*Update 06.10.2025: the issues outlined below are often called ‘juniorisation‘ within the Commission, but this term is not widely understood.*

Original article: Many colleagues across the EU institutions are increasingly frustrated by outdated and overly rigid eligibility rules in EPSO competitions, institutional vacancy notices and CAST recruitment. One of the most problematic aspects is the requirement that only professional experience acquired after obtaining the minimum required qualification counts toward eligibility.
This excludes a large number of highly competent staff who gained relevant and verifiable experience before (or even while) completing a formal qualification[1]. 

Under current EPSO rules (and copied vacancy criteria across institutions, and Article 5 of the CEOS), candidates must have a set number of years of work experience after their qualification in order to qualify for posts. This rigid, linear structure penalises anyone who has not followed the increasingly outdated school-university-career template such as: 

• Staff who worked in relevant areas (or even EU institutions) for years while completing a qualification. 

• Colleagues who returned to education mid-career. 

• Those from non-traditional career paths or vocational backgrounds. 

• Parents or caregivers who delayed formal studies due to family responsibilities. 

• Those with additional, higher qualifications with later dates which might impact how work experience is counted 

As a result, we are witnessing paradoxical situations. Often mature students, who might have some 15–20 years of work experience pre-graduation (including in leadership roles), can be excluded from AD competitions or CA FGIV recruitment simply because their diploma came later. This adds to the increasing number of graduates of all kinds in the institutions occupying what are, ostensibly, non-graduate roles[2]. This exacerbates the expectations on colleagues to consistently perform well beyond their grade and salary. 

‘… discrepancies between grade and level of responsibility exist among officials. Experienced professionals in junior grades […] may be assigned greater responsibility than higher graded staff recruited before them. (European Court of Auditors, 2019, Special report no 15/2019: Implementation of the 2014 staff reform package at the Commission – Big savings but not without consequences for staff, Paragraph 62) 

The consequences 

• loss of attractiveness of the EU institutions as a place to work and a corresponding reduced ability to recruit the best 

• demotivation among experienced staff: their experience gained elsewhere is to be used but not counted for any type of reward 

• Reputational risk for the EU institutions: will potential recruits see us as rigid, out of touch and favouring those who had the means to study in their youth? 

• A system that values adherence to arbitrary timelines more than merit. 

• Inconsistent recognition of internal institutional knowledge[3]. 

• A paradox where candidates with significantly more experience and higher responsibilities are less valued, while those with potentially less experience but an earlier diploma can access senior posts and leadership roles. This results in unfair hierarchies where junior staff are promoted over more seasoned colleagues. 

• A significant disincentive to undertake further professional studies post-recruitment: there will be little assistance and almost no recognition. 

 An egregious example: Contract Agent grading 

The recognition of only that work experience which takes place post-qualification might particularly impact those recruited as Contract Agents who might already be earning significantly less than permanent staff in equivalent roles (Special report no 15/2019, Paragraph 61). 

A CA missing a higher-grade recruitment, even if that CA is only months short of the minimum set in the broad-but-rigid CEOS categories (‘brackets’ Article 5), might take years to get to that narrowly-missed grade and recover the terrain lost. Take for example Function Group FG II (equivalent to AST/SC), which divides CAs into those having more than or less than 5 years of experience: it doesn’t matter whether you have 5 or 25 years of experience, you are in the same category: the ‘over 5 years of experience’. 

Take as a further example a Function Group FG IV (equivalent to AD) with 16 years of experience recruited as a CA3a at grade 14 instead of grade 16 (grade 15 not being available as recruitment grade and grade 16 requiring a minimum of 17 years). Promotion (‘reclassification’) from grade 14 to 16 would then perhaps take place after maybe 9 years: 4 years to move from 14 to 15 and another 5 to reach 16. This is clearly unreasonable.  

This situation is further complicated by Contract Agents sometimes changing contract type (e.g. 3A/3B) and it being possible for them to sometimes end up on a lower grade than before, or with other consequence, such as Mr Picard and his retirement-age change.

A call for reform  

It is time for EPSO and all EU institutions to update their eligibility standards to reflect today’s diverse and modern workforce. An individual making the commitment to going back into learning should be celebrated! We call for: 

1. Recognition of relevant and verifiable pre-qualification experience, especially if acquired within EU institutions or public administrations. 

1. Case-by-case equivalence assessments, allowing HR to consider merit and complexity of roles held. 

1. Inclusive vacancy language, such as: “Professional experience may be exceptionally considered even if acquired prior to the minimum required diploma, when clearly relevant.” 

1. Dialogue across staff committees and HR units (e.g. the Common joint committee (COPARCO)) to explore flexible pathways and fair access. 

The date on a qualification should not valued higher than relevant work experience. By reforming these outdated eligibility criteria, we can open doors for committed, skilled staff who have already proven their value. It is time the system catches up with reality. 

Let us work together – through the staff representation, COPARCO, and interinstitutional collaboration – to push for a fairer and more inclusive approach to recruitment and internal mobility.  

As always, if you have questions or comments, feel free to contact us. 

———————————————- 

[1] We make note here of the particular case of Spain, where the degree certificate is not issued until the fees have been paid to the university e.g. around €160 that you may or may not have ready at that moment in time, it’s just a formality, after all, right? Be aware that EPSO and the EU institutions use the date of issue there and do not count work experience gained in the intervening time, no matter how relevant.  

[2] Once recruited, it is generally not possible to move internally to a different function group unless the potential candidate passes an internal competition, of which there are very few. The only exception to this would be screening for Contract Agents 3a (a passive exercise) or the Certification exercise (highly competitive) for a select number of AST officials to move to the Administrator function group. So qualifications acquired post-recruitmend have very limited potential to impact grade, role or function group. 

[3] We have highlighted this before in the context of the Certification exercise. An AST9 and an AST5 will sit the same final exams and be measured against the same criteria in spite of the potential 12 years of EU institution experience that separates them, together with the fact that they would become AD9 (middle management) and AD5 (‘entry level’) respectively.