REPORT TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL EQUIVALENCE BETWEEN OLD AND NEW CAREER STRUCTURES   Article 6 of the Staff Regulations
Date: 2011-03-30
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: European official, regulations for civil servants, report, servant (EU)

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 30.3.2011 
COM(2011) 171 final 

REPORT TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL  

EQUIVALENCE BETWEEN OLD AND NEW CAREER STRUCTURES 

Article 6 of the Staff Regulations 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
  
 
 
REPORT TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL  

EQUIVALENCE BETWEEN OLD AND NEW CAREER STRUCTURES 

Article 6 of the Staff Regulations 

O– FOREWORD AND POLITICAL ABSTRACT 

The  2004  reform  of  the  Staff  Regulations  had  two  main  priorities:  firstly  to  modernise  the 
European public administration and especially its career system that had been in force for more 
than 40 years and, secondly, to secure considerable financial savings in real terms. On the latter 
objective, the initial target was explicit: more than EUR 1 billion savings over the following 15 
years. Seven years only after the adoption of the reform, it is difficult to assess what would be 
the real savings over the whole period. However, on a long term perspective, simulations tend 
to  show  a  very  significant  financial  impact  of  the  2004  reform  both  on  the  wage  bill  and  on 
pensions. Eurostat has in this regard calculated the savings connected with the implementation 
of the reform. They estimate that in the long term (50 years ahead), the 2004 reform will save 
more  than  EUR  1.5  billion  each  year  compared  to  a  situation  without  the  reform.  One  can 
therefore conclude that the 2004 reform is a success as far as budgetary discipline is concerned. 

As regards the modernisation of the Staff Regulations and the revamping of the career system, 
the  2004  reform  aimed  at  simplifying  the  old  system  built  on  four  categories  of  staff,  while 
promoting a merit based career progression. Whereas the new system was supposed to ensure, 
on average, the same career perspectives for officials as the previous system, it was designed to 
allow  the  best-performing  officials  to  be  rewarded  for  their  efforts  through  new  career 
perspectives. This report provides a first indication of whether and to what extent this goal has 
been achieved. 

More  precisely,  the  report  shows  that  fast-career  officials  are  better  off  on  average  under  the 
new rules than under the previous Staff Regulations. However, the report emphasises that the 
impact  on  careers  of  the  2004  rules  differs  significantly  according  to  the  types  of  careers. 
Clerical officers  for  instance  have  benefited strongly from the new system of careers,  largely 
regardless of their individual merits. Conversely, career perspectives for junior administrators – 
if this group is taken as a whole - are significantly less attractive than under the previous rules. 

The  report  also  analyses  the  impact  of  the  transitional  measures  applicable  to  officials  who 
were  appointed  before  May  2004  with  a  focus  on  the  impact  on  management  positions.  It 
concludes  that  the  introduction  of  the  new  career  structure,  combined  with  the  convergence 
towards the new salary grid, has produced a certain number of unexpected results, with a clear 
disconnection in some cases between the level of responsibilities and the level of remuneration. 
One could therefore conclude that the budgetary savings obtained with the 2004 reform have 
been unevenly distributed across the staff, to the particular detriment of the function group of 
administrators, taken as a whole. 

This conclusion should be borne in mind if any further amendment of the Staff Regulations is 
contemplated.  In  particular,  if  the  European  Union  wishes  to  attract  the  most  talented  and 
dedicated  officials,  while  maintaining  a  diversified  geographical  base,  it  should  probably 
rebalance the burden of economies across groups of staff. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

O– Foreword and political abstract ............................................................................................ 2 

I – Background, legal context and methodology........................................................................ 5 

Box 1, From basic to net salary.................................................................................................. 6 

Box 2, What does parallelism mean? ......................................................................................... 7 

II – Main findings: overall equivalence except for secretaries/clerks........................................ 9 

1°) Experienced administrators can have equivalent career structures provided they are 

recruited at grade AD7 in the new scale ...................................................................... 9 

Table 1: Comparison between old and new career structures at recruitment, after 10/20 years 

and at retirement age (grade and basic* salary per month)........................................ 10 

2°) Junior administrators earn significantly less in the new scheme than in the old one, and the 
gap only partially closes with the increase of the pensionable age............................ 10 

