*Update 23.09.2025: It’s now official: 50 AST/SCs are to have the (mis)fortune of doing an AST post without the corresponding AST promotion speed or career potential. Check the Draft 2026 Commission budget: ’50 posts in the function group AST may be occupied by officials and temporary staff in the AST/SC function group to reflect the gradual phase-in of the AST/SC function group.’ (p. 955, footnote 1). While the Commission as a whole is set to lose 24 posts, the AST function group is to lose 121 (leaving 4398 permanent staff). No other function group is to decrease in size.*
Original article: Article 90(2) complaint lodged against a published post for an AST/SC financial assistant. Generation 2004 is the first and only staff representation to reveal and condemn the ongoing process of replacing non-secretary assistant (AST) staff with secretaries and clerks (AST/SC) staff. We recently submitted our AST/SC petition to the European Parliament. We have already described how DG HR is going beyond the stated aims of replacing only the secretarial and clerical staff currently in the AST function group (recruited as secretaries AST1 between 2004 and 2014 as well as staff in former C (secretaries and clerks) and D (manual workers) groups recruited before 2004) with AST/SC staff and can now also be seen to replace former AST3 assistants with contractual agents (FGII), temporary agents (TA1) and AST/SC1 staff, and thus to slowly phase out the entire AST function group. We are happy to inform you that a Generation 2004 member has lodged a complaint under Article 90(2) of the staff regulations against a recently published vacancy notice and job description for a financial assistant in function group (FG) AST/SC.
In that complaint, our member argues that the post published is illegal since it violates Article 5 and Annex I of the Staff Regulations, and, therefore, must be annulled.
Critical analysis of the contested AST/SC post
The job title and the job description of the contested post changed several times between 2004 and 2021. A comparative analysis of the duties of the contested post belonging to three different function groups (AST, AD, and AST/SC) between 2013 and 2021 reveals that these duties are almost identical.
| Title | Years | Function group (*) |
| Financial Assistant – Verification | 2013-2018 | AST |
| Financial Officer – Verification’ | 2018-2021 | AD |
| Finance and Contracts Agent – Verification | since 09/2021 | AST/SC |
(*) The Commission’s Job Titles & Job Families Library (fifth edition, May 2021)
Furthermore, a critical examination of the nature and importance of the said duties in the light of Article 5 and Annex I, Section A of the Staff Regulations shows that these duties are incompatible with function group AST/SC (clerical and secretarial tasks, office management and other equivalent tasks).
The duties of the contested post are compatible only with function group AST (executive duties, in particular with regard to the implementation of rules and regulations or general instructions) and function group AD (analytical and managerial duties).
Comparison of the contested AST/SC post with the notice of open competition EPSO/AST/139/16
With notice of open competition EPSO/AST/139/16, the European Personnel Selection Office (‘EPSO’) organised an open competition, based on qualifications and tests, to draw up reserve lists from which the institutions of the European Union may recruit new members of the civil service as assistants (function group AST) in the area of finance and human resources.
According to Annex I to the notice of open competition EPSO/AST/139/16, the duties of assistants (function group AST) in the area of finance include, inter alia, the duties of ‘verifying agents’ within the meaning of the Financial Regulation.
The contested post ‘Finance and Contracts Agent – Verification’ in function group AST/SC is indeed a post for a verifying agent, and therefore, it must be occupied by staff in function group AST.
Analysis of Article 74, paragraph 5 of the Financial Regulation
Article 74(5) of the Financial Regulation states that ‘the staff who carry out the verification shall not be subordinate to the members of staff who initiated the operation.’
Where there is a shortage of staff, it is not uncommon for those in ‘entry team leading functions’ such as team leaders, or even heads of sector, to act as ‘initiating agents’ within the meaning of the Financial Regulation.
Since the Financial Regulation explicitly prohibits that the ‘verifying agent’ be subordinate to the ‘initiating agent’, it is not possible that members of staff in function group AST/SC verify the work performed by their superiors in the administrative hierarchy.
Conclusion
The complaint lodged by our member concludes that the job description and the vacancy notice of the contested post ‘Finance and Contracts Agent – Verification’ in function group AST/SC are illegal administrative acts due to violation of Article 5 and Annex I of the Staff Regulations, and, therefore, they must be annulled.
The decision of DG Human Resources and Security (DG HR) in reply to this complaint is expected to be delivered by the end of February 2022. We will inform you of the outcome as soon as it becomes known. Please remember to sign our petition to abolish the unfair treatment of AST/SC staff members!
The bigger picture
This appears to be part of an ongoing strategy of recruiting people to lower grades and salaries than would previously have been the case. This ‘juniorisation’ of roles within the Commission is happening across contract types and function groups. Any idea or remedying the situation via internal competitions is blocked by the Commission (but not Parliament, Court of Justice of Committee of the Regions) policy of limiting competitions by function group. Most of the affected staff are unable to use the Junior Professionals Programme (JPP) system bypass since they have well in excess of the maximum 3 years of experience permitted.
Here are some examples of role/grade/function group mismatches
Administrators (ADs): ‘…. discrepancies between grade and level of responsibility exist among officials. Experienced professionals in junior grades (AD6 to AD8) may be assigned greater responsibility than higher graded staff recruited before them.’ Paragraph 62, 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
Local agents in delegations: ‘Story 1 LA Function Group IV recruited as section secretary. Later on the job task of the DMO (document managing officer) is added to the job description and this has been the situation for more than 2 years. Management refused to discuss changing the post to Group III.
Story 2 Group III secretary with extensive research experience. Section added tasks such as desk research and translation for politically relevant subject. Although being classified as ‘essential staff’, there was no initiative to correct the job function to Group II.
Story 3 In the same Delegation there are 8 secretaries recruited to do exactly the same tasks. However 7 are group III and one is Group IV. Management simply refuse to correct the singled out post to Group III although the tasks performed are the same.
Story 4 Four project managers in the same Delegation are managing projects in the same manner. Three of them are Group I while one is Group II. The colleague was transferred from another section as Group II while it was clear that the job in the new section is a group I post. Despite this, there was no will in the Delegation to correct the function group.’
Contract Agents: ‘the 2004 and 2014 reforms of the EU Staff Regulations, which created a system in which the date of recruitment is more important for career development than merit, qualification, and professional expertise. The Commission has continuously replaced permanent officials with contract agents (CAs), with CAs currently representing over 22 % of the Commission’s workforce. Although contractual staff is only supposed to perform “non-core tasks”, they do the work of permanent officials without being recognised accordingly. Moreover, there is an increase in harassment cases associated to tensions between permanent officials and CAs. The petitioner therefore demands the elimination of structural unfairness and the implementation of the principle of “equal pay for equal work”. To this end, she proposes a series of measures to improve the working conditions of CAs, including permanent contracts for those working on permanent tasks, fair reclassification rates, better access to the EU institutions internal job market and preferential recruitment over external applicants.’
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.
To stay informed, please follow us on social media:
Generation 2004 (@2004generation) / Twitter
Generation 2004 – Startpagina | Facebook
Update 18.11.2021 We updated the title of this article. The original title was open to misinterpretation: ‘Stop replacing non-secretary AST staff with AST/SC staff!’
