12.7.2012   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 205/1

1.

The Commission proposes a 5 % reduction of staff in each of the European Union institutions and agencies between 2013 and 2018. To manage the effect of this reduction and to address other staff-related issues, it proposes a number of changes to the Staff Regulations, namely:

2.

The Commission’s proposal estimates the financial impact for the period 2013-2020. This consists of:

3.

In addition, savings with regard to expenditure on pensions are expected to be in the order of 1 000 million euro per annum in the long term (3).

4.

The Court points out that the impact of the Commission proposal should be measured not only in terms of achieving the 5 % reduction in staff and the implementation of the changes in the Staff Regulations, but also in terms of achieving the overall financial objective forecasted in the proposal.

5.

The proposed reduction of staff numbers by 5 %, although depending on the outcomes of budget allocations within the context of the MFF, is a key element which contributes to the financial savings target. The planned savings in staff and spending will best be secured if each institution makes a 5 % reduction in its staff.

6.

The institutions need to take account of the planned reductions in manpower when planning the EU activities and managing its staff resources, prioritising appropriately, notably in the decisions to be taken about the EU policies and expenditure for the next MFF period.

7.

The proposal does not address issues of human resources management (training, performance appraisal, promotion and grading) as ways to improve the overall productivity of the EU’s staff.

8.

The Court notes that the proposal would not in itself lead to a reduction in staff numbers and corresponding financial savings. Article 6 of the proposed Staff Regulations makes an explicit reference to the obligations set out in the MFF and the interinstitutional agreement on its implementation (4). The Court recalls that the size of the EU civil service is to be determined during annual budgetary procedure decisions which need to be aligned with the objectives of this Commission proposal.

9.

The Court recommends that the institutions report annually on the steps taken to meet the planned objectives of reducing staff numbers by 5 % by way of not replacing a certain number of departures, i.e. those who retire and those whose contracts come to an end. Reporting should demonstrate that the objective to reduce costs is not circumvented, for example by using third party service providers, since such staff do not feature in the headcount.

10.

The current method for adjusting salaries and pensions of EU officials is based on changes in real terms of salaries of civil servants of eight Member States. The new proposed method is to base adjustments on nominal gross salary changes of civil servants in all Member States, excluding the effect of taxation and other deductions from pay. This change may result in a less complex and a faster method of determining the adjustments. However, the net financial impact of this change needs to be considered carefully by the legislator.

11.

The Commission proposal introduces an automatic exception clause for partly postponing by one year any upward adjustment of salaries and pensions. It would trigger a further one year delay over and above the existing delay of up to one year under the current regulations (5) if all conditions for its application are verified (6). The delay of these adjustments reduces the alignment of salaries and pensions of EU staff to Member States’ civil services. Such adjustments should ideally be made at the closest time to the conditions which trigger the change.

12.

The proposal introduces a new staff category ‘AST/SC’ for secretaries and clerks in addition to the existing function groups for administrators (AD) and for assistants (AST). The pay level proposed for AST/SC entry grades will, in some circumstances, make it difficult to recruit staff with the linguistic skills required by the nature of the institutions’ work and to maintain geographical balance.

13.

The Commission proposes restructuring the career stream in the AST function group in such a way to reserve the two highest grades for staff who exercise significant responsibilities. In future, there will be ‘senior assistants’ (AST 10 and AST 11) and ‘assistants’ (AST 1 to AST 9). However, the transitional provisions proposed for staff in service on 31 December 2012 might cause problems of unequal treatment (7) for assistants recruited after the 2004 reform of the Staff Regulations.

14.

The proposal on flexible working time arrangements applies to all staff with the exception of those appointed Head of Unit, Director or Director-General. The Court recommends to consider whether it would be appropriate for similar arrangements to apply to managers, taking into account, on the one hand, the commitment that can reasonably be expected of managers, and, on the other hand, the need for the institutions to make the best possible use of all their staff, including those wishing to combine working and parental responsibilities.

15.

The Court welcomes the proposal that, for the sake of transparency, the Court of Justice should establish a register containing the implementing rules of all institutions and that the Commission should report every three years on rules adopted by each institution to give effect to the Staff Regulations. In addition, the Court recommends that the Commission proposes a procedure for prior consultation in order to avoid cases where divergences in implementing rules from one institution to another result in an unequal treatment of staff.

16.

The Commission proposal to address long-lasting and significant geographical imbalances where nationalities are under-represented in comparison with the relative size of their population should be considered with due care. Any such arrangements should respect the principle of equality of EU citizens and the principle that no post is to be reserved for nationals of any specific Member State.

17.

The Commission proposes creating in the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants (CEOS) a new category for temporary staff at the agencies. This category of temporary staff would be recruited for a fixed or indefinite period. Those recruited for an indefinite period would de facto benefit from a status similar to that of an official in almost all respects. However, there are no provisions to guarantee that the selection of such staff would be carried out in accordance with the same principles and standards and with the same rigour as applied for the selection of officials.

18.

The Court recalls that there is a need to strike the right balance between safeguarding the efficiency of OLAF investigations on the one hand and protecting fundamental rights on the other. It should be clarified that the notion of an ‘act adversely affecting’ a person to whom the Staff Regulations apply, as mentioned in Article 90a, includes any act performed by OLAF in the exercise of its investigative mission which deprives staff of the effective exercise, or of the benefit, of a fundamental right, in particular in cases where OLAF has drawn up its final report and/or transmitted information to national judicial authorities. Furthermore, practical experience has shown that the current legal provisions (8) are not precise enough to avoid confusion about the role of OLAF in cases of serious misconduct where the EU’s financial interests are not at stake.

19.

Since its creation, the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) (9) has become the main point of contact for EU citizens who wish to work for the European institutions. The current rules on competitions to be organised by EPSO as set out in the Staff Regulations (10) are rudimentary. Since they were introduced in 2004, a considerable body of case-law has clarified important principles in the selection process, for example with regard to the role of the selection boards or with regard to the use of languages. In the interest of transparency, the Commission should consider proposing the necessary amendments to reflect these clarifications in the relevant provisions of the Staff Regulations.

20.

Over the years the Staff Regulations and the CEOS have become increasingly complicated. The Commission should carry out a study in consultation with the other institutions concerned to identify options for simplification with a view to improving sound financial management. Such a study should include an examination of the rules of other international organisations and of those EU institutions and bodies not covered by the Staff Regulations.

21.

Whilst Article 336 TFEU remains the basis for regulating the relationship between the institutions and their staff, the newly introduced Article 298 TFEU requires the EU legislator to adopt provisions for an open, efficient and independent European administration. Such provisions would usefully complement the rules of the Staff Regulations. The Commission should consider proposing provisions for improving the relationship between the citizens and the European administration based on Article 298 TFEU; for example by clarifying how the institutions ensure equal treatment of citizens by their staff or how they deal with cases of alleged conflicts of interest.