Table 2: Comparison between old and new career structures at recruitment, after 10/20 years 

and at retirement age (grade and basic* salary per month)........................................ 11 

Table 3: Minimum and maximum grades for selected management position (basic salary per 

month in Euro) ........................................................................................................... 12 

3°) Careers of technical and administrative assistants are broadly equivalent under the old and 
new Staff Regulations. ............................................................................................... 12 

Table 4: Comparison between old and new career structures at recruitment, after 10/20 years 

and at retirement age (grade and basic salary* per month)........................................ 13 

4°) The principle of equivalence of careers is clearly breached in the case of secretaries/clerks, 
with new recruits earning a lot more in the new system than in the old one. ............ 13 

Table 5: Comparison between old and new career structures at recruitment, after 10/20 years 

and at retirement age (grade and basic* salary per month)........................................ 14 

III – Conclusion........................................................................................................................ 14 

Table 6: Difference between old and new carrier structures.................................................... 15 

ANNEX 1................................................................................................................................. 16 

a) Impact of Annex XIII across categories of officials ............................................................ 16 

b) Impact of the attestation procedure...................................................................................... 17 

c) Impact on highest grades and management positions .......................................................... 17 

Box A1, Multiplication factor .................................................................................................. 18 

ANNEX 2................................................................................................................................. 20 

Table A1: Difference of remuneration under the new Staff Regulations depending of career 

speed........................................................................................................................... 20 

ANNEX 3................................................................................................................................. 21 

EN 

3 

   EN 

Table A2: Proportion of officials with longer / faster careers.................................................. 21 

ANNEX 4................................................................................................................................. 22 

Table A3: average pension age (2000-2004) ........................................................................... 22 

Table A4: average recruitment age (2000-2004) ..................................................................... 22 

Table A5: average recruitment age (2004-2009) ..................................................................... 23 

Table A6: average seniority before promotion (in years 2000-2004) ...................................... 23 

EN 

4 

   EN 

Article 6(3) of the Staff Regulations states that "the Commission shall […] submit a report to 
the  budgetary  authority  each  year  on  the  evolution  of  average  careers  in  the  two  function 
groups  in  all  institutions,  which  will  state  whether  the  principle  of  equivalence  has  been 
respected and, if not, to what extent it has been breached.". In addition, Article 6(4) provides 
that "to ensure that this system remains consistent […], the rates laid down in Annex I, point B, 
shall  be  reviewed  at  the  end  of  a  five-year  period  starting  on  1  May  2004  on  the  basis  of  a 
report, submitted by the Commission to the Council, and a proposal by the Commission.". The 
Commission  has  accordingly  prepared  a  technical  report  for  submission  to  the  European 
Parliament  and  the  Council1.  This  report  attempts  to  compare  the  ‘old’  and  ‘new’  career 
structures  and  finds  some  discrepancies.  The  first  part  of  the  report  explains  the  legal 
framework, the methodology used and the main hypotheses on which it is based. The second 
part details the results according to the different types of careers. 

I – BACKGROUND, LEGAL CONTEXT AND METHODOLOGY 

Provision  is  made  for  equivalence  between  ‘old’  and  ‘new’  career  structures  to  be  checked 
regularly. According to Article 6(5) of the Staff Regulations, ‘equivalence shall be assessed, as 
a result of promotion and seniority over a given period on the assumption that staff numbers 
remain unchanged, between the average career before 1 May 2004 and the average career of 
officials recruited thereafter’. This definition leaves the notion of ‘average career’ open.  

A first approach would start from the assumption that there is equivalence between old and new 
career  structures  if  the  overall  increase  of  the  basic  monthly  salary  over  an  average  career 
(i.e. the career of a hypothetical average official recruited at the average age for recruitment for 
officials in his/her function group/category, who is promoted after a period equal to the average 
duration spent in each relevant grade and eventually retiring at the average retirement age for 
his/her function group/category) is the same under the previous and the new Staff Regulations. 
Checking whether the principle of equivalence has been respected would therefore only entail 
calculating the increase between the first salary when joining the Institutions and the last salary 
when retiring from them, and checking such increase under both the previous and the current 
Staff Regulations.  

