*Update 02.10.2025, we’ve seen the publication of the first of the promised internal competitions [1]: the specialist AD7/AD9 financial risk management [2]. It’s disappointing that it does not include ASTs in spite of the statement [3] in the planning [4] that some internal competitions would include ASTs. We are looking at it.*
Original article: For some colleagues, internal competitions [5] are more than just a career advancement tool – they are the only chance to stay within the institution beyond their contract: i.e. they provide a chance to have job security. For others, such as AST or AST/SC colleagues, previously excluded from any cross-category opportunities (contrary to what has been standard in other institutions [6], with the excpetion of a couple of exceptions [7]) the new system [5] will be the first time they have been able to apply for another function group.
In that context, the stakes are extremely high. If we are serious about attracting and retaining talent, then the process must be inclusive, fair, and technically sound.
Yet, we are seeing increasing frustration among staff regarding both the structure and execution of recent internal competitions (old system) – particularly those held in 2024 at AD5 [8] and AD6 [9] level – and the announced planning for the new system 2025–2027 [5].
We sent a formal note [10] (Annex [11]) to DG HR to raise our concerns and provide constructive proposals for improvement. To better represent staff experiences, we encourage all participants to share their views.
Internal Competitions Planning 2025–2027: A System of Exclusion?
The 2025–2027 planning introduces multiple competitions and permits cross-function-group inclusion — but many colleagues still find themselves either entirely excluded or severely restricted [12]:
- AST10 & AST11: Fully excluded from the AD competitions planned, despite often performing AD-level work.
- AST/SC6: No internal competitions planned.
- Contract Agents (FGI): No meaningful career pathways due to restriction imposed in art.82(7) [13] of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants (CEOS)
- Contract Agents (FGIV): Access only to AD5 or AD6 with strict quotas.
- Topic-specific competitions e.g. for translators: None planned.
Even among the included categories, restrictions apply:
- AST7: Can only apply for AD7, with no real salary increase, and must wait for another promotion before being eligible for AD10.
- AST/SC2: Only one competition in three years.
Staff Categories Breakdown
| Category | Total Staff | Excluded | Notes |
| AST | 5,803 | 362 | AST 10 + 11 |
| AST/SC | 1,418 | 112 | SC 4–6, though there might be inclusion for SC4 and SC5 in AST· (this would be a drop in salary for SC5) |
| Contract Agents (FG I)
|
654 | 654 | Fully excluded |
| Contract Agents (FG II–III) | 3,381 | 3,043* | Extremely limited access (one competition, quota-bound); ~90% excluded** |
| Contract Agents (FG IV) | 3,000 | 2700* | *Eligible but under strict quotas; ~90% excluded** |
| Translators (as an example of a speciality) | 1,300 (estimated) | 1,300 | No specific competition planned for this group |
| Total | 15,556 | 8,171 |
** Let’s assume only 10–15% will be able to meaningfully participate.
8,171 / 15,556 ×100 ≈52.5%
Conclusion: The internal competition planning seems to be less inclusive than we had hoped, potentially creating structural bottlenecks. Depending on the specifc as-yet-unpublished eligibility criteria (and our as-yet-unanswered questions on AST/SCs above), we estimate that perhaps some 50% of staff might find themselves exluded or severely limited in career progression. See full breakdown in our earlier article Internal Competitions 2025–2027: A Career Breakthrough or a Tactical Diversion? [12]
Furthermore, the Commission has committed to implementing the recommendations of the European Court of Auditors [14] in their most recent special report on talent management – which urged opening cross-category internal competitions. While this has now been done on paper, the real impact, with the information we have so far, appears limited. Eligibility remains restricted and participation is skewed in favour of junior grades, while many senior and mid-level grades remain shut out.
Last of the old system: Internal Competitions AD5 and AD6: Content and Technical Concerns Undermine Fairness
While the internal competitions at AD5 and AD6 levels (COM/AD5/101/2024 [8] and COM/AD6/100/2024 [9]) were welcomed as long-awaited opportunities, they have also raised significant concerns about both content and delivery.
Unbalanced Content and Question Design
While internal competitions are presented as open and fair, the choice of exam content often reveals a structural bias. In recent exercises, many test questions (up to 35 out of 50) on general EU knowledge and policy expertise focused on specific sources, such as the Mario Draghi report [15] or datasets and case studies predominantly focussed on employment, education, health, or economic statistics. This naturally gives a clear advantage to colleagues working in these fields [16], who are already familiar with the concepts, jargon, and frameworks. Meanwhile, colleagues from other domains may find themselves at a disadvantage, not because of a lack of skill, but due to unfamiliarity with policy-specific terminology or real-world scenarios used in the tests. This raises the question of whether internal competitions truly assess transferable skills [17] or instead inadvertently reward prior exposure to a narrow set of policy areas.
