REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL pursuant to Article 27 of the Staff Regulations of Officials and to Article 12 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union (Geographical balance) - Main contents
| Document date | 07-09-2018 |
|---|---|
| Publication date | 08-09-2018 |
| Reference | 10268/1/18 REV 1 |
| From | Secretary-General of the European Commission, signed by Mr Jordi AYET PUIGARNAU, Director |
| External link | original article |
| Original document in PDF |  |
Council of the European Union
Brussels, 7 September 2018 (OR. en)
10268/1/18 REV 1
STAT 5 FIN 478
COVER NOTE
From: Secretary-General of the European Commission, signed by Mr Jordi AYET PUIGARNAU, Director
date of receipt: 8 August 2018
To: Mr Jeppe TRANHOLM-MIKKELSEN, Secretary-General of the Council of the European Union
No. Cion doc.: COM(2018) 377 final/2
Subject: REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL pursuant to Article 27 of the Staff Regulations of
Officials and to Article 12 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union (Geographical balance)
Delegations will find attached document COM(2018) 377 final/2.
Encl.: COM(2018) 377 final/2
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Brussels, 24.8.2018 COM(2018) 377 final/2
CORRIGENDUM
This document corrects document COM (2018) 377 final of 15 June 2018.
Concerns all language versions.
Updates in the tables of some of the annexes.
The text shall read as follows:
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL
pursuant to Article 27 of the Staff Regulations of Officials and to Article 12 of the
Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union (Geographical balance)
S ECTION 1 – B ACKGROUND AND G ENERAL P RINCIPLES
-
1.L EGAL BASIS
This report deals with the level of representation of nationals of each Member State among staff of the institutions to whom the Staff Regulations (SR) apply. It is presented pursuant to Article 27, third paragraph, of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (SR) and to Article 12, paragraph 1, fourth paragraph, of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union (CEOS). Unless explicitly otherwise provided, any reference to Article 27 SR also refers to Article 12 CEOS.
As a general rule, discrimination on the basis of nationality is prohibited by the Treaties, the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the Staff Regulations 1 . At the same time, the Staff Regulations require that EU institutions recruit staff from the broadest possible geographical basis (Article 27 SR) 2 . The balance between these two elements already enables the institutions to take nationality into account, even for filling specific posts "where qualifications of the various applicants are substantially the same" 3 .
With the reform of the Staff Regulations in 2013 and its reference to the principle that all the Union's citizens are equal, the co-legislators introduced a new legal basis for each institution to adopt appropriate measures where a significant imbalance between nationalities of officials, which is not justified by objective criteria, is observed. The aim of this amendment was to provide for the necessary legal means to deal with situations of significant imbalance, which would be in contradiction with the very principle of equality of citizens of the Union.
1 Article 9 of the Treaty on the European Union requires that "in all its activities, the Union shall observe the principle of equality of its citizens". Similarly, Article 1d SR prohibits "any discrimination on any ground". In addition, Article 27 SR prohibits reserving individual posts for nationals of any Member State. See Annex 1 for a more detailed description of the legal framework.
2 In this context, the legislator has adopted in the past specific regulations aiming at limiting recruitments and allowing posts to be reserved for nationals of one or more Member States; this was typically the case in the context of enlargements.
1
-
2.S COPE OF THE R EPORT
Article 27SR, requires that the Commission report to the European Parliament and the
Council on the implementation of this Article. For the purpose of the report, the following definitions are used:
Institutions: the institutions concerned are those to whom the Staff Regulations apply.
The Commission invited all institutions and decentralised agencies to contribute. A specific section is dedicated to the contributing institutions and agencies.
Staff members: the legal basis covers officials (Article 27 SR) and temporary staff
(Article 12 CEOS). Both populations are examined together.
Function group: the legal basis does not require distinction to be made by function group. However, having regard to the underlying objective of the report, the analysis concerning the Commission will focus on the AD function group.
S ECTION 2 – E UROPEAN C OMMISSION
-
1.M ETHODOLOGY
1.1. Background
Before the entry into force of Article 27 SR in its current wording, the issue of geographical balance was primarily addressed during enlargements of the Union to new Member States. The objective in each case was to reach, within a limited period of time, an adequate level of representation of nationals from new Member States taking into account the relative size of the enlargement in comparison to the existing situation.
The Commission adopted several communications setting out the methodology for defining the objective to be reached, be it in the form of “guiding rates” before 2003 4 or “indicative recruitment targets” since 2003 5 . The Commission reported regularly on the progress towards reaching the recruitment targets and adopted corrective measures when necessary.
A detailed overview of the evolution of the “guiding rates” applicable before 2003 is provided in Annex 2 together with a table setting out the recruitment targets adopted since 2003.
4 See Commission Communication of Mr Van Miert SEC(1994)844 of 17 May 1994 at the occasion of the accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden
5 See Communication of Mr Kinnock concerning the recruitment of Commission officials from the new Member States of 14 February 2003 C(2003)436/5, adopted on 19 February 2003; Communication of Mr Kallas C(2006)5778 concerning the recruitment of Commission officials and temporary agents from Bulgaria and Romania of 24 November 2006, adopted by Written Procedure on 1 December 2006 (SEC(2006)1574/5); Communication of Vice-President Šefčovič concerning the recruitment of Commission officials and temporary agents from Croatia of 12 July 2012, (SEC(2012)436 final).
The methodology for setting guiding rates and indicative recruitment targets in 2003 was deemed to be transitional with the last transition phase ending in 2018 following the enlargement to Croatia. The conditions are therefore now met to define "guiding rates" for Member States based on a single methodology.
1.2. Level of representation of nationalities
1.2.1. Nationality
According to Article 28(a) SR, an official may be appointed only on condition that he is a national of one of the Member States of the Union unless an exception is authorized by the appointing authority.
Each official therefore has to declare at least one nationality at the time of his appointment. This nationality is encoded into the information system as being the "first nationality" and remains constant unless a change is requested by the official.
The "first nationality" is used as a basis for establishing this report.
Officials may 6 declare other nationalities either at the time of their appointment or in the course of their career. Any nationality that comes in addition to the "first nationality" is encoded into the information system as "second nationality" or "third nationality", etc.
On 1.1.2018, 1041 officials and temporary staff had declared more than one nationality.
A detailed overview of first and second nationalities is provided in Annex 7d.
1.2.2. Guiding Rates
1.2.2.1. United Kingdom
Following the United Kingdom's notification to the Council, on 29 March 2017, of its intention to withdraw from the Union, no guiding rate is defined for the United Kingdom. Indeed, the analysis carried out in the report will serve as a basis for future action. Therefore, whilst fully acknowledging the fact that the United Kingdom is a Member State at the time of adoption of this report, it does not seem appropriate at this stage to set a guiding rate for the representation of UK nationals in the future.
In order to fully take into account the fact that the UK continues to be a Member State until the day it leaves the Union, and with a view to tackling the issue without prejudging the outcome of the ongoing negotiations, it is proposed to recalculate any relevant figure without including the values for the United Kingdom. The report, gives a detailed overview of the current presence of UK nationals among Commission AD staff (see Annex 7c). UK nationals occupy predominantly grades higher than AD9. Half of them were older than 50,5 years on 1.1.2017.
6 However, staff members must declare if they are or have been nationals of the State in whose territory the place where they are employed is situated
The Commission has taken note of the fact that a number of UK nationals among its staff have requested or may request a change towards a different first nationality.
These changes are of an exceptional nature and therefore deserve a specific handling.
As a consequence, staff members from the United Kingdom who declare a change of nationality after 29 March 2017 shall still be considered to have kept the UK nationality as first nationality 7 for the purpose of ensuring a balanced representation of staff within the Commission, notably at middle-management and senior management level.
1.2.2.2. Definition of the guiding rates for the remaining 27 Member States
A method to harmonise Member States' weighting should be determined. The indicator adopted in 2003 in order to define indicative recruitment targets relies on objective criteria, balances fairly the need to reflect the composition of the EU population with the need to ensure a minimum representation of smaller Member States and is easy to apply 8 .
The Commission services have de facto used this indicator since 2003 when carrying out analyses of the situation in terms of geographical balance and it is proposed to keep this same indicator, without the UK, for the purpose of this report. It will be regularly updated to reflect the evolution of its components.
7 Unless they provide evidence that they have irrevocably abandoned the UK nationality.
8 This approach departs from the previous approach of equal weighting of the three largest founding
Member States (Germany, France, Italy) and does not offer the guarantee of stability over time. Indeed, out of the three objective criteria, one is volatile (the population, as shown in annex 4) and the second, although still mentioned in the Treaty, is no longer applied since April 2017 (the weighting of votes in Council). Nevertheless, the advantages of this solution largely outweigh the disadvantages.
The resulting guiding rates are currently as follows (calculation in Annex 5):
Member State Guiding Guiding rate Member State rate
Malta 0,6% Hungary 3,0%
Luxembourg 0,8% Portugal 3,1%
Cyprus 0,8% Czech Republic 3,1%
Estonia 0,8% Greece 3,1%
Latvia 1,0% Belgium 3,1%
Slovenia 1,0% Netherlands 3,9%
Lithuania 1,5% Romania 4,5%
Croatia 1,6% Poland 8,2%
Ireland 1,6% Spain 8,9%
Slovakia 1,8% Italy 11,2%
Finland 1,8% France 11,6%
Denmark 1,8% Germany 13,8%
Bulgaria 2,4%
Austria 2,6%
Sweden 2,7% Total 100,0%
1.2.3. Definition of a "minimum presence" for each nationality
The applicable legal provisions concerning geographical balance reflect two fundamental requirements. First, the selection and recruitment processes are expected to be designed in such a way as to avoid any bias based on nationality. Second, a balanced geographical representation among staff is necessary for the Commission to meet one of its fundamental goals, i.e. to be close to the citizens and to reflect the diversity of Member States.
Consequently, the Commission considers that
− a minimum level of presence (among Commission staff) should be defined and guaranteed for each nationality of the EU,
− limited deviations from the guiding rates shall be tolerated not only because they are not deemed to put geographical balance at risk but in addition, they are necessary to prevent the risk of inefficiencies.
In practice, the Commission considers a significant imbalance is observed if the share of nationals of one or more Member State among staff is lower than 80% of the relevant guiding rate.
1.3. Scope
1.3.1. Function group
With a view to ensuring the proportionality of the measures, this report will focus on the
AD function group only. While Article 27 SR applies to all staff irrespective of the function group, a wider margin of tolerance is left for the AST and AST-SC function groups. Indeed, the requirement to reflect the national diversity of the European Union is more stringent for officials in charge of managerial, conceptual, analytical, linguistic and scientific duties (i.e. the ADs) than for those in charge of executive and technical duties (i.e. the ASTs) or clerical and secretarial duties (i.e. the AST-SCs).