While this first approach is straightforward and relatively easy to implement, it does not fully 
take into account the spirit of the reform of the Staff Regulations. The reform was intended to 
change the structure of officials’ careers by paying them less at the beginning but offering more 
promotions and scope for higher salaries at the end of the career. This means that the difference 
between  first  and  last  salaries  is  likely  to  be  greater  in  the  new  career  structure,  resulting  in 
economies in overall salary expenditure under the new rules. 

In  order  to  ensure  maximum  comparability,  it  has  been  decided  to  define  "remuneration"  for 
present purposes as the basic salary, thus excluding factors such as possible allowances under 
Annex  VII  of  the  Staff  Regulations,  which  are  technically  considered  to  form  part  of  the 
“remuneration”  under  Article  62  of  the  Staff  Regulations  but  which  vary  according  to  the 
official’s personal circumstances. 

1 

Annex XIII of the Staff Regulations also states that "with the Report provided by the Commission under 
Article  6(3)  of  the  Staff  Regulations,  the  Commission  shall  also  provide  information  on  the  financial 
implications of the promotion percentages provided for in this Annex and the integration of officials in 
service before 1 May 2004". This information can be found in Annex I. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

                                                 
It  has  therefore  been  decided  to  consider  the  accumulated  basic  remuneration  over  the 
whole career, i.e. the sum of all payments of monthly basic salary received from recruitment 
until  retirement.  It  should  be  mentioned  that  even  after  removing  associated  benefits  (see 
above) this basic salary is still not what officials actually earn. This is for two further reasons:  

1) net salaries are significantly reduced by the various compulsory deductions (see box 1, From 
basic to net salary); 

2) net salaries of almost 50% of staff recruited before 01/05/2004, are reduced by the so-called 
'multiplication factor', which ensures financial neutrality of the 2004 reform, by reducing their 
basic salary provided for in Article 66 of the Staff Regulations (see box A1 in Annex 1). 

BOX 1, FROM BASIC TO NET SALARY 

Box 1, From basic to net salary 

This report considers the basic salary as defined by the salary scale in Art. 66 of Staff Regulations. However, such 
salary  is  subject  to  a  number  of  compulsory  deductions,  some  of  which  are  in  compensation  of  social  benefits 
(pension scheme, sickness  insurance, accident). The following table  gives the rate of the contributions/taxes which 
affect officials' salaries as at 1 January 2010. 

Tax / contribution 

Rate 

Pension contribution 

11,6 % 

Sickness insurance 

Accident insurance 

1,7 % 

0,1 % 

Income Tax 

Up to 45 % 

Special levy 

5,5 % 

The  fact  that  the  bases  on  which  the  contributions  are  assessed  are  not  completely  identical  combined  with  the 
progressiveness of the income tax result in a global contribution rate being extremely  wide across the  salary  scale, 
ranging from 13,4% for an AST1 to 40,5% for an AD16 step 3. The following table gives some examples of monthly 
salaries net from compulsory deductions according to various grades as at 1 January 2011: 

Grade 

Basic salary
(euro) 

Salary after 
 contributions 

Global  
Taxation rate 

Marginal 
 taxation rate 

Secretary AST1/1 

Technical Assistant AST3/1 

Administrator AD5/1 

Head of Unit AD9/1 

 Director AD14/1 

Director general AD16/3 

2 654 

3 398 

4 350 

7 128 

13 216 

18 371 

2 299 

2 726 

3 414 

5 240 

8 386 

10 925 

13,4% 

19,8% 

21,5% 

26,5% 

36,5% 

40,5% 

13% 

25% 

29% 

40% 

51% 

51% 

It is useful to keep those contribution rates in mind, especially when reading the various tables in the report, which 
display only basic salaries. 

It  is  worth  mentioning  that  officials  may  benefit,  depending  on  their  family  and  expatriation 
status, from family and expatriation allowances, the rules of  which are described in Section 1 
and 2 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations.  

In  addition,  in  order  to  take  into  account  the  fact  that  the  reform  of  the  Staff  Regulations 
extended  the  duration  of  officials’  careers  by  raising  the  pensionable  age  to  63  years,  the 

EN 

6 

   EN 

average career adjusted for pensionable age, i.e. the average yearly remuneration (accumulated 
remuneration  over  the  career  divided  by  the  number  of  years  of  career),  has  been  taken  into 
account. This compensates for the fact that a higher number of years mechanically increases the 
accumulated remuneration, while having an ambiguous effect on the equivalence between old 
and new career structures.  