Mismatch Between Fields and Questions
Colleagues reported that the field-specific questions did not match the field they applied for, especially in Field 3 (A Global Europe), which received questions that may have been better suited to Field 2 (A competitive, inclusive and secure Europe).
Unequal Access
- Contract Agents were excluded from the AD5 competition, even though no legal basis for this exclusion exists.
- Temporary Agents could apply to both AD5 and AD6 competitions, while others were limited to one.
- Some questions were reportedly repeated across both competitions, giving an unfair advantage to dual applicants and perhaps inadvertently encouraging applying for all competitions as a tactic for future competitions
Technical Issues with Communication and Testing Platform
To begin with, this round of internal competitions (end 2024: the last of the old function-group-restricted competitions) introduced the Single Candidate Portal (SCP) as the sole communication tool between the Commission and candidates. While some may have received updates via SCP, others were unaware of its existence or found it difficult to use, particularly those on leave or working with multiple platforms. Messages sent through SCP did not trigger email notifications, and SCP does not support out-of-office replies, leading to some candidates discovering critical updates too late to respond. As before, are we testing candidates’ IT setup or their competences? [18]
The notice periods are particularly short, such as in the AD5 internal competition where candidates were informed on 4 December of a test scheduled for 13 December – giving just six working days to prepare at a time of the year already known to be rather full. Normally, a two-week period is given between communication and the test date, but this timeframe coincided with school holidays. Many colleagues were on leave and unable to see or access the information on time. Additionally, many did not know the SCP platform at all, and some even mistook the SCP email for a cybersecurity threat or phishing attempt.
Furthermore, technical issues with the external testing platform, TestWe [19], continued to disrupt the process. The IT units of the Commission were unable to intervene, as TestWe operates externally from France and holds sole control of the platform. As a result, candidates were left to troubleshoot problems on their own — during a high-stakes assessment.
These technical challenges included login failures, interrupted tests, and freezing systems – problems that have been repeatedly flagged since at least 2023 [20] but remain unresolved. Candidates had little support and no meaningful chance to reschedule, or retake affected exams. In a system where every point counts, such problems can derail even the best-prepared candidates.
There is also a lack of clarity around what constitutes a model or ideal response. With only two internal competitions conducted using this platform in recent years, candidates are still unfamiliar with what a successful performance looks like, and there are no benchmarks or feedback systems in place.
Conclusion and Recommendations
Generation 2004 recommends the following concrete actions:
- Broaden Eligibility Criteria
Ensure that all staff including AST, AST/SC, FGII–IV, and translators have meaningful opportunities to progress through internal competitions, with fewer grade-based exclusions. Check out options for FGI staff. - Establish Clear and Predictable Planning
Publish a transparent and updated competition calendar, with clear timelines and eligibility information, well in advance of each competition. Ensure candidates have at least four weeks to prepare. - Improve Communication Channels
Use multiple channels (including email notifications) alongside the Single Candidate Portal, especially to accommodate staff on leave or with limited IT access. Messages impacting career development must be impossible to miss. - Address Technical Failures
Provide internal IT support for troubleshooting technical issues during online assessments. The Commission should not rely solely on external contractors for exam delivery without offering a safety net. - Ensure Content Relevance and Balance
Design tests that reflect general institutional knowledge and fair thematic coverage. Avoid narrow reliance on niche reports or sector-specific data that disproportionately favour certain profiles. - Support and Feedback Mechanisms
Provide candidates with model answers, marking guidelines, and meaningful feedback post-assessment to help them understand performance expectations and prepare more effectively in the future. - Include Career Pathways for All Function Groups
Launch new initiatives such as internal mobility schemes and tailored development programmes (e.g. for AST/SC and non-permanent staff) to complement internal competitions.
By addressing these issues, the Commission can transform internal competitions from a checkbox exercise into a strategic, inclusive tool for workforce development truly aligned with its stated “people first” ambition.
Do not hesitate to get in touch [21] or leave a comment below.
If you appreciate our work, please consider becoming a member of Generation 2004 [22].
Older updates
*Update 26.08.2025 the updated time estimates are available under ‘planning’ [4]: please note some will take place SOONER than originally stated: don’t miss your chance!*