Furthermore, executive, technical, clerical and secretarial tasks are typically carried out by staff recruited locally and are often less attractive for expatriates.
For this reason, the analysis, as well as any possible action under Article 27, second paragraph SR, are both limited to the AD function group.
1.3.2. Functions occupied
The report examines only the distribution of staff occupying non-management functions.
At the Commission, the distribution of nationalities of management staff is subject to distinct rules and practices as well as specific monitoring 9 .
1.3.3. Linguistic services
The objective of a balanced national representation of staff cannot be pursued in the same way in linguistic services and non-linguistic services.
Due to their specific nature and objectives, staffing of linguistic services follows a sui generis rationale. First, the required number of staff mastering the target language is predetermined and independent of the size of the corresponding Member State. Second, while recruitments in linguistic services are not dictated by nationality but by language skills, a strong correlation exists between the two. Third, a certain number of languages are the official languages of several Member States. Therefore, depending on the language at stake, the distribution by nationality of staff in linguistic services follows a pattern that is not comparable to that of non-linguistic services.
Applying the "guiding rates" described in section 1.2 above to linguistic services is neither meaningful nor desirable. The table in Annex 6 gives the distribution of all nonmanagerial AD staff in Commission linguistic services (namely, DGT and SCIC). The table shows that the majority of larger Member States as well as Member States who "share" their official language(s) with other Member States are under-represented.
9 For example, with respect to Senior Managers, the Commission defined as "a desirable objective that each nationality should hold at least one function corresponding to the basic post of Director General. Twice a year, the Commissioner for Personnel and Administration will (…) inform the College (…) about the geographical balance of senior officials" (Compilation document on Senior Officials Policy SEC(2004)1352/2 approved on 26.10.2004, PV 1676)
Imbalances are even more evident when looking separately at the AD5-AD8 and AD9-
AD12 clusters but, clearly, targeted recruitment on this basis for these nationalities would not meet any operational requirement.
Consequently, given the objective constraints attached to the staffing of linguistic services, the Commission excludes these services from the scope of the assessment of geographical balance.
1.3.4. Grades
Article 27 SR is the first Article in the Chapter on recruitment. In application of Article
31 SR, officials in the AD function group shall be recruited only at grades AD5 to AD8 and, where appropriate, at grades AD9, AD10, AD11 or, on an exceptional basis, at AD12. In line with this distinction, the report examines separately the brackets
− AD9-AD12 (where appointments cannot exceed 20% of all AD appointments in any given year)
− AD5-AD8 (which are the most common grades for appointments).
It should also be noted that not only grades AD13-AD14 are, as a general rule, not recruitment grades (and, hence, excluded from the scope of the analysis) but, in addition, that these grades are reserved to management or advisory functions since the entry into force of the 2014 revision of the Staff Regulations. The population of non-managers in this grade bracket is the heritage of the past and mainly consists of pre-2004 nationals. This population will significantly diminish over time, as their distribution by age suggests that the vast majority of them will retire in the next 10-15 years. Hence, a number of pre-2004 nationalities will be more affected by upcoming retirements.
-
2.F INDINGS A ND A NALYSIS
2.1. Situation on 1.1.2017
2.1.1. AD9-AD12 grade bracket
Annex 7b gives an overview of the state of play on 1.1.2017. The main findings are that, on this date,
− 14 nationalities are significantly underrepresented: all post-2004 Member States plus Luxembourg.
− In absolute terms, the largest deficits concern the Poles (160 persons) and Romanians (155).
− In relative terms, the largest deficits concern Croats (who reach 5% of their guiding rate) Bulgarians (8%) and Romanians (13%).
The under-representation of post-2004 nationals in the AD9-AD12 grade bracket was to a certain extent predictable as no competitions were organised at these grades under the specific derogation measures for the enlargement (except for managerial positions). The objective was to progressively fill all grades, starting from the bottom. For this reason, all nationalities of the post-2004 enlargement are concerned.
The situation is evolving in line with expectations. All nationalities of the 2004 enlargement wave have now reached between 50% and 70% of their target. As concerns nationals from the 2007 and 2013 enlargements, it is still too early 10 to see an appreciable presence in these grades. However, their level of representation in the AD5-AD8 grade bracket (respectively more than 200% and 140% of the target, see annex 7a) gives a reasonable assurance that the process is on track. The Commission will continue to closely monitor the evolution of their level of representation in these grades with a view to checking whether it continues in line with the current trend.
Only the significant underrepresentation of nationals from Luxembourg in this grade bracket does not seem to be justified. However, it should also be mentioned that such under-representation might be linked to the small size of the population at stake: were there just 4 more nationals in the grades concerned, Luxembourg would not be listed among the underrepresented nationalities.
2.1.2. AD5-AD8 grade bracket
The AD5-AD8 bracket deserves particular attention in a dynamic perspective. Indeed, in accordance with the Staff Regulation requirements, this is the bracket where at least 80% of the appointments have to take place. The level of representation of nationalities within this grade bracket will determine the level of representation of nationalities in the AD9- AD12 bracket in a decade from now. It is therefore among this population that managers (and more specifically, middle managers) will be chosen in the same timeframe. A balanced representation in the AD5-AD8 bracket today is a pre-requisite for a balanced representation of nationalities among the higher grades in the longer term.
Annex 7a gives an overview of the state of play on 1.1.2017. The main findings are that, on this date,
− 10 nationalities (all from the pre-2004 Member States 11 ), are significantly underrepresented: Denmark, Germany, Ireland, France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Austria, Portugal, Finland and Sweden.
− In absolute terms, the largest deficits concern nationals from Germany (almost 230 persons) and France (almost 140).
− In relative terms, the largest deficits concern nationals from Luxembourg (there were no Luxembourgers at all), Sweden and Denmark (who only reached around 30% of their guiding rate).
The under-representation of the majority of EU-14 nationalities 12 in the AD5-AD8 grade bracket can be explained, at least in part, by post-2004 recruitment patterns. This is due to the fact that the majority of posts reserved for the recruitment of nationals from the post-2004 Member States were in the AD5-AD8 bracket. The concentration of recruitment of staff from new member States in the base grades has, almost automatically, resulted in an underrepresentation of nationals from the pre-2004 Member States.
10 Promotion from AD5 (the most common recruitment grade) to AD9 takes in average 12 years while the fastest possible time admissible by the staff regulations is 8 years.
11 i.e. all Member States which became member of the European Union before 2004
12 i.e., all pre-2004 Member States, the UK excluded.
Only 4 EU-14 nationalities are sufficiently represented in the AD5-AD8 bracket: 2 slightly below their guiding rate (Spaniards and Italians) and 2 who reached their guiding rate (Belgians and Greeks).
This situation calls for appropriate targeted measures to increase the level of representation of those nationalities who otherwise risk to be faced with a "generation gap".
It is, however, questionable whether these targeted appropriate measures will be sufficient to secure a balanced representation of all nationality on a long term basis. Two elements can be put forward in this respect.
2.2. Underlying reasons for underrepresentation in the AD5-AD8 grade bracket
2.2.1. Available laureates on EPSO reserve lists
The fact that four EU-14 nationalities are sufficiently represented despite the recruitment patterns of the last 12 years seem to indicate that there are other reasons that explain the deficit of certain nationalities. An element of explanation is given by the distribution of EPSO laureates.
Tables in Annexes 8a and 8b show that the availability of laureates since 2010 was not in line with the guiding rates. The situation is particularly striking in the AD specialist competitions where 23 nationalities out of 27 are insufficiently represented compared to their guiding rate. Only 4 nationalities meet their guiding rate: the Belgians, Greeks, Italians and Spanish 13 , i.e. the 4 EU-14 nationalities that are sufficiently represented in the AD5-AD8 bracket as indicated in section 2.1.2. above.
In this context, it is important to note that the shortage of laureates for some nationalities is not due to merit but rather to lower-than-expected participation in competitions. Indeed, data in Annexes 8a and 8b also show that for many of the cases where a significant underrepresentation is observed, nationals of the relevant Member States have a much lower relative participation rate and higher relative success rate (see for example the Netherlands, France, or Germany in the generalist competition).
The issue of the national composition of EPSO lists is also likely to influence future geographical balance if no action is taken. Indeed, if the trends observed during the last 8 years is confirmed in the future, the current imbalances are not likely to be “naturally” absorbed and, in addition, certain nationalities might be underrepresented in the generations to come 14 : Czechs, Danes, Estonians, Irish, Cypriots, Latvians, Lithuanians, Luxembourgers, Poles and Slovenians.
13 Also generalist AD5 competitions seem to suffer a similar bias, with the addition of the Dutch, the
Hungarians and the Romanians among the nationalities who are sufficiently represented. 14 Taking into account the Staff Regulation requirement that lists of laureates should contain at least
twice as many names as the number of posts do be filled 14 nationals from any member State should ideally represent at least 50% of the relevant guiding rate.
2.2.2. The issue of attractiveness
A second question concerns the Commission's ability to attract a sufficient number of highly qualified candidates from all Member States. The number of participants per million inhabitants in AD5 competitions over the last 8 years (see Annex 8a) reveals considerable discrepancies from one Member State to another. Nationals from 3 Member States (Germany, France and the Netherlands) have a level of participation less than half of the EU average.
EPSO has already tried to encourage citizens from "deficit" Member States to participate in AD competitions. However, to date, such efforts do not seem to have produced the desired results, as shown by the distribution of applicants to the most recent and ongoing AD competition (See Annex 8c). German and French national continue to participate at less than half of the average rate. Dutch participation has gone up but the participation of Swedes and Poles has substantially decreased.
These findings pose a challenge to fostering the attractiveness of the Commission at a time when the package offered (i.e. the mix of salary, social coverage, pension rights, work-life balance, etc.) may be perceived as having suffered a deterioration in relative terms over time.
-
3.C ONCLUSION
Four lessons can be drawn from the analysis above.
First, the situation of the AD5-AD8 and the AD9-AD12 clusters differ considerably from one another. In both cases significant under-representations are observed but neither the Member States concerned nor the dynamics are the same.
Second, although there is a clear link between these observed imbalances and the recruitment patterns of the last 10-15 years, it also appears that a major source of imbalance has to be found in the composition of the EPSO lists. Such an imbalance would not seem to be justified by objective reasons and in particular not by merit.
Third, imbalances in EPSO lists are likely to generate new imbalances in the future.
Fourth, attempts via communication actions to encourage participation in EPSO competitions in their present format have not lead to sufficient increases in the participation levels of nationals of the relevant Member States.
In parallel, constant attention should be given to the attractiveness of EU institutions as employers.
Given this context, the Commission is working to identify measures that would serve the objective of redressing the trends described above, in full respect of the existing legal framework. It then envisages drafting General Implementing Provisions to give effect to Article 27, second paragraph, SR with a view to adopting them in accordance with Article 110. These provisions should aim at better aligning the distribution by nationality of available laureates on reserve lists in order to ensure that Commission staff adequately reflects the distribution of EU citizens by nationality.