Simulations have also been performed assuming different speeds of careers (i.e. the time spent 
in each grade of the salary scale). This is a critical point under the new Staff Regulations; while 
differences in remuneration according to the speed of career were limited under the old rules, 
the new Staff Regulations include incentives which reward fast careers. Indeed, under the new 
staff Regulations, officials with fast careers tend to earn around 15 % more over a whole career 
than those with normal careers whereas slow-career officials earn around 9 % less (see Annex 
2).  As  a  result,  averaging  remuneration  for  slow  and  fast  careers  is  not  equivalent  to 
considering  the  remuneration  for  an  average  career.  This  report  therefore  considers  ‘slow 
careers’ as being careers for which promotions occur with seniority in grade 25 % higher than 
for  normal  careers.  Likewise,  ‘fast  careers’  have  been  considered  as  careers  for  which 
promotions  occur  with  seniority  in  grade  25 %  lower  than  for  the  normal  career.  Average 
remuneration for careers can therefore be compared under both ‘old’ and ‘new’ systems, by 
calculating the average remuneration in respect of a fixed proportion of slow, normal and fast 
careers representing the career distribution of the Commission (see Annex 3).  

Based on this assumption, the report compares four types of careers corresponding to the main 
profiles  recruited  before  and  after  the  Staff  Regulation  reform:  secretaries/clerks  (ex-C 
category), assistants (ex-B), junior administrators (with no experience) and administrators (with 
experience). It should be mentioned that the comparison between old and new career structures 
takes  place  within  each  of  these  four  types  of  careers.  Cross-career  comparisons  introduce 
further  complications,  such  as  having  to  calculate  the  percentage  of  officials  who  change 
function  group/category,  and  to  take  account  of  the  average  age  at  which  this  happens  etc. 
Global career comparison has also been avoided: that approach would have to take into account 
changes  over  time  in  the  proportion  of  officials  recruited  into  each  function  group/category. 
While  this  would  appear  to  be  relevant  to  assessing  the  global  budgetary  impact  of  the 
recruitment policy since the Reform, it would go beyond the terms of reference laid down in 
Article 6 of the Staff Regulations.  

It should be mentioned that any comparison has to be based on an assumption concerning the 
relationship  between  changes  in  prices  and  changes  in  pay.  This  report  is  based  on  the 
assumption that they change in parallel. If that assumption turns out to be wrong, the results of 
the  comparison  of  career  structure  would  be  significantly  different  (see  box  2,  What  does 
parallelism mean?).  

BOX 2, WHAT DOES PARALLELISM MEAN? 

Box 2, What does parallelism mean? 

This report assumes that prices and remunerations increase in parallel over time. In general, the average 
yearly salary earned during the whole career, expressed in euros of reference year 2004, is derived as 
follows: 

EN 

7 

   EN 

Assuming 

represents 

kp  is the inflation rate in year k (with k>2004), any given sum of money s in Euro of year t, 
~
s

 in Euro of year 2004 (with

).  

0

p

=

s

2004 =

tk
=

∏

k

=

2004

1(

+

kp

)

sgrt
),(
Let 
of year t.  

 be the remuneration in current Euro corresponding to grade g and step s in the salary scale 

Let  ti be the adjustment rate used when adapting the salary scale of officials in year t compared to year 
t-1 (t>2004 and 
. It results 
that the remuneration corresponding to grade g and step s in the salary scale of year t is related to the 
corresponding remuneration in the salary scale of 2004 by the relation: 

) Each year, the scale is adapted so that 

sgr
,(
t

2004 =

sg
),(

1)(

r
t

+

=

0

1
+

1
+

)

i

i

t

sgr
),(
t

=

r
2004

sg
),(

k

tk
=

∏

=

2004

1(

+

i

k

)

.  

