What is GIPS Article 13 (CA screening) and who can benefit from it ?  Article 13 of the general implementing provisions (GIPs) for Article 79(2) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants (CEOS) provides a pathway for Contract Agents engaged under article 3a of the CEOS [*] to advance to a higher function group (so-called CA screening), provided they meet certain conditions. On one hand, this mechanism should aim to align function groups more accurately with the tasks performed – a primary objective. On the other, it could offer means of reducing disparities between contract agents and their counterparts in temporary or permanent positions. However, this option remains severely underutilised, leaving many contract agents in roles that do not reflect their true level of responsibility.[**] 

An Overlooked Solution to the Systematic Undervaluation of Contract Agents 3A

Indeed, based on testimonials, staff self-assessments, and evaluation reports analysed during various exercises, Generation 2004 has observed that Article 13 remains largely unexploited. Many contract agents continue to perform duties beyond their assigned function groups, yet the application of Article 13 has been minimal and highly restrictive. The figures, particularly in the Commission’s Offices, are alarming—most contract agents are confined to the lowest function groups (FG I and FG II), with screening exercise that are infrequent and severely limited in scope and quotas. The latest administrative notices N°34-2024 and N°35-2024) further confirm the lack of meaningful opportunities in that respect.  

The Structural Impact of an Undervalued Workforce 

The new type of office created in 2002 (‘the Offices’: OIB, OIL and PMO)[***] were intended to improve efficiency and reduce costs, partially by relying on contract agents. However, the stark imbalance in staff composition compared to directorates-general is difficult to justify, even considering the technical nature of some tasks performed by the Offices. 

While cost-saving goals may have been achieved, the implementation has led to serious structural problems. More than two decades since their creation, the Offices are struggling with widespread demotivation among contract agents due to limited career prospects and mobility, high absenteeism[****], a shortage of AD-level functions (accessible through FG IV), and overcrowded management structures. Some units have between 60 and 90 colleagues, with certain sectors exceeding 60 staff members. These conditions negatively affect both employees and managers. It is unsurprising that (delegated) reporting officers, burdened with drafting dozens of evaluation reports, often resort to providing only a few sentences in key sections of performance assessments.  

Generation 2004 urges managers to actively highlight these structural challenges, particularly regarding the reliance on an under-graded contract agent workforce in overpopulated units. 

The Continued Neglect of Experienced Contract Agents 

While the administration has found the resources to create and expand the Junior Professionals Programme (JPP)—targeting employees with less than three years of experience—and has committed to increasing mobility for new recruits, the CA3A category, despite its longer institutional experience and commitment, has been completely sidelined. 

Internal competitions, already restricted in terms of frequency, appointment quotas, and accessible grades (cf. Article 82 § 7 of CEOS), offer little real value to CA staff. For many (especially CA3A after being already promoted (‘reclassified’), but CA3b cannot even be reclassified), the grades available in these competitions would result in lower salaries than their current earnings, further diminishing their appeal. The latest internal competitions planning confirms extremely limited opportunities for FG II and FG III staff, while FG I colleagues remain entirely blocked by the provisions of the staff regulations (CEOS). To make a real and lasting impact on the career prospects of contract agents, additional measures must be implemented alongside these competitions. A reinforced application of article 13 could be one of them, especially now that the Picard case clarified some outstanding pension-related issues. 

Expanding Screening Opportunities for All Contract Staff 

CAs working in other Commission services (e.g. Member States’ representations, EU delegations) and in executive agencies face their own challenges. The gap between function groups and actual responsibilities is evident across multiple areas. Generation 2004 recognises that Article 13 is typically applied only in exceptional cases—but this situation qualifies as an exception that warrants urgent action. Furthermore, paragraph 3 of Article 13 explicitly states that the Commission should consider the situation of its existing staff when determining the scope and frequency of screening exercises. 

Generation 2004 advocates for renegotiating the 2017 General Implementing Provisions (GIPs 2017) governing contract agents’ employment conditions. Among other elements, this could open function group upgrades to contract agents defined under article 3b of the CEOS as well, ensuring a fairer and more effective career progression system for all contract agents. 

‘Since 2020, the institutions have experienced difficulties in recruiting officials because of disruptions to EPSO’s activities. They have reacted by increasing their recruitment of temporary staff. They have also diversified their recruitment channels, putting in place programmes targeted at junior professionals, or increasing the number of seconded civil servants from national administrations to fill gaps in expertise. While the recruitment of temporary staff has proven an effective and flexible way to deal with the shortage of successful candidates on EPSO reserve lists, it carries some risks for business continuity and knowledge management, and as such cannot be a viable long-term solution (Paragraph 100, European Court of Auditors, 2024, Special Report 24/2024: EU Civil service A flexible employment framework, insufficiently used to improve workforce management)

We’re here for you!

If you appreciate our work, please consider becoming a member of Generation 2004.

___________________________________
Further reading and references: 

10 postulates for fairness for a better future for contract staff 

C(2017)6760; Commission Decision on the general provisions for implementing Article 79(2) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union, governing the conditions of employment of contract staff employed by the Commission under the terms of Articles 3a and 3b thereof (GIPs 2017)  

COM(2002)264: Communication from the Commission: A new type of office for managing support and administrative tasks at the European Commission 

Internal competitions planning 

[*] Unfortunately, this does not include Contract Agents 3B: check sysper to see which type of contract you have: the differences are striking.

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

[**] See European Court of Auditors, 2024, Special Report 24/2024: EU Civil service A flexible employment framework, insufficiently used to improve workforce management Annex II p.46 to see indicative tasks for each function group.

[***] ‘The Offices’ means different things in different situations. It’s as clear as mud, we fully agree. This can, understandably lead to confusion. We are using the ‘the Offices’ in this text as per meaning 3 below.