S ECTION 3 – O THER EU I NSTITUTIONS WHERE THE S TAFF R EGULATIONS APPLY
-
1.I NTRODUCTION
Article 27 of the Staff Regulations requires that the Commission report to the European
Parliament and to the Council on the implementation of Article 27, second paragraph. To this end, the Commission collected relevant information from the institutions concerned.
The contributions of the various institutions are summarised in the table in Annexes 9 and 12 while the relevant numerical data can be found in Annexes 10, 11, 13 and 14.
The report summarises the contribution of the various institutions, without commenting on them.
-
2.I NSTITUTIONS AND B ODIES TREATED AS I NSTITUTIONS PURSUANT TO A RTICLE 1 B OF
THE S TAFF REGULATIONS (I NSTITUTIONS )
The Commission received contributions from all the institutions concerned.
With the exception of the European External Action Service, none of these institutions has formally adopted a definition of geographical balance, imbalance or significant imbalance. Nevertheless, the majority of them monitor geographical representation of staff and compares it either to the population of the Member State concerned or to the composite indicator developed by the Commission for post-2004 enlargement countries (the average of the share in population, MEP's and pre-Lisbon weighting at the Council).
Such monitoring is designed to reflect the needs and constraints of the institution concerned.
A majority of institutions experience geographical imbalances in the composition of their staff; in some cases, imbalance is considered significant. However, all institutions considered that the observed (significant) imbalances were justified by objective reasons. The most common invoked justifications were the so-called "seat" effect 15 , the composition of EPSO lists, the ability to attract staff from specific Member States and the relative size of the linguistic services.
Since all imbalances were considered objectively justified, no institution has taken the initiative to adopt General Implementing Provisions to give effect to Article 27, second paragraph, SR.
Similarly, no institution expects significant imbalance to occur in the future (at least, not in the AD function group) and, accordingly, General Implementing Provisions are not in preparation.
15 But no institution has given a detailed definition thereof
-
3.D ECENTRALISED A GENCIES
The Commission received contributions from 19 decentralised agencies.
Agencies are, on average, smaller in size than the institutions referred to in the previous chapter. They are often located in other Member States, more precisely in cities which are distant from the main seats of the major EU institutions. Their sphere of activities is specialised. They have significant difference from one another both in terms of size, scope and location. For this reason, neither the Commission nor the agencies themselves found it appropriate to have a common approach on the issue of geographical balance.
The examination of the table in Annex 12 shows that there is no uniform definition of what geographical balance should be. Nevertheless, taking into account the respective constraints, the majority of the agencies considered that they do not observe significant geographical imbalance. They accordingly do not envisage adopting General Implementing Provisions to give effect to Article 27 SR.
Two agencies observed significant imbalances. In both cases, the agencies consider that the imbalance is caused by several factors including the applicable correction coefficient and the difficulty of employment for spouses in the local market.
One agency observed an increasing imbalance towards nationals from the host Member State.
This agency is considering drafting a GIP giving effect to Article 27 SR if this imbalance continues to grow.
ANNEX 1: Legal Basis
Article 9 of the Treaty on the European Union:
"in all its activities, the Union shall observe the principle of equality of its citizens".
Article 18 of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU):
"Within the scope of application of the Treaties, and without prejudice to any special provisions contained therein, any discrimination on grounds of nationality shall be prohibited.
[…]"
Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights - Non-discrimination:
-
1.Any discrimination based on any ground such as sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation shall be prohibited.
-
2.Within the scope of application of the Treaties and without prejudice to any of their specific provisions, any discrimination on grounds of nationality shall be prohibited.
The general principles of EU constitutional law on the institutional autonomy and sincere cooperation is worth mentioning.
The Staff Regulations contain prescriptions and prohibitions to guide the Appointing
Authority in taking decisions. As a general rule, the Appointing Authority should base all its decisions on the interest of the service and the merit of the individuals only. Depending on the area concerned, the Staff Regulations also provide a "black list" of criteria that the Appointing Authority cannot use. Reference to nationality is only explicitly prohibited in case of filling individual posts:
Generally (applicable to the whole of the Staff Regulations): Article 1d of the Staff Regulations prohibits "any discrimination based on any ground such as sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age, or sexual orientation". 16 ;
Recruitment: Article 27 requires that officials should be "recruited on the broadest possible geographical basis from among nationals of Member States of the Union". Although nationality is not explicitly mentioned, "broadest geographical basis" is interpreted as equivalent to nationality;
Filling of individual posts: Article 7 provides that "the Appointing Authority shall, acting solely in the interest of the service and without regard to nationality, assign each official by appointment or transfer to a post (…)"; Article 27 provides that "no posts shall be reserved for nationals of any specific Member State".
Case law has confirmed that these provisions prohibit reserving specific posts for
16 In the 1962 version of the Staff Regulations, prohibition of discrimination was provided for in the
Article concerning recruitment (Article 27) and was limited to "race, religion or sex". In the 1998 version, the Staff Regulations provided for a general prohibition of discrimination based on "race, political, philosophical or religious belief, sex or sexual orientation".
specific nationalities but does not prevent the institutions from adopting measures to ensure a global balance (in particular taking into account nationality for filling specific posts "where qualifications of the various applicants are substantially the same" 17 ).
At the occasion of the 2014 revision of the Staff Regulations, a specific reference to nationality as concerns recruitment was introduced. In particular:
Recital 2 of Regulation N°1023/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council 18 states that "it is necessary to ensure a framework for attracting, recruiting and maintaining highly qualified and multilingual staff, drawn on the broadest possible geographical basis from among citizens of the Member States". Furthermore, in accordance with recital 5 of the same Regulation, "the value of the European civil service lies (…) in its cultural and linguistic diversity which can only be ensured if appropriate balance is secured regarding officials' nationality".
Article 27 Staff Regulations as amended states that "the principle of the equality of Union's citizens shall allow each institution to adopt appropriate measures following the observation of a significant imbalance between nationalities among officials which is not justified by objective criteria."
The underlying assumption of these (amended) provisions is that the "package" offered to potential candidates as well as the selection and recruitment processes are designed in such a way that, in the absence of objective justification, the distribution by nationality of applicants, laureates and recruited staff of the institutions (and, hence, of staff in activity) should roughly reflect the distribution by nationality of the citizens of the Union. In absence of objective justification, any observed significant deviation could therefore be seen as a violation of the principle of equality of citizens, which would justify appropriate corrective measures.
The Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the EU, and in particular Article 12 thereof, contain similar provisions applicable to Temporary Staff.
To implement Article 27 Staff Regulations as amended, each institution should normally:
− interpret what is meant by "balance" between nationalities − interpret what is meant by a "significant" imbalance − monitor the factual situation with a view to "observe" the balance between nationalities − if applicable, identify the "reasons" for such significant imbalance and determine if they provide for an "objective justification" for the imbalance − where relevant, identify and/or adopt "appropriate corrective measures"
Article 27 SR also stipulates that after a three years period starting 1 January 2014, the
Commission shall report to the European Parliament and to the Council on the implementation of the second paragraph of Article 27.
17 See for example Judgment of 30.6.1983, in Case 85/82 Schloch vs Council, pt 26 or Judgment of 6 July
1999 in joint cases T-112/96 and T-115/96 Séché vs Commission 18 Regulation (EU, EURATOM) N° 1023/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22
October 2013 amending the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union
ANNEX 2: Guiding rates for EU-15 Member States 19
Annex 1
G EOGRAPHICAL BALANCE AT PREVIOUS ENLARGEMENTS
Figures in annex 1a
• Starting point (1958): geographical balance based on negotiated figures When there were 6 Member States, the guiding principle was equality between major Member States and the aggregate of the smaller ones. The theoretical targets set were 25 % each for France, Germany, Italy and Benelux. Non official reference values were applied in a flexible way and limited to the more senior A grades.
• First enlargement (1973): geographical balance continues to be based on negotiated figures
For the 1973 enlargement process, it was felt that the UK should have a share of the same size as the other three larger Member States (18% after re-adjustment), whilst Denmark, Ireland and Norway together should have a share equal to 10 %. No specific readjustment was made when Norway decided not to join, though it was estimated that the combined share of Denmark and Ireland should be around 7 to 8%.
• Second enlargement (1981): geographical balance is based on a mixture of negotiated figures and objective criteria (population and GDP figures)
On the occasion of the accession of Greece, the principle of equal representation of the largest Member States and over-representation of the smaller ones was maintained. However, even if the "fresco" document (COM(78)190) suggested that Greece should occupy much the same position as Belgium and the Netherlands, the share for Greece was eventually fixed at 4.5%, lower than the figure of 8.1% allocated to Belgium and the Netherlands. Population and GDP figures were given for the first time to illustrate this approach.
• Third enlargement (1986): geographical balance continues to be based on a mixture of negotiated figures and objective criteria (population and GDP figures)
At the time of the accession of the Iberian countries in 1986, the unofficial reference values, which only existed for A1 to A3 grades, were completed. Without explicit reference to criteria, the share for Spain was fixed at the mean value between that of the Netherlands and that of a large country, whilst the share for Portugal was fixed at the same level as that of Greece.
• Fourth enlargement (1995): geographical balance continues to be based on a mixture of negotiated figures and objective criteria (population and GDP figures)
The Commission Communication SEC 94/844 of 17 Mai 1994 set reference values for the three new Member States and outlined the methodology adopted. The geographical balance was adapted on the basis of comparisons of the relative situations of the new Member States with respect to their populations and the economic and social data within the enlarged Union. The characteristics of
19 Annex 2 of the present report is extracted from Communication C(2003)436 of 28 January 2003. More precisely, it corresponds to Annexes 1, 1a and 1b of that Communication
Finland were comparable to those of Denmark and the objective was set to recruit a similar number of Finnish nationals as that of Danish nationals present in the service. The characteristics concerning Austria and Sweden were one and a half times greater than those of Denmark, and recruitment objectives were set proportionally. Annex 1b illustrates this approach.
• Summary: the three main principles applied so far: it appears from the above that the Commission’s interpretation of geographical balance follows a triple pattern:
– Geographical balance has been a concern since the early times, in particular for the more senior A grades;
– Geographical balance has always relied on the double rule of: a) equal representation of the four (originally three) largest Member States;
-
b)over-representation of the smallest Member State so as to ensure a minimum representation.
– Enlargement has never led to modification of the relative weight of incumbent Member States. Therefore,
-
a)as regards incumbents, all relative weights remained unaffected after any enlargement (e.g. the weight of Belgium remained the same of that of the Netherlands and 45% of that of Germany after the enlargements of 1981, 1986 and 1995); b) new Member States received a weight by reference to the most similar incumbent(s) (e.g. Portugal was given the same weight as Greece; Spain, a weight between that of the Netherlands and France, etc…).