This sum, expressed in constant Euro of year 2004 writes: 

),(~
sgr
t

=

r
2004

sg
),(

k

tk
=

∏

=

2004

1(

+

i

)

k

tk
=

∏

k

=

2004

1(

+

p

k

)

The  average  yearly  remuneration,  A,  gained  during  a  whole  career  lasting  N  years  starting  in  2004 
expressed in Euro of 2004 is:  

~
A

=

1
N

=

r
2004

(

,
sg
t

t

)

N

k

tk
=

∏

=

2004

1(

+

i

)

k

N
+
(~
sgr
t
t

,

t

=

2004

∑

t

=

2004

)

=

t

1
N

t

=

2004

+

∑

t

=

2004

1
N

t

=

2004

+

N

∑

t

=

2004

⎛
⎜⎜
⎝

r
2004

(

,
sg
t

t

)

k

tk
=

∏

=

2004

i
k
p

k

)
)

⎞
⎟⎟
⎠

1(

+

p

k

)

k

tk
=

∏
2004
=
1(
+
1(
+

with 

(

t sg
,

t

)

 being the grade and step reached in year t. 

The  hypothesis  of  parallelism  in  the  report  means  that 

ki and 

kp are  equal  for  any  year  k  so 

tk
=

that ∏

k

=

2004

1(
+
1(
+

i
k
p

)
)

k

=1 and therefore

~
A

=

1
N

t

=

2004

∑

N
+
r
2004
2004

=

t

(

,
t sg

t

)

. 

If  one  were  to  abandon  this  hypothesis,  the  result  of  the  comparison  between  old  and  new  career 
structure  as  it  appears  in  the  report  would  be  quite  different.  For  instance,  if  salary  adjustments  were 
0.5 
merely 
ratio 
tk
=
i
1(
)
+
k
p
1(
)
+
k
k
parallelism were secured. 

, the average yearly remuneration of an AD5 would be 8% lower than if 

percentage 

inflation 

points 

lower 

year, 

∏

)005

each 

than 

i.e. 

the 

.1(

2004

2005

a 

≈

−

=

t

It  is  therefore  worth  emphasising  that  parallelism  should  be  regarded  as  a  strong  hypothesis  for  the 
future. If purchasing power of officials proved to deteriorate regularly in the coming years, it is highly 
likely that the principle of equivalence would be breached for all staff categories. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
  
It should be mentioned that, because the new Staff Regulations have been in place for only five 
years,  no  official  has  had  their  whole  career  under  the  new  rules,  so  that  several  parameters 
cannot be calculated, such as the average age of retirement. In addition, average seniorities per 
grades  of  people  recruited  since  the  reform  are  biased  because  only  the  best  performing 
officials have been promoted so far. For such reasons, the rates shown in Annex Ib of the new 
Staff Regulations have been used for the purpose of comparing the new career structure to the 
old one. Observed data have been used only to check whether actual careers are broadly in line 
with the provisions of the Staff Regulations.  

The data used in this report are basically that of the Commission. However figures provided by 
other Institutions are in line with Commission's ones (see Annex 4). 

II – MAIN FINDINGS: OVERALL EQUIVALENCE EXCEPT FOR SECRETARIES/CLERKS 

The  methodology  adopted  in  the  report  leads  to  the  conclusion  that,  except  for  secretarial 
careers, the ‘old’ and ‘new’ career structures are broadly in line, though with a slight advantage 
for  the  former.  However  ‘fast-career’  officials  have  a  significantly  more  remunerative  career 
under  the  new  Staff  Regulations.  Indeed,  the  remuneration  scheme  of  the  pre-2004  Staff 
Regulations  tended  to  smooth  over  the  differences  in  career  speeds.  It  is  clear  that  the  new 
Staff  Regulations  tend  to  better  remunerate  fast  promotions.  This  means  that  for  all 
function  groups/categories,  officials  with  rapid  careers  are  much  better  off  under  the  new 
scheme. 

1°) EXPERIENCED ADMINISTRATORS CAN HAVE EQUIVALENT CAREER STRUCTURES PROVIDED 

THEY ARE RECRUITED AT GRADE AD7 IN THE NEW SCALE 

Since  1  May  2004,  experienced  administrators  (i.e.  administrators  for  whom  recruitment  was 
conditional on at least some years of working experience) have been recruited mainly in grades 
AD6  (75 %)  and  AD7  (25 %).  In  addition  to  these,  it  should  be  mentioned  that  a  significant 
number  of  AD5  officials  recruited  since  May  2004  had  de  facto  substantial  experience  even 
though  this  was  not  a  requirement  for  taking  part  in  the  competition.  In  particular,  when  one 
looks  at  recruitments  since  May  2004,  the  total  number  of  AD5  officials  aged  over  30  when 
recruited — who are thus likely to have at least some years of work experience before joining 
the Commission — is the same as the total number of AD6 and AD7 recruited within the same 
period. The concept of equivalence applied here refers to the type of careers offered by type of 
competitions, irrespective of the actual profile of the persons recruited. Based on such structure 
of  recruitment,  it  is  highly  likely  that  a  comparison  of  average  careers  of  Commission  staff 
based  on  their  individual  background  rather  than  on  the  competition  they  have  passed  would 
show a significant disadvantage for the staff recruited after May 2004. 

