Assessing the current situation. Despite existing frameworks for job mobility (as discussed in a previous article), the experience of Contract Agents (CA) under Article 3a of CEOS, particularly those working in the Commission’s Offices[*], reveals persistent structural shortcomings.
While the internal job market technically includes CA 3a staff, actual opportunities for movement remain limited.
A major obstacle lies in the mismatch between function groups and the profiles available in different services. Most contract agents in the Offices are employed under function groups I and II, whereas executive agencies tend to recruit more under function groups III and IV. This discrepancy makes it extremely difficult for CA 3a staff to find alternative roles at their level without risking their indefinite contract. Additionally, the fact that executive agencies often prioritise inter-agency transfers further narrows access for Commission-based CA 3a colleagues.
BETTER VISIBILITY AND SHORT-TERM JOB SHADOWING ARE NOT ENOUGH
Generation 2004 acknowledges and appreciates recent steps towards more transparency, including in Sysper the link to CA vacancies listed on My IntraComm. Similarly, job shadowing initiatives; while welcome, remain limited in scope. It remains unclear how many CA 3a staff from the Offices took part in 2024, and how many will eventually participate in 2025.
There is a need for the introduction of new, structural measures.
LONG-TERM MOBILITY OPPORTUNITIES
We believe there is significant untapped potential in long-term or rotational mobility arrangements. For instance, CA 3a staff in Delegations already benefit from the option to spend part of their assignment at headquarters in Brussels. A similar model could be extended to CA 3a staff in Representations (e.g., rotations to DG COMM) or in the Offices (e.g., temporary postings in DG HR or other services). While existing frameworks do not yet formally allow for this kind of flexibility, establishing such pathways would create meaningful professional development and retention prospects, particularly in environments where internal job changes are structurally limited.
EMOTIONAL COST OF LIMITED MOBILITY
The consequences of limited mobility go far beyond missed career opportunities; they weigh heavily on morale. The lack of clear pathways for progression or change becomes a real source of emotional strain, both for the individuals affected and the teams around them. Over time, stagnation can lead to frustration, feelings of professional isolation, and eventually burnout.
In many services, tension is growing between colleagues and HR representatives inside services. Staff who remain too long in the same role often feel overlooked, undervalued, and trapped in a system that offers little recognition of their ambitions or potential. This creates a toxic dynamic with decreasing motivation and trust in the institution. Without real mobility options, job satisfaction becomes the exception rather than the rule.
TOWARDS REINFORCED JOB MOBILITY
We welcome the forthcoming mobility policy with cautious optimism. The planned extension of the pilot vacancy platform, initially developed for AD staff, to include CA 3a is a step in the right direction. However, much more is needed. We call on the institution to introduce concrete and flexible mechanisms that allow CA 3a colleagues to move between roles, whether through structured rotations, long-term assignments, or simplified transfer procedures, without compromising their contractual security.
Following our initial internation and DG HR reply, we have re-contacted the administration with our concerns.
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.
[*] ‘Offices’ is used in this context to mean specific services such as OIB, OIL or the PMO but not EPSO, the OP or OLAF. *Update 23.09.2025 we note that the draft Commission budget 2026 (pp. 958-963) includes all 6 in its understanding of ‘offices’.