Annex 1a
Previous enlargements – guidelines
1958 1973 1981 1986 1995 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
Benelux 25,0% 18,0% (17,7%) (15,1%) (13,5%) LU Luxembourg 1,5% 1,3% 0,9% IE Ireland 3,5% - 4% 3,5% 3,0% 2,7% FI Finland 2,7% DK Denmark 3,5% - 4% 3,5% 3,0% 2,7% PT Portugal 3,8% 3,6% GR Greece 4,5% 3,8% 3,6% AT Austria 4,0% SE Sweden 4,0% BE Belgium 8,1% 6,9% 6,3% NL Netherlands 8,1% 6,9% 6,3% ES Spain 11,0% 9,8% IT Italy 25,0% 18,0% 17,7% 15,1% 13,4% UK UK 18,0% 17,7% 15,1% 13,4% FR France 25,0% 18,0% 17,7% 15,1% 13,4% DE Germany 25,0% 18,0% 17,7% 15,1% 13,4%
100,0% 97%-98% 100,0% 100,1% 100,2% Annex 1b
Comparative approach as used for the 1995 enlargement
Inhabitants GDP Average Guidelines (inhabitants, GDP) 1995
-
(1)(2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) LU Luxembourg 0.4 0,1% 21 0,2% 0,2% 0,9%
IE Ireland 3.8 1,0% 114 1,3% 1,1% 2,7%
FI Finland 5.2 1,4% 141 1,6% 1,5% 2,7%
DK Denmark 5.4 1,4% 181 2,1% 1,7% 2,7%
PT Portugal 10.3 2,7% 118 1,3% 2,0% 3,6%
GR Greece 10.6 2,8% 128 1,5% 2,1% 3,6%
AT Austria 8.1 2,1% 214 2,4% 2,3% 4,0%
SE Sweden 8.9 2,4% 246 2,8% 2,6% 4,0%
BE Belgium 10.3 2,7% 256 2,9% 2,8% 6,3%
NL Netherlands 16.0 4,2% 430 4,9% 4,6% 6,3%
ES Spain 40.3 10,6% 647 7,4% 9.0% 9,8%
IT Italy 57.9 15,3% 1.224 13,9% 14,6% 13,4%
UK UK 60.0 15,8% 1.511 17,2% 16,5% 13,4%
FR France 59.2 15.6% 1.458 16,6% 16,1% 13,4%
DE Germany 82.3 21,7% 2.112 24,0% 22,9% 13,4%
378.7 100,0% 8.801 100,0% 100,0% 89,5% 10,7%
-
(1)EUROSTAT: inhabitants 2001
-
(2)EUROSTAT: GDP at market prices 2001
ANNEX 3: Methodology for the calculation of reference values and recruitment targets of new Member States
Approach
At the occasion of the 2004 Enlargement, the Commission adopted the Communication of 14 February 2003 concerning the recruitment of Commission officials from the new
Member States 20 (hereafter referred to as the "2003 Communication"). The
Communication found that due to the nature of the 2004 enlargement, applying the criteria that were used in previous enlargements would not lead to a fair and balanced result. This finding was particularly true taking into account the fact that the weight of the new Member States concerned was expected to rise considerably over the following
10 years.
On the basis of this consideration, the Commission developed a method applicable to the new Member States, including for enlargements to come 21 . In adopting this method, the
Commission decided that "reference values and indicative recruitment targets would be used as the basis for recruitment measures for new Member States only during the transition period".
The Communication established a three-step approach:
-
a)first, the determination of the number of posts that should be earmarked for all New
Member States taken together
-
b)second, the calculation for each new Member State of a reference value, i.e. the indicative share of posts earmarked for that Member State expressed as a percentage of the total number of posts earmarked for the New Member State
-
c)third, the calculation of the recruitment target for each new Member State i.e. a x b
Determination of the number of posts that should be earmarked for all New
Member States taken together
This number is determined in three successive phases:
First, the weight of all new Member States taken vs the aggregate of the incumbents is calculated, by reference to three criteria: Population, Members of the European
Parliament and Weighting of votes in Council (the mathematical average of the three is retained).
Second, this weight (percentage) is applied to the number of establishment plan posts after enlargement.
Third, the number of posts to be reserved to the New Member States is set at two thirds of the amount above.
20 Communication of Mr Kinnock concerning the recruitment of Commission officials from the new
Member States of 14 February 2003 C(2003)436/5, adopted on 19 February 2003 21 More specifically, the communication stated: "The proposed approach is applied to 10 new
Member States joining the Union as from May 1, 2004. However, it can be applied to any number of new Member States".
The following table summarises the calculations made for the 2004 22 , 2007 23 and 2013 24 enlargements.
2004 2007 2013 Population new Member States (1) 75.0 M 29.5 M 4.4 M
Population incumbents (1) 378.7M 459.3 M 502.5 M MEP new Member State(s) 162 50 12 MEP incumbents 570 732 754
Votes in Council new Member State(s) 84 24 7 Votes in Council incumbents 237 321 345 Weight new Member State(s) 21.6% 7% 1.5% Weight incumbents 78.4% 93% 98.5%
-
(1)figures do not coincide across the columns because for the EU-10 enlargements the Commission used
2001 data, for EU-2 enlargement 2005 data and for Croatia 2011 data
Calculation of the reference value by Member State
The calculation method is the same as for the weight of the aggregate of new Member
States, except for the fact that new Member States are not compared with incumbent
Member States but only mong themselves.
Application in practice of the methodology
Indicative
reference Recruitment Recruitment
value target AD target AST
Czech Republic 14,3% 318 184
Estonia 3,4% 76 44
Cyprus 3,2% 71 41
Latvia 4,5% 100 58
Lithuania 7,0% 156 90
Hungary 14,2% 316 182
Malta 2,4% 53 31
Poland 39,0% 867 501
Slovenia 3,9% 87 50
Slovakia 8,1% 180 104
EU-10 (1) 100,0% 2224 1284
Bulgaria 34,0% 225 135
Romania 66,0% 437 261
EU-2 (2) 100,0% 662 396
Croatia (3) n.a. 149 100
(1): EU-10 all together: 21.6% - EU-15 all together: 78.4%
(2): EU-2 all together: 6.5% - EU-25 all together: 93.5%
(3): Croatia: 1.5% - EU-27 all together: 98.5%
22 C(2003)436/5 of 14 February 2003, Commission meeting 1601
23 C(2006)5778, written procedure of 24 November 2006
24 SEC(2012)436final, Procédure écrite de finalisation of 11 July 2012
ANNEX 4: Evolution of Member States population (excluding the UK)
2001 2015 2015 vs 2001
Luxembourg 439.500 562.958 28,1% Cyprus 697.500 847.008 21,4%
Ireland 3.832.783 4.628.949 20,8%
Spain 40.665.542 46.449.565 14,2% Sweden 8.882.792 9.747.355 9,7% Malta 391.415 429.344 9,7%
Belgium 10.263.414 11.208.956 9,2%
France 61.357.400 66.415.161 8,2% Austria 8.032.926 8.576.261 6,8% Italy 56.960.692 60.795.612 6,7%
Denmark 5.349.212 5.659.715 5,8%
Netherlands 15.987.075 16.900.726 5,7% Finland 5.181.115 5.471.753 5,6% Slovenia 1.990.094 2.062.874 3,7%
Czech Republic 10.414.373 10.538.275 1,2%
Portugal 10.256.658 10.374.822 1,2% Slovakia 5.402.547 5.421.349 0,3% Poland 38.253.955 38.005.614 -0,6%
Greece 10.934.097 10.858.018 -0,7%
Germany 82.259.540 81.197.537 -1,3% Hungary 10.200.298 9.855.571 -3,4% Croatia 4.437.460 4.225.316 -4,8%
Estonia 1.388.000 1.313.271 -5,4%
Bulgaria 7.928.901 7.202.198 -9,2% Romania 22.132.000 19.870.647 -10,2% Latvia 2.364.254 1.986.096 -16,0%
Lithuania 3.483.972 2.921.262 -16,2%
Total 429.487.515 443.526.213 3,3%
Source: Eurostat - date of extraction 23 January 2017
ANNEX 5: Proposition for new Guiding rates: Application of the arithmetical method
Member State Population Arithmetical Arithmetical
Weighting of
2015 Share Seats in EP Share Votes in
Arithmetical Guiding rate Council Share
Malta 429.344 0,1% 6 0,9% 3 0,9% 0,6% Luxembourg 562.958 0,1% 6 0,9% 4 1,2% 0,8% Cyprus 847.008 0,2% 6 0,9% 4 1,2% 0,8% Estonia 1.313.271 0,3% 6 0,9% 4 1,2% 0,8% Latvia 1.986.096 0,4% 8 1,2% 4 1,2% 1,0% Slovenia 2.062.874 0,5% 8 1,2% 4 1,2% 1,0% Lithuania 2.921.262 0,7% 11 1,6% 7 2,2% 1,5% Croatia 4.225.316 1,0% 11 1,6% 7 2,2% 1,6% Ireland 4.628.949 1,0% 11 1,6% 7 2,2% 1,6% Slovakia 5.421.349 1,2% 13 1,9% 7 2,2% 1,8% Finland 5.471.753 1,2% 13 1,9% 7 2,2% 1,8% Denmark 5.659.715 1,3% 13 1,9% 7 2,2% 1,8% Bulgaria 7.202.198 1,6% 17 2,5% 10 3,1% 2,4% Austria 8.576.261 1,9% 18 2,7% 10 3,1% 2,6% Sweden 9.747.355 2,2% 20 2,9% 10 3,1% 2,7% Hungary 9.855.571 2,2% 21 3,1% 12 3,7% 3,0% Portugal 10.374.822 2,3% 21 3,1% 12 3,7% 3,1% Czech Republic 10.538.275 2,4% 21 3,1% 12 3,7% 3,1% Greece 10.858.018 2,4% 21 3,1% 12 3,7% 3,1% Belgium 11.208.956 2,5% 21 3,1% 12 3,7% 3,1% Netherlands 16.900.726 3,8% 26 3,8% 13 4,0% 3,9% Romania 19.870.647 4,5% 32 4,7% 14 4,3% 4,5% Poland 38.005.614 8,6% 51 7,5% 27 8,4% 8,2% Spain 46.449.565 10,5% 54 8,0% 27 8,4% 8,9% Italy 60.795.612 13,7% 73 10,8% 29 9,0% 11,2% France 66.415.161 15,0% 74 10,9% 29 9,0% 11,6% Germany 81.197.537 18,3% 96 14,2% 29 9,0% 13,8%