Based only on the grade of recruitment and when comparing the accumulated remuneration of 
an average official recruited as AD6 with that of an average official recruited as A7 under the 
old  Staff  Regulations,  a  gap  of  about  10 %  in  favour  of  those  recruited  under  the  old  Staff 
Regulations  appears.  This  gap  is  not  reduced  when  account  is  taken  of  the  increase  in 
pensionable age because staff recruited since 2004 are older than those recruited before 2004 
and therefore do not have a longer career when retiring at the age of 63. This disadvantage for 
AD6  compared  to  A7  is  even  more  pronounced  in  the  case  of  slow  careers  and  can  still  be 
observed even for fast careers. Consequently, the new structure penalises the average careers of 
AD6 officials compared to those recruited as A7 (by 11 %, see table in section IV). 

EN 

9 

   EN 

The  picture  is  different  when  comparing  A7  careers  with  careers  of  officials  recruited  at  the 
AD7 grade. In this specific situation, the overall remuneration is almost equal between the old 
and the new Staff Regulations. Whereas slow-career officials are now paid 7 % less over a full 
career than under the old system, those with fast careers tend to earn 8 % more under the new 
scheme. Overall, the average remuneration is virtually equal for new and old careers. 

TABLE  1:  COMPARISON  BETWEEN  OLD  AND  NEW  CAREER  STRUCTURES  AT  RECRUITMENT,  
AFTER  10/20  YEARS  AND  AT  RETIREMENT  AGE  (GRADE  AND  BASIC*  SALARY  PER 
MONTH) 

Career steps 

Recruitment 

10 years 

20 years 

Retirement 

A7 Old career 
structure 

34 years old 
A7 / 2  
(EUR 5 770*) 

44 years old 
A5 / 3  
(EUR 8 264) 

54 years old 
A4 / 5  
(EUR 10 972) 

61 years old 
A4 / 8  
(EUR 12 479) 

AD7 New career 
structure  
normal 

37 years old 
AD7 / 2  
EUR 5 802*** 

47 years old 
AD10 / 1  
EUR 8 065*** 

57 years old 
AD12 / 2  
EUR 10 758*** 

63 years old 
AD13 / 3  
EUR 12 684*** 

slow 

fast 

AD7 / 2  
EUR 5 802*** 

AD8 / 2  
EUR 6 565*** 

AD11 / 1  
EUR 9 125*** 

AD12 / 2  
EUR 10 758*** 

AD7 / 2  
EUR 5 802*** 

AD10 / 2  
EUR 8 404*** 

AD13 / 2  
EUR 12 172*** 

AD14 / 3  
EUR 14 351*** 

* Monthly basic salary based on salary scale as of 1.7.2010. Basic salary before any deductions of contributions and taxes (see box 1). It should 
be mentioned that over the period 2000-2004, approximately 15% of the recruitments on A7/A6 reserve lists were recruited at grade A6 at 40 ½ 
years old on average. There has been no similar type of career under the new Staff Regulations. 

*** Without taking account of multiplication factor applied to staff recruited before 01/05/2004 (see box A1/annex 1). 

2°) JUNIOR  ADMINISTRATORS  EARN  SIGNIFICANTLY  LESS  IN  THE  NEW  SCHEME  THAN  IN  THE 
OLD  ONE,  AND  THE  GAP  ONLY  PARTIALLY  CLOSES  WITH  THE  INCREASE  OF  THE 
PENSIONABLE AGE. 

