meaningful career progression. 

• Senior ASTs (AST10-11) have no pathway to AD roles.  

• AD12 administrators are fully excluded.  

• Contract agents (FGI-FGIII) have no career opportunities.  

• Certification remains an inaccessible and financially disadvantageous alternative.  

• Despite promising “cross-category” competitions, the restrictions ensure that the majority of staff do not benefit. 

• Other EU institutions offer more flexible career pathways, making the Commission’s model increasingly outdated. 

While the Commission may claim it has fulfilled the ECA recommendation, the numbers tell a different story. A true reform should provide realistic access for all function groups, rather than limiting opportunities through restrictive eligibility criteria that exclude thousands of long-serving staff. 

This raises a critical question: Is this an actual solution to career stagnation, or just a temporary measure to deflect frustration from staff? 

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, please consider becoming a member of Generation 2004.

---

[*] We’ve received no response as yet to our 10.03.2025 request to clarify the ‘Minimum general eligibility requirements’: the rules appear to contradict one another and the recent undated FAQs still leave some issues up to interpretation. We’ll update  when we have more info. Here’s our reasoning.

All 3 of the phrases in the table below are used in the myintracomm article, but they are mutually exclusive.

	‘Minimum general eligibility requirements’	Standard(?) interpretation	My own example of that standard(?) interpretation	My own notes	undated FAQs	My own interpretation of that FAQs
1	‘N-2 rule’	Only lower grades	AST1 will not be eligible for AD5 competition AST3 will be eligible for AD5 competition AST/SC5 will not be eligible for AST 3 competition	Are these grades like in the salary scales? If so, how to accommodate AST/SC (1-6) being a different scale from AST and AD (1-16) is an AST/SC 1 to be equivalent to an AST/AD 1?	‘eligibles candidates can also be in a higher grade than the grade of the competition.’	Change: AST/SC5 will be eligible for AST 3 competition
2	‘within … 2 grades of the competitions.’	Lower or higher grades (+/- 2)	AST1 will not be eligible for AD5 competition AST3 will be eligible for AD5 competition AST/SC5 will be eligible for AST 3 competition		‘eligibles candidates can also be in a higher grade than the grade of the competition.’	No change
3	‘within at least 2 grades of the competitions.’	Cannot be less than 2 grades distant/must be more than 2 grades distant	AST1 will be eligible for AD5 competition AST3 will not be eligible for AD5 competition AST/SC5 will not be eligible for AST 3 competition	Is this a typo? E.g. intended as ‘within at most 2 grades of the competitions.’	‘To be eligible for a competition, you need to be in at least minus two grades of the competition.’	Change: AST1 will not be eligible for AD5 competition AST3 will be eligible for AD5 competition AST/SC5 will be eligible for AST 3 competition

The examples given on the article  (‘For example, AST3 will be eligible for AD5 competition; AST5 and AD5 will be eligible for an AD7 competition’) suggest that text 1 is true and that text 2 might be true. It also appears to make a typo a credible explanation for text 3.

Are AST/SC4 colleagues eligible for the AST3 competition? AST/SC 4 and AST 3 earn almost the same salary. The FAQs and text 2 above suggest that AST/SC4 could indeed participate, while, while statements 1 and 3 exclude them. Given that the FAQs is undated we cannot say whether it supersedes the three statements taken from the MyIntracomm article.

There is no equivalent text in French to check.

[**] staff regulations Article 5(3) gives minimum educational requirements for function groups.

‘These requirements are out of step with the current level of educational attainment in the EU where over 75 % of the EU population has at least completed secondary education, and 30 % has completed university studies19. As a result, staff in the SC and AST function groups may often have qualifications that are not aligned with their job requirements. This can lead to demotivation and have an impact on staff performance.’ (Paragraph 93, European Court of Auditors, 2024, Special Report 24/2024: EU Civil service A flexible employment framework, insufficiently used to improve workforce management)

[***] Many Contract Agents (3b) are time-limited. Their time at the Commission might coincide with only 1 internal competition or even none (as happened during Covid).

[****] Contract Agents (CAs) in all four function groups (FGI-IV) and contract types (3a or 3b) have limited job security and very limited options for changing post or role other than the far-from-routine option of CA screening (3a only).

	CA3A	CA3B	How many in total
2020	3496	3947	7443
2021	3529	3949	7478

Figures are taken from Annex 2 in the table of CSC notes below.

Sending date n° Ares	Title of Central Staff Committee note	Reply & date
06/02/2024 (2024)887510	Renewed request for Statistical Data on the use of Contract Staff
25/04/2023 (2023)2911987	Request for Annual Report on the use of Contract Agents and statistic data	HR Annex 1 Annex 2

FGI (normally manual tasks) is the lowest on the salary scales within that already-disadvantaged group and has no option for internal competitions (there is no provision in the CEOS) making it almost a locked box.  Further, FGI has the ununsual distinction of being the only CA function group where men outnumber women: FGI is 68% men (October 2024 Statistical bulletin).

Generation 2004 would like to see a much more even distribution across all contract types and function groups. The Commission risks being seen as a place where people struggle to realise their potential.