Total 443.526.213 100,0% 678 100,0% 323 100,0% 100,0%
Annex 6: Distribution of non-managerial AD staff assigned in DGT or SCIC on 1.1.2017
Pop 2015 & MEP's Surplus or Deficit
-
&Votes in Council Guiding rate
Targets in Heads Actual situation on
(in 2017) 1.1.2017 vs target Observed
AD5-AD14 Significant Significant Significant non management Absolute imbalance Absolute imbalance if Heads %ge Heads %ge of Imbalance? DGT & SCIC if below below (in 2017) target
Belgium 3.1% 2.5% 63 50 147 7.3% 84 233% Bulgaria 2.4% 1.9% 49 39 75 3.7% 26 154%
Czech Republic 3.1% 2.5% 62 50 80 3.9% 18 129% Denmark 1.8% 1.4% 36 29 65 3.2% 29 180% Germany 13.8% 11.1% 280 224 165 8.1% -115 59% YES Estonia 0.8% 0.6% 16 13 67 3.3% 51 410% Ireland 1.6% 1.3% 33 26 40 2.0% 7 123% Greece 3.1% 2.5% 63 50 84 4.1% 21 134% Spain 8.9% 7.1% 181 145 124 6.1% -57 69% YES
France 11.6% 9.3% 235 188 98 4.8% -137 42% YES Croatia 1.6% 1.3% 32 26 59 2.9% 27 184% Italy 11.2% 8.9% 226 181 129 6.4% -97 57% YES Cyprus 0.8% 0.6% 16 13 4 0.2% -12 26% YES Latvia 1.0% 0.8% 19 15 70 3.5% 51 362%
Lithuania 1.5% 1.2% 30 24 71 3.5% 41 236% Luxembourg 0.8% 0.6% 15 12 3 0.1% -12 20% YES
Hungary 3.0% 2.4% 61 49 74 3.7% 13 121% Malta 0.6% 0.5% 13 10 58 2.9% 45 450%
Netherlands 3.9% 3.1% 79 63 41 2.0% -38 52% YES Austria 2.6% 2.0% 52 42 13 0.6% -39 25% YES Poland 8.2% 6.5% 165 132 86 4.2% -79 52% YES
Portugal 3.1% 2.4% 62 49 89 4.4% 27 144% Romania 4.5% 3.6% 91 73 80 3.9% -11 88% Slovenia 1.0% 0.8% 19 16 72 3.6% 53 370% Slovakia 1.8% 1.4% 36 29 70 3.5% 34 195% Finland 1.8% 1.4% 36 29 94 4.6% 58 262%
24
Annex 7a: Distribution of AD5-AD8 staff assigned to services other than DGT or SCIC on 1.1.2017
Pop 2015 & MEP's
-
&Votes in Guiding rate Targets in Heads Actual situation on Surplus or Deficit
Council (in 2017) 1.1.2017 vs target Observed
Significant
AD5-AD8 outside Significant Significant Imbalance? DGT & SCIC Absolute imbalance Absolute imbalance if Heads %ge
Heads %ge of
if below below (in 2017) target
Belgium 3.1% 2.5% 131 105 300 7.1% 169 229%
Bulgaria 2.4% 1.9% 102 81 259 6.1% 157 255%
Czech Republic 3.1% 2.5% 129 103 135 3.2% 6 105%
Denmark 1.8% 1.4% 75 60 25 0.6% -50 33% YES
Germany 13.8% 11.1% 582 466 354 8.4% -228 61% YES
Estonia 0.8% 0.6% 34 27 39 0.9% 5 115%
Ireland 1.6% 1.3% 68 54 28 0.7% -40 41% YES
Greece 3.1% 2.5% 130 104 145 3.4% 15 111%
Spain 8.9% 7.1% 377 301 318 7.5% -59 84%
France 11.6% 9.3% 490 392 353 8.4% -137 72% YES
Croatia 1.6% 1.3% 67 53 93 2.2% 26 140%
Italy 11.2% 8.9% 470 376 441 10.5% -29 94%
Cyprus 0.8% 0.6% 33 26 34 0.8% 1 105%
Latvia 1.0% 0.8% 40 32 48 1.1% 8 119%
Lithuania 1.5% 1.2% 63 50 77 1.8% 14 123%
Luxembourg 0.8% 0.6% 32 25 0 0.0% -32 0% YES
Hungary 3.0% 2.4% 127 102 218 5.2% 91 172%
Malta 0.6% 0.5% 27 21 30 0.7% 3 112%
Netherlands 3.9% 3.1% 164 131 82 1.9% -82 50% YES
Austria 2.6% 2.0% 108 86 65 1.5% -43 60% YES
Poland 8.2% 6.5% 344 275 462 11.0% 118 134%
Portugal 3.1% 2.4% 129 103 61 1.4% -68 47% YES
Romania 4.5% 3.6% 190 152 453 10.7% 263 238%
Slovenia 1.0% 0.8% 41 32 50 1.2% 9 123%
Slovakia 1.8% 1.4% 75 60 80 1.9% 5 107%
Finland 1.8% 1.4% 75 60 30 0.7% -45 40% YES
Sweden 2.7% 2.2% 116 93 36 0.9% -80 31% YES
Annex 7b: Distribution of non-management AD9-AD12 staff assigned to services other than DGT or SCIC on 1.1.2017
Pop 2015 & MEP's Surplus or Deficit
-
&Votes in Council Guiding rate
Targets in Heads Actual situation on
(in 2017) 1.1.2017 vs target Observed
Significant
Non-managers Significant Significant Imbalance?
AD9-AD12 outside Absolute imbalance Absolute imbalance if Heads %ge Heads %ge of
DGT & SCIC if below below (in 2017) target
Belgium 3.1% 2.5% 123 98 571 14.4% 448 464%
Bulgaria 2.4% 1.9% 95 76 8 0.2% -87 8% YES
Czech Republic 3.1% 2.5% 121 97 68 1.7% -53 56% YES
Denmark 1.8% 1.4% 71 56 71 1.8% 0 101%
Germany 13.8% 11.1% 546 437 503 12.7% -43 92%
Estonia 0.8% 0.6% 32 25 22 0.6% -10 69% YES
Ireland 1.6% 1.3% 64 51 74 1.9% 10 116%
Greece 3.1% 2.5% 122 98 164 4.1% 42 134%
Spain 8.9% 7.1% 353 282 376 9.5% 23 107%
France 11.6% 9.3% 459 367 505 12.8% 46 110%
Croatia 1.6% 1.3% 62 50 3 0.1% -59 5% YES
Italy 11.2% 8.9% 441 353 481 12.2% 40 109%
Cyprus 0.8% 0.6% 30 24 21 0.5% -9 69% YES
Latvia 1.0% 0.8% 38 30 21 0.5% -17 56% YES
Lithuania 1.5% 1.2% 59 47 41 1.0% -18 70% YES
Luxembourg 0.8% 0.6% 30 24 20 0.5% -10 67% YES
Hungary 3.0% 2.4% 119 95 82 2.1% -37 69% YES
Malta 0.6% 0.5% 25 20 17 0.4% -8 68% YES
Netherlands 3.9% 3.1% 154 123 160 4.0% 6 104%
Austria 2.6% 2.0% 101 81 121 3.1% 20 120%
Poland 8.2% 6.5% 322 258 162 4.1% -160 50% YES
Portugal 3.1% 2.4% 121 96 107 2.7% -14 89%
Romania 4.5% 3.6% 178 143 23 0.6% -155 13% YES
Slovenia 1.0% 0.8% 38 30 29 0.7% -9 76% YES
Slovakia 1.8% 1.4% 70 56 36 0.9% -34 51% YES
Finland 1.8% 1.4% 70 56 129 3.3% 59 184%
26
Annex 7c: British non-management AD staff on 1.1.2017
Distribution by grade
British nationals assigned to
non-management tasks… AD5-AD8 AD9-AD12 AD13-AD14 Total
…outside DGT & SCIC 81 170 110 361 …in DGT or SCIC 50 56 41 147 Total 131 226 151 508
Distribution by age
Annex 7d: Double nationalities on 1.1.2018 among Officials and Temporary Staff at the Commission
2nd Nationality
L R R C U E l G P ZE U N A B R X A LT LD L O
AUT BE B CY C DE DNK ESP EST FI FR G G HRV HUN IRL ITA LTU LU LV M N PO PRT R SVK SVN SW Tota
AUT 1 3 2 1 7
BEL 2 2 2 4 7 1 26 15 12 2 2 3 13 5 2 6 3 4 1 1 1 114
BGR 1 17 6 1 14 3 1 1 2 46
CYP 3 1 4 6 9 1 24
CZE 1 3 1 3 5 1 1 15
DEU 2 7 1 4 12 12 4 1 2 1 2 1 2 3 1 1 2 1 59
DNK 3 4 1 1 9
ESP 7 3 16 5 1 1 1 34
EST 1 1
FIN 1 1
FRA 2 28 1 1 14 8 2 31 2 14 2 7 7 3 5 1 128
GBR 12 3 4 1 25 4 1 1 27 7 15 1 4 2 4 111
y
GRC 2 20 3 3 11 4 2 1 1 1 48
nalit
tio HRV
2 2 3 1 4 1 1 14
Na HUN
1 5 7 13 1 2 1 4 34
1st IRL 4 1 2 57 1 1 1 1 68
ITA 1 13 1 10 1 13 17 1 3 1 1 1 2 2 67
LTU 1 1 1 1 1 5
LUX 1 2 2 1 6
LVA 1 1
MLT 1 1 2
NLD 2 1 5 1 1 10
POL 22 9 1 2 22 4 1 4 1 2 1 2 71
PRT 8 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 17
ROU 56 6 20 2 1 8 6 3 2 2 1 1 108
SVK 5 4 3 4 2 2 20
SVN 1 1 1 1 3 1 8
SWE 2 3 3 1 1 2 1 13 Total 11 220 4 6 9 83 3 25 1 3 203 173 36 10 19 33 72 2 30 1 0 25 21 13 15 5 3 15 1041
Annex 8a: Statistics of EPSO AD5 competitions (excluding linguists) over the period 2010-mid 2017
EPSO AD5 Significant
competitions Cumulated Cumulated Population Guiding Distributionof Surplus or Deficit
Laureates as
imbalance in Participants Success 2010- mid 2017 Applications Laureates (Millions) rates laureates vs Guiding rate
%ge of
Guiding rate EPSO lists*? /Mn hab rate
Belgium 19795 171 11.2 3.1% 11.1% 8.0% 357% 1766 0.9%
Bulgaria 11275 38 7.2 2.4% 2.5% 0.1% 103% 1565 0.3%
Czech Republic 3452 15 10.5 3.1% 1.0% -2.1% 32% YES 328 0.4%
Denmark 1966 10 5.7 1.8% 0.7% -1.1% 36% YES 347 0.5%
Germany 17583 205 81.2 13.8% 13.3% -0.5% 97% 217 1.2%
Estonia 1789 2 1.3 0.8% 0.1% -0.7% 16% YES 1362 0.1%
Ireland 2028 11 4.6 1.6% 0.7% -0.9% 44% YES 438 0.5%
Greece 18787 49 10.9 3.1% 3.2% 0.1% 103% 1730 0.3%
Spain 27569 177 46.4 8.9% 11.5% 2.6% 129% 594 0.6%
France 19208 163 66.4 11.6% 10.6% -1.0% 91% 289 0.8%
Croatia 4239 26 4.2 1.6% 1.7% 0.1% 109% 1003 0.6%
Italy 49325 261 60.8 11.2% 17.0% 5.8% 152% 811 0.5%
Cyprus 1077 0 0.8 0.8% 0.0% -0.8% 0% YES 1272 0.0%
Latvia 2172 7 2.0 1.0% 0.5% -0.5% 48% YES 1094 0.3%
Lithuania 4339 9 2.9 1.5% 0.6% -0.9% 39% YES 1485 0.2%
Luxembourg 526 0 0.6 0.8% 0.0% -0.8% 0% YES 934 0.0%
Hungary 6435 56 9.9 3.0% 3.6% 0.6% 121% 653 0.9%
Malta 930 5 0.4 0.6% 0.3% -0.3% 51% 2166 0.5%
Netherlands 4532 71 16.9 3.9% 4.6% 0.7% 119% 268 1.6%
Austria 3779 38 8.6 2.6% 2.5% -0.1% 96% 441 1.0%
Poland 11452 30 38.0 8.2% 2.0% -6.2% 24% YES 301 0.3%
Portugal 10322 32 10.4 3.1% 2.1% -1.0% 68% 995 0.3%
Romania 25933 91 19.9 4.5% 5.9% 1.4% 131% 1305 0.4%
Slovenia 2475 6 2.1 1.0% 0.4% -0.6% 41% YES 1200 0.2%
Slovakia 4144 17 5.4 1.8% 1.1% -0.7% 63% 764 0.4%
Finland 3208 23 5.5 1.8% 1.5% -0.3% 84% 586 0.7%
Sweden 3132 24 9.7 2.7% 1.6% -1.2% 57% 321 0.8%
EU27 261472 1537 443.5 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 100% 590 0.6%
NB: Croatia figures are corrected to take into account the "enlargement" competitions organised during the period
*: Share among laureates is less than 50% of Guiding rate
Annex 8b: Statistics of EPSO AD Specialist competitions (excluding linguists) over the period 2010-2016
EPSO AD Specialist Cumulated Cumulated Population Guiding Distributionof Surplus or Deficit Laureates as Significant Participants competitions 2010-16 Applications Laureates (Millions) rates laureates vs Guiding rate %ge of imbalance in
Success
Guiding rate EPSO lists*? rate /Mn hab
Belgium 4862 122 11.2 3.1% 10.0% 6.9% 322% 434 2.5%
Bulgaria 2172 21 7.2 2.4% 1.7% -0.7% 72% 302 1.0%
Czech Republic 451 8 10.5 3.1% 0.7% -2.4% 21% YES 43 1.8%
Denmark 219 10 5.7 1.8% 0.8% -1.0% 46% YES 39 4.6%
Germany 2886 132 81.2 13.8% 10.9% -3.0% 79% 36 4.6%
Estonia 313 6 1.3 0.8% 0.5% -0.3% 61% 238 1.9%
Ireland 571 11 4.6 1.6% 0.9% -0.7% 56% 123 1.9%
Greece 3955 78 10.9 3.1% 6.4% 3.3% 208% 364 2.0%
Spain 7493 157 46.4 8.9% 12.9% 4.0% 145% 161 2.1%
France 5324 106 66.4 11.6% 8.7% -2.9% 75% 80 2.0%
Croatia 875 19 4.2 1.6% 1.6% 0.0% 100% 207 2.2%
Italy 10420 245 60.8 11.2% 20.2% 9.0% 181% 171 2.4%
Cyprus 238 3 0.8 0.8% 0.2% -0.5% 32% YES 281 1.3%
Latvia 327 6 2.0 1.0% 0.5% -0.5% 52% 165 1.8%
Lithuania 767 13 2.9 1.5% 1.1% -0.4% 72% 263 1.7%
Luxembourg 117 3 0.6 0.8% 0.2% -0.5% 33% YES 208 2.6%
Hungary 1019 32 9.9 3.0% 2.6% -0.4% 87% 103 3.1%
Malta 147 2 0.4 0.6% 0.2% -0.5% 26% YES 342 1.4%
Netherlands 954 35 16.9 3.9% 2.9% -1.0% 74% 56 3.7%
Austria 636 27 8.6 2.6% 2.2% -0.3% 87% 74 4.2%
Poland 2093 44 38.0 8.2% 3.6% -4.5% 44% YES 55 2.1%
Portugal 2515 34 10.4 3.1% 2.8% -0.3% 92% 242 1.4%
Romania 424 47 19.9 4.5% 3.9% -0.6% 86% 21 11.1%
Slovenia 526 11 2.1 1.0% 0.9% -0.1% 94% 255 2.1%
Slovakia 744 16 5.4 1.8% 1.3% -0.5% 74% 137 2.2%
Finland 501 12 5.5 1.8% 1.0% -0.8% 56% 92 2.4%
Sweden 476 15 9.7 2.7% 1.2% -1.5% 45% YES 49 3.2%
EU27 51025 1215 443.5 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 100% 115 2.4%
NB: Croatia figures are corrected to take into account the "enlargement" competitions organised during the period *: Share among laureates is less than 50% of Guiding rate
Annex 8c: Validated applications in the latest (ongoing) AD competition
EPSO AD/338/17 Applications Population Participants As %ge of EU (Millions) /Mn hab* average
Belgium 2073 11.2 185 274%
Bulgaria 913 7.2 127 188%
Czech Republic 264 10.5 25 37%
Denmark 197 5.7 35 52%
Germany 1867 81.2 23 34%
Estonia 152 1.3 116 171%
Ireland 245 4.6 53 78%
Greece 3306 10.9 304 451%
Spain 3731 46.4 80 119%
France 2184 66.4 33 49%
Croatia 525 4.2 124 184%
Italy 6341 60.8 104 155%
Cyprus 163 0.8 192 285%
Latvia 156 2.0 79 116%
Lithuania 370 2.9 127 188%
Luxembourg 71 0.6 126 187%
Hungary 533 9.9 54 80%
Malta 103 0.4 240 355%
Netherlands 1072 16.9 63 94%
Austria 507 8.6 59 88%
Poland 1025 38.0 27 40%
Portugal 1028 10.4 99 147%
Romania 1875 19.9 94 140%
Slovenia 248 2.1 120 178%
Slovakia 297 5.4 55 81%
Finland 399 5.5 73 108%
Sweden 288 9.7 30 44%
EU 29933 443.5 67 100%
*: Not comparable with the 2010-17 table which covers several competitions
Annex 9 : Summary of the Contributions made by other institutions
NB: All Statements and wording reflect the relevant institution's declarations
re
re su
n tu 7 ged
tio ce Methodology and criteria for Indicator(s) of Observed (significant) fu mea rt
.2
ed al an vi
sa
st itu assessing geographical balance (significant) imbalance
imbalance by Objective justification of the imbalance ia te /en In Member State pect Imb opr der A ken
Ex un ta
A ppr
The European Parliament has not yet held a debate or discussion on the Underrepresented: UK All imbalances are objectively justified by
t issue. Columns to the right are therefore built under the assumptions that: and to a lesser extent DE • UK, DE : limited attractiveness of the EU
en • Geographical balance could be assessed at aggregate level (all institutions and/or an EU career; numbers of
function groups together). Over represented: BE, laureates on EPSO reserve lists liam • The share of each national cohort within the EP Secretariat could EE, FI, HR, LT, LU, LV, • BE, LU : places of work effect + cross-border ar
P be compared to the respective Member States’ share of the total
MT, SL et SK commuting effect NO
EU population.
ean • EE, FI, HR, LT, LV, MT, SL and SK: linguistic
NO
services (translation, interpretation, lawyer NO/
rop linguists) provided in all official languages; the
Eu minimum critical mass of linguistic staff needed has a greater impact for smaller
Member States. Geographical balance is assessed at Imbalance is observed when Significantly under All imbalances are objectively justified by… aggregate level (all function groups the actual share of nationals represented: CY, DE and CY, DE, UK: low number of laureates on EPSO
il together). deviates from the benchmark UK reserve lists o
gh y
t t
Benchmark: the average between the by more than +/-20% Significantly over BE: seat effect cul a
hi ta int
C ounc relevant Member State share in Significant imbalance is represented: BE ffi
to er NO − EU population observed when a share of a Balance is also influenced by the high relative due unc
G S − MEP's given nationality is below weight of the linguistic services di ct l of
NO/
− Council votes before Lisbon Rules 40% or above 400% of that V
ery di
pre le
ve
benchmark.
re
re su n tu ged
tio ce Methodology and criteria for Indicator(s) of Observed (significant) fu mea
.2 7
imbalance by Objective justification of the imbalance ed al an vi
sa
st itu assessing geographical balance (significant) imbalance ia te A rt
/en
In Member State pect Imb opr der ken
Ex un ta
A ppr
Geographical balance is assessed at Imbalance is observed in case Underrepresented: UK All imbalances are objectively justified by… t)
of aggregate level (all function groups of blatant under or • FR, BE: the Court works in French (mitigated
in exi
rt together). overrepresentation. Overrepresented: FR, BE by extensive language courses programme). al
so
st ic
e
Benchmark: the share of the relevant Significant imbalance is not • UK: Difficulty to recruit UK nationals NO of Br
C ou Ju Member State population in the EU defined NO ( population ew
NO/ vi
Geographical balance is assessed at Imbalance is observed when Underrepresented: UK All imbalances are objectively justified by…
aggregate level (all function groups the actual share of nationals the peculiarities of Luxembourg in terms of size, y
of rs together). deviates from the benchmark Overrepresented: BE, PT attractiveness, large number of cross-border si
bl -SC
rt to Benchmark: the share of the relevant by more than +/-20% workers and large number of PT residents. pos ST group NO Significant imbalance is
ept
C ou A udi
Member State population in the EU
population observed when such deviation xc e A tion NO/
exceeds +/-50% in
th func N O
e
Geographical balance is assessed at Significant imbalance is No observed imbalance n/a
io n function groups level, with a focus on observed when nationals of a
an ct ADs). Member State are not present
ope ice Benchmark: the share of the relevant at all (or significantly al A NO Member State population in the EU underrepresented). NO
Eur tern Serv population NO/
Ex re
re su
n tu 7 ged
tio Methodology and criteria for Indicator(s) of Observed (significant) fu ce mea
Objective justification of the imbalance ed al an vi
sa
st itu assessing geographical balance (significant) imbalance imbalance by ia te A
rt .2
/en
In Member State pect Imb opr der
Ex un ta
ken
A ppr
c Due to lack of formal definition, the Lack of nationals from one or Underrepresented: CY All imbalances are objectively justified by… y mi more member States could be NB: however, the EESC was the small number of CY nationals on EPSO lists; no ial
e EESC does not assess Geographical si bl
itte balance using a specific methodology a sign of imbalance
able to recruit a national the small number of vacancies due to downsizing; -SC
after the cut off date
co the seat effect and pos ST group NO d Soc m ept
-
r.E an High number of BE, IT,
other historical reasons (IT) e A tion
C om
Eu EE, LV, SL etc.
th NO/ The relative weight of the language services also O e
xc in func
influences the balance N
Geographical balance is assessed at Imbalance is observed when Significantly under All imbalances are objectively justified by…
e aggregate level (all function groups the actual share of nationals represented: LU and UK The size of the institution or e
th together). deviates is lower than 50% or Headquarter effect tions nc ue e of s
Benchmark: the average between the higher than 200% of the Significantly over Limited attractiveness of EU institutions for X
IT
on relevant Member State share in benchmark. represented: BE nationals of some member States
RE c ondi nfl itte − EU population Significant imbalance is Small size of certain member States r, B
of a n i NO
m R egi − MEP's observed when the share eve tion NO/
− Council votes before Lisbon Rules significantly deviates from Given the small size of the Cor, precaution in the ow h
ave
C om this bracket interpretation of figures is necessary . H te riora
N O de m
ight
Given the size of the institution, it has Imbalance is observed in case Significant over All imbalances are objectively justified by…
n never defined geographical (im)balance. of under or over representation: FR, in the • The seat effect in France,
pea an Presence of nationals from all Member representation without AST function group • the difficulties to recruit in Strasburg
ro sm States weighted with population size objective justification • historical reasons (large number of temporary could be an indicator
e Eu bud posts) NO NO
NO/
Th O
m re
re su
n tu 7 ged
tio ce Methodology and criteria for Indicator(s) of Observed (significant) fu
imbalance by Objective justification of the imbalance ed al an vi
sa
st itu assessing geographical balance (significant) imbalance ia te mea A rt
.2
/en
In Member State pect Imb opr der
Ex un ta
ken
A ppr
r The EDPS is a small institution dealing n/a NO n/a.
iso with a very specific subject. Recruitments
at a are therefore made on the basis of specific
D perv profiles and EPSO reserve lists in data protection as well as on the small pool of
ean NO n Su applicants. The question of balanced NO.
rop tio representation has not been considered so NO/
Eu tec far given to the specificity of profiles and difficulty to recruit.
Pro
Annex 10: Distribution of AD staff by nationality in EU Institutions (Headcount)
AD Officials and AT's, situation on 1.1.2017
Source: Contribution from Institutions
AD's officials &
Temporary Staff EP
SG
Council CoJ CoA EEAS EESC CoR EO EDPS Total
Belgium 182 116 108 42 72 30 16 0 6 572
Bulgaria 75 41 33 22 9 8 12 0 0 200
Czech Republic 69 44 34 21 19 8 12 2 1 210
Denmark 60 44 35 8 32 14 3 2 1 199
Germany 218 91 69 46 87 26 26 5 3 571
Estonia 55 41 30 10 22 8 5 0 0 171
Ireland 27 28 14 9 26 3 5 6 0 118
Greece 100 50 47 29 37 17 10 3 0 293
Spain 175 86 70 44 77 20 12 2 4 490
France 217 92 185 52 100 18 19 5 4 692
Croatia 68 31 29 7 9 6 7 0 0 157
Italy 201 77 78 40 105 30 24 0 4 559
Cyprus 6 2 2 2 3 0 0 0 1 16
Latvia 55 35 32 10 7 5 11 0 0 155
Lithuania 56 38 33 12 19 9 9 0 0 176
Luxembourg 13 6 9 3 4 1 0 0 0 36
Hungary 89 42 39 23 16 10 8 1 1 229
Malta 45 32 24 8 10 5 4 1 0 129
Netherlands 63 32 22 14 32 10 6 1 1 181
Austria 32 18 13 10 24 9 2 2 0 110
Poland 111 61 43 43 39 11 20 2 2 332
Portugal 84 62 38 32 31 10 7 1 0 265
Romania 97 57 37 33 24 15 14 1 1 279
Slovenia 58 40 32 9 13 4 10 0 1 167
Slovakia 64 37 32 11 5 7 12 0 0 168
Finland 91 58 31 18 19 11 10 1 0 239
Sweden 70 40 36 11 34 8 8 1 1 209
UK 118 50 50 27 72 15 10 1 0 343
Total 2,499 1,351 1,205 596 947 318 282 37 31 7,266
Annex 11: Distribution of AD staff by nationality in EU Institutions (percentage of AD staff)
AD Officials and AT's, situation on 1.1.2017 - Distribution
Source: Contribution from Institutions
AD's officials &
Temporary Staff EP
SG
Council CoJ CoA EEAS EESC CoR EO EDPS Total
Belgium 7% 9% 9% 7% 8% 9% 6% 0% 19% 8%
Bulgaria 3% 3% 3% 4% 1% 3% 4% 0% 0% 3%
Czech Republic 3% 3% 3% 4% 2% 3% 4% 5% 3% 3%
Denmark 2% 3% 3% 1% 3% 4% 1% 5% 3% 3%
Germany 9% 7% 6% 8% 9% 8% 9% 14% 10% 8%
Estonia 2% 3% 2% 2% 2% 3% 2% 0% 0% 2%
Ireland 1% 2% 1% 2% 3% 1% 2% 16% 0% 2%
Greece 4% 4% 4% 5% 4% 5% 4% 8% 0% 4%
Spain 7% 6% 6% 7% 8% 6% 4% 5% 13% 7%
France 9% 7% 15% 9% 11% 6% 7% 14% 13% 10%
Croatia 3% 2% 2% 1% 1% 2% 2% 0% 0% 2%
Italy 8% 6% 6% 7% 11% 9% 9% 0% 13% 8%
Cyprus 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3% 0%
Latvia 2% 3% 3% 2% 1% 2% 4% 0% 0% 2%
Lithuania 2% 3% 3% 2% 2% 3% 3% 0% 0% 2%
Luxembourg 1% 0% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Hungary 4% 3% 3% 4% 2% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3%
Malta 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 2% 1% 3% 0% 2%
Netherlands 3% 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 2% 3% 3% 2%
Austria 1% 1% 1% 2% 3% 3% 1% 5% 0% 2%
Poland 4% 5% 4% 7% 4% 3% 7% 5% 6% 5%
Portugal 3% 5% 3% 5% 3% 3% 2% 3% 0% 4%
Romania 4% 4% 3% 6% 3% 5% 5% 3% 3% 4%
Slovenia 2% 3% 3% 2% 1% 1% 4% 0% 3% 2%
Slovakia 3% 3% 3% 2% 1% 2% 4% 0% 0% 2%
Finland 4% 4% 3% 3% 2% 3% 4% 3% 0% 3%
Sweden 3% 3% 3% 2% 4% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3%
UK 5% 4% 4% 5% 8% 5% 4% 3% 0% 5%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Annex 12 : Summary of the Contributions made by Agencies
NB: All Statements and wording reflect the relevant agency's declarations
re
re su
Y tu 7 ce ged
Methodology and criteria for Indicator(s) of (significant) Observed (significant) fu
ENC A
rt .2 vi sa
assessing geographical balance imbalance imbalance by Objective justification of the imbalance ed al
an e mea at
A G Member State pect Imb pri der
/en
ken
Ex ro un ta
A pp
Imbalance is observed if less than io
n s a
R Geographical balance is assessed by 50% of the Member States are re ct t i
represented among staff or if staff No N/A en em NO
A CE
reference to the representation of each
nationality among staff from one nationality represent more c
or
than 50% of total staff ef
fici probl NO/
N o but co
Geographical balance is assessed by
EF Significant imbalance is observed
reference to the representation of each when one nationality exceeds 40% No N/A No NO
C ED nationality among staff of the establishment plan NO/
In the period 2014 – 2016,
CEPOL does not have a definition in following the relocation
nt
place of what constitutes a “balanced CEPOL would consider that a of the agency from the
O L representation” of each nationality among “significant imbalance” is in place UK to Hungary, an
c urre ) r
where one nationality comprises increase in the number of N/A d on nds unde ra
tion
C EP
its staff. The geographical balance is
included in monthly internal reporting as more than 50% of all staff (TA, CA Hungarian nationals was se tre ide
well as in the annual account. & SNEs). observed. However,
N o/
(ba cons
significant imbalance is
not reached yet. Y
es
re
re su 7 Y tu ce ged
Methodology and criteria for Indicator(s) of (significant) Observed (significant) fu A rt
.2
vi sa
assessing geographical balance imbalance imbalance by Objective justification of the imbalance ed al
an e mea at
A G
ENC Member State
pect Imb pri der
/en
Ex ro un
ken ta
A pp
O No methodology has been set Imbalance is observed if in more
General administrative staff out of the than 2 managers or more than 40%
C PV scope of AD staff have the same
No N/A No NO
nationality NO/
SA Geographical balance is monitored and No, taking into account Staff distribution is consistent with the Agency's understanding of the distribution of aviation experts
EA compared to population of Member States N/A
the specificity of the No NO
agency (see justification) among MS NO/
Geographical balance is assessed at
aggregate level (all function groups Significant imbalance if large
D C together). Benchmark: all MS should be represented number of MS are either not Sweden is over NO
EC A second assessment is done by reference represented or significantly represented
Seat effect No
NO/
to population and seats at the European under/over represented
Parliament
O P
Significant imbalance would occur
Number of nationalities represented if the agency was unable to attract No EIOPA inherited staff from CEIOPS NO
EI staff from variety of nationalities Seat effect No NO/
Larger and older member States are Imbalance is observed when the
EEA expected to have a larger representation share of larger/older MS No N/A No
NO
nationalities decreases NO/ re
re su Y tu ce .2
7 ged
Methodology and criteria for Indicator(s) of (significant) Observed (significant) fu vi sa
ENC assessing geographical balance imbalance imbalance by Objective justification of the imbalance ed al
an e mea
at A
rt
/en
A G Member State pect Imb pri der ken
Ex ro un ta
A pp
No methodology or criteria are ci al SA established. A methodology (if adopted), so
es d)
should take into account elements like the N/A One nationality represents ur ge EF seat effect of the consequences of a 40% of staff
N/A No
NO (
decentralised location m eas sa
envi NO/
Geographical balance is assessed at
A aggregate level (all function groups Imbalance is observed when the
Under-represented: NL,
together, Temporary and Contract staff). actual share of nationals deviates DE, LU (and Norway)