The majority (57 %) of administrators recruited since 1 May 2004 have entered at grade AD5 
through competitions where no professional experience was required. This profile corresponds 
to that of junior administrators recruited in grade A8 under the old Staff Regulations. It should 
be mentioned that many AD5 administrators do in fact have a significant number of years of 
experience,  which  was  not  the  case  for  A8  Administrators.  This  is  explained  by  the  fact  that 
before 2004, A8 competitions were mostly organised at the same time as A7 competitions for 
which experience was needed. On the contrary, since 1 May 2004, only a very limited number 
of  general  competitions  have  been  organised  at  grades  above  AD5.  As  a  result,  people 
interested in joining the Institutions had to apply, even if they had experience, for competitions 
where  experience  was  not  required.  However,  as  mentioned  in  section  II)1°),  the  concept  of 
equivalence  applied  here  refers  to  the  type  of  careers  offered  by  type  of  competitions, 
irrespective of the actual profile of the persons recruited.  

Assuming  equal  length  of  careers,  the  new  structure  implies  a  9 %  decrease  in  overall 
remuneration for AD 5 as compared to A8. This difference can be as much as 14 % for slow 
careers.  Only  fast-career  officials  are  slightly  better  off  in  the  new  scheme  (an  average  1 % 
increase  in  overall  remuneration  for  25%  of  officials).  It  is  true  that  the  picture  is  less 

EN 

10 

   EN 

unfavourable  if  the  increase  in  pensionable  age  is  taken  into  account;  since  junior 
administrators  are  recruited  younger  than  experienced  administrators,  the  additional  time  that 
they  spend  in  service  in  order  to  qualify  for  full  pension  rights  enables  them  to  reach  higher 
grades with higher remuneration than in the old system. In this case, the above figures are 4% 
less,  7%  more  and  roughly  10%  less,  respectively.  All  in  all,  assuming  equal  length  of 
careers,  the  average  of  careers  under  the  new  Staff  Regulations  displays  a  significant 
disadvantage at the expense of new junior administrators. The apparent disadvantage only 
becomes  less  (3%  overall)  if  one  factors  in  the  circumstance  that  they  are  supposed  to  work 
longer in order to qualify for full pension rights. 

TABLE  2:  COMPARISON  BETWEEN  OLD  AND  NEW  CAREER  STRUCTURES  AT  RECRUITMENT,  
AFTER  10/20  YEARS  AND  AT  RETIREMENT  AGE  (GRADE  AND  BASIC*  SALARY  PER 
MONTH) 

Career steps 

Recruitment 

10 years 

20 years 

Retirement 

A8 Old career 
structure 

30 years old 
A8 / 1  
(EUR 4 861*) 

40 years old 
A6 / 2  
(EUR 6 734) 

50 years old 
A4 / 3  
(EUR 9 967) 

61 years old 
A4 / 8  
(EUR 12 479) 

AD5 New career 
structure  
normal 

30** years old 
AD5 / 1  
EUR 4 350*** 

40 years old 
AD8 / 1  
EUR 6 300*** 

50 years old 
AD11 / 1  
EUR 9 125*** 

63 years old 
AD13 / 3  
EUR 12 684*** 

slow 

fast 

AD5 / 1  
EUR 4 350*** 

AD7 / 2  
EUR 5 802*** 

AD10 / 1  
EUR 8 065*** 

AD12 / 2  
EUR 10 758*** 

AD5 / 1  
EUR 4 350*** 

AD9 / 1  
EUR 7 128*** 

AD12 / 2  
EUR 10 758*** 

AD14 / 4  
EUR 14 750*** 

* Monthly basic salary on salary scale as of 1.7.2010. Basic salary before any deductions of social security contributions and taxes (see box 1). 

** For the purpose of the simulation, the recruitment age for junior administrators is supposed to be the same in the old and the new career 
structures.  The  actual  recruitment  age  in  the  period  2004-2009  of  AD5  is  however  slightly  higher  (31.6  years  for  the  Commission)  while 
including experienced people. 

*** Without taking account of multiplying factor applied to staff recruited before 01/05/2004 (see box A1/annex 1). 

It should be mentioned that the table above only concerns non-managerial careers. In particular, 
the difference in salary at retirement between the new fast career and the career under the old 
rules (EUR 14 750 compared to EUR 12 479) holds only for non-manager officials. Of course, 
it is likely in practice that many officials with fast careers will reach managerial positions. In 
that case, as it appears from the table below, the maximum possible salaries under the old and 
new rules are closer. 

EN 

11 

   EN 

TABLE  3:  MINIMUM  AND  MAXIMUM  GRADