WRITTEN QUESTION E-3002/01

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(29 October 2001)

Subject: Promotion procedures in the Commission

Every year, the Commission's promotion procedures prompt a number of officials to lodge complaints and some of them go on to bring actions before the CFI (Court of First Instance).

The main reasons invoked are the excessive importance attached to seniority in grade as a precondition for promotion and stubborn practices such as the automatic promotion of officials passed over during the previous promotion exercise and the fixing in advance of promotion quotas for each directorate-general.

In a note drawn up in July 2000 the Commission itself acknowledges that its procedures are complicated, that they take too little account of merit and that the CFI has handed down judgments penalising the Commission for employing this far from transparent procedure. By continuing to conduct its promotion exercises on the basis of controversial criteria which have regularly been the subject of court judgments against it, the Commission is also displaying a degree of contempt for the CFI and its judges, whilst refusing to implement, to the benefit of its staff, a system which takes genuine account of merit, as intended by the Staff Regulations, as promised by Mr Kinnock and as called for by a majority of officials.

1. How many complaints relating to promotion procedures have been lodged by Commission officials?

2. How many complaints have been rejected, whether implicitly or explicitly?

3. How many complaints have given rise to actions before the CFI?

4. How many such actions have resulted in the appellant being vindicated?

5. Has the Commission issued instructions to its administration to change immediately its promotion procedures and, at the very least, its procedures for dealing with the ensuing complaints, so that the promotions granted to officials are finally and solely based on the merit acknowledged by that promotion procedure or, where applicable, as a result of their complaints? If not, when will it do so?

6. Will the Commission immediately comply with the CFI judgments dealing with promotions? If not, why not?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(14 December 2001)

The information requested is given below:

>TABLE>

Of the five appeals made to the Court, four were rejected by the Court and one is still pending.

The Commission's promotion procedures are laid down by the General Implementing Provisions of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations and are based on the principle, set out in that Article, that promotion shall be exclusively by selection from among officials who have completed a minimum period in their grade, after consideration of the comparative merits of the officials eligible for promotion and of the reports on them.

The CFI has consistently ruled that seniority in grade and age can be taken into consideration, for the purposes of promotion, only as subsidiary criteria where the merits of the officials concerned are comparable.

The Commission has always brought any new rulings on promotion made by the CFI to the attention of Directorates-General and the promotion committees so that they may comply with those judgements. The judgements of the CFI on promotion also serve as the basis for considering complaints about non-promotion made by officials under Article 90 of the Staff Regulations.

Following extensive consultation with its staff, the Commission is in the process of finalising a new system of appraisal and promotion as a central part of Commission Reform. The system will bring significant and helpful simplification and it will introduce very transparent procedures, while guaranteeing that promotion is made on merit that is measured through full and fair individual appraisal.

The Commission implements all the judgements of the CFI concerning promotion and will continue to do so. The Court has never given any indication or view which supports the Honourable Members' unsubstantiated assertion that the Commission displays a degree of contempt for the CFI and its judges.