Grading of jobs at EMA (lower than other
its at ion NO
EM Benchmark: the share of the relevant from the benchmark by more than
Over-represented: EE, agencies) render the agency less attractive for some nationalities. Follow-up of job mapping exercise
loc
Member State population in the EU/EEA + 100% or – 50% GR, IE, LV, LT, PT and may improve the situation. Awa re NO/ population SK
D D Significant imbalance is observed if
All member States should be represented staff from one nationality represent No N/A No NO EMC more than 30% of staff NO/
Geographical balance is assessed at
aggregate level (all function groups Significant imbalance is observed Significantly underci
al
SA together). when the actual share of nationals represented: FR, IT, UK Steadily decreasing correction coefficient s so e) EM Benchmark: the share of the relevant deviates from the benchmark by Significantly over Difficulty of employment for spouses Ye
S: ur
Member State population in the EU more than + 100% or – 50% represented: PT, GR, BE YE m
eas
population NO/
re
re su 7 Y tu ce ged
Methodology and criteria for Indicator(s) of (significant) Observed (significant) fu A rt
.2
vi sa
assessing geographical balance imbalance imbalance by Objective justification of the imbalance ed al
an e mea at
A G
ENC Member State
pect Imb pri der
/en
Ex ro un
ken ta
A pp
Geographical balance is monitored and Imbalance is observed if Staff from N/A but Greece economic crisis and drop/low
ISA compared to population of Member a specific nationality represents NO correction coefficient leads to majority of NO No
EN States. more than 50% of the total staff. applicants with origin from the MS NO/
Imbalance is observed if less than
Count the number of nationalities 60% of nationalities are represented
ETF represented Significant imbalance if one No N/A No
NO
nationality represents more than NO/
40% of all staff
Geographical balance is assessed at Imbalance is observed if a member
IPO aggregate level (all function groups State is overrepresented compared
EU together). to others, taking however into
Spain is overrepresented Seat effect No NO
All member States should be represented account its size NO/
Geographical balance is assessed at
sa aggregate level (all function groups Underrepresented: DE,
Seat effect: a presence of up to 30% of staff with nationality of the seat of assignment is tolerable
-Li together). Benchmark: the share of the relevant Not defined in the answer UK, SWE, DK, MT, SL No significant Distant location of the Headquarters
EU Member State population in the EU underrepresentation Low correction coefficient population Difficulty of employment for spouses
nd ou
of Number of MS represented Not defined No N/A No NO
NO/
Eur re
re su 7 Y tu ce ged
Methodology and criteria for Indicator(s) of (significant) Observed (significant) fu e mea assessing geographical balance imbalance imbalance by Objective justification of the imbalance ed al
an
at A
rt .2 vi sa
A G
ENC Member State
pect Imb pri der
/en
Ex ro un
ken ta
A pp
us
oj No imbalance observed N/A N/A but NL group is the Seat effect No NO
Eur largest NO/
Geographical balance is assessed at Significant imbalance is observed
aggregate level (all function groups when o
ex together). − a nationality is not represented Yes (both under No objective justification. d t t)
its
nt awa
e)
Benchmark: a mix of "equal distribution" among staff representation and over However, the low correction coefficient applicable inke ct
ion en
Fro (all Member States with an equal weight) − the actual share of nationals representation to Poland renders the agency less attractive (l
fici m is si on
ativ
and the share of the relevant Member deviates from the population corre
ef NO ( iti in Y es co
State population in the EU population share by more than +/- 50% NO/
Com
Annex 13 : Distribution of AD staff by nationality in EU Decentralised agencies (Headcount)
Officials and AT's, situation on 1.1.2017 (EU nationals only)
Source: Agencies contribution
P d L t x AD's officials & R FO PA (**) A
O isa oun us te
Temporary Staff PVO
SA O SA -L oj ) (*
ACE DE on
Total
C EPO C ECDC EA EEA EI EF EMA
CDDA
CE EM
ENIS ETF -IP of
EMSA EU EU Eur Eur Fr
Belgium 3 7 1 0 6 18 4 4 23 15 4 5 1 4 13 4 3 5 4 124
Bulgaria 2 1 0 0 5 6 0 4 0 5 3 3 0 2 1 3 0 2 5 42
Czech Republic 1 2 0 0 1 5 0 2 1 2 0 1 1 0 6 1 0 0 2 25
Denmark 0 2 1 0 1 5 7 2 1 5 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 1 29
Germany 2 10 2 2 14 95 10 10 15 28 4 7 2 5 36 4 4 3 9 262
Estonia 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 4 0 1 0 10
Ireland 1 0 0 1 0 5 3 2 2 13 3 3 2 2 6 1 6 1 1 52
Greece 4 28 2 0 3 10 1 3 8 20 0 10 8 2 4 5 2 6 10 126
Spain 3 3 0 2 2 51 3 9 18 40 4 15 1 4 48 3 6 8 8 228
France 4 11 0 2 15 125 6 2 17 56 5 11 2 3 26 17 3 3 6 314
Croatia 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 5
Italy 6 7 1 1 10 74 0 4 78 43 5 10 1 7 20 8 3 7 10 295
Cyprus 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 6
Latvia 0 2 1 0 2 3 0 1 1 2 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 1 18
Lithuania 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 4 2 1 1 5 17
Luxembourg 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 7
Hungary 4 0 3 0 3 5 1 2 6 4 0 1 0 0 5 4 2 1 8 49
Malta 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7
Netherlands 2 2 2 0 2 26 3 7 6 1 1 4 0 4 8 0 4 8 4 84
Austria 1 2 1 0 1 8 1 4 9 7 0 1 0 2 6 0 4 2 3 52
Poland 0 1 0 1 1 5 1 2 0 8 1 10 1 0 11 4 1 2 23 72
Portugal 1 1 0 2 4 11 4 8 8 20 6 28 2 2 13 1 1 2 7 121
Romania 1 3 1 0 3 20 2 0 1 8 1 3 4 2 2 8 0 4 13 76
Slovenia 10 1 0 0 1 4 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 2 24
Slovakia 1 1 1 0 1 7 1 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 1 2 23
Finland 0 1 0 0 7 7 1 1 1 4 0 2 0 2 3 0 1 0 4 34
Sweden 0 0 0 1 15 4 3 0 0 6 0 1 0 1 1 0 2 4 0 38
UK 0 3 0 0 7 43 6 5 13 36 8 9 1 7 12 0 3 6 5 164
Total 48 90 17 12 106 544 59 74 212 330 47 132 26 52 230 72 47 71 135 2,304 *: 0.5 FTE converted to 1 **: TA only
Annex 14 : Distribution of AD staff by nationality in EU Decentralised agencies (percentage of AD staff)
Officials and AT's, situation on 1.1.2017 - Distribution (EU nationals only)
Source: Agencies contribution
P d L t x AD's officials & R FO SA PA (*) A
O isa oun us te
Temporary Staff O SA -L
ACE DE EPO
PVO
EI EF EMA
CDDA of oj on Total
CE C
C ECDC EA EEA
EM EMSA ENIS ETF -IP
EU EU
Eur Eur
Fr
Belgium 6% 8% 6% 0% 6% 3% 7% 5% 11% 5% 9% 4% 4% 8% 6% 6% 6% 7% 3% 5%
Bulgaria 4% 1% 0% 0% 5% 1% 0% 5% 0% 2% 6% 2% 0% 4% 0% 4% 0% 3% 4% 2%
Czech Republic 2% 2% 0% 0% 1% 1% 0% 3% 0% 1% 0% 1% 4% 0% 3% 1% 0% 0% 1% 1%
Denmark 0% 2% 6% 0% 1% 1% 12% 3% 0% 2% 0% 1% 0% 2% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1%
Germany 4% 11% 12% 17% 13% 17% 17% 14% 7% 8% 9% 5% 8% 10% 16% 6% 9% 4% 7% 11%
Estonia 0% 0% 6% 0% 0% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 6% 0% 1% 0% 0%
Ireland 2% 0% 0% 8% 0% 1% 5% 3% 1% 4% 6% 2% 8% 4% 3% 1% 13% 1% 1% 2%
Greece 8% 31% 12% 0% 3% 2% 2% 4% 4% 6% 0% 8% 31% 4% 2% 7% 4% 8% 7% 5%
Spain 6% 3% 0% 17% 2% 9% 5% 12% 8% 12% 9% 11% 4% 8% 21% 4% 13% 11% 6% 10%
France 8% 12% 0% 17% 14% 23% 10% 3% 8% 17% 11% 8% 8% 6% 11% 24% 6% 4% 4% 14%
Croatia 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 1% 0%
Italy 13% 8% 6% 8% 9% 14% 0% 5% 37% 13% 11% 8% 4% 13% 9% 11% 6% 10% 7% 13%
Cyprus 4% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Latvia 0% 2% 6% 0% 2% 1% 0% 1% 0% 1% 2% 1% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 3% 1% 1%
Lithuania 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 3% 2% 1% 4% 1%
Luxembourg 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 0% 1% 0%
Hungary 8% 0% 18% 0% 3% 1% 2% 3% 3% 1% 0% 1% 0% 0% 2% 6% 4% 1% 6% 2%
Malta 0% 1% 0% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Netherlands 4% 2% 12% 0% 2% 5% 5% 9% 3% 0% 2% 3% 0% 8% 3% 0% 9% 11% 3% 4%
Austria 2% 2% 6% 0% 1% 1% 2% 5% 4% 2% 0% 1% 0% 4% 3% 0% 9% 3% 2% 2%
Poland 0% 1% 0% 8% 1% 1% 2% 3% 0% 2% 2% 8% 4% 0% 5% 6% 2% 3% 17% 3%
Portugal 2% 1% 0% 17% 4% 2% 7% 11% 4% 6% 13% 21% 8% 4% 6% 1% 2% 3% 5% 5%
Romania 2% 3% 6% 0% 3% 4% 3% 0% 0% 2% 2% 2% 15% 4% 1% 11% 0% 6% 10% 3%
Slovenia 21% 1% 0% 0% 1% 1% 2% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3% 1% 1%
Slovakia 2% 1% 6% 0% 1% 1% 2% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 3% 0% 1% 1% 1%
Finland 0% 1% 0% 0% 7% 1% 2% 1% 0% 1% 0% 2% 0% 4% 1% 0% 2% 0% 3% 1%
Sweden 0% 0% 0% 8% 14% 1% 5% 0% 0% 2% 0% 1% 0% 2% 0% 0% 4% 6% 0% 2%
UK 0% 3% 0% 0% 7% 8% 10% 7% 6% 11% 17% 7% 4% 13% 5% 0% 6% 8% 4% 7%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
*: TA only
| 19 Jun '18 |
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL pursuant to Article 27 of the Staff Regulations of Officials and to Article 12 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union (Geographical balance) COVER NOTE |
Secretary-General of the European Commission 10268/18 |
The EU Monitor enables its users to keep track of the European process of lawmaking, focusing on the relevant dossiers. It automatically signals developments in your chosen topics of interest. Apologies to unregistered users, we can no longer add new users.This service will discontinue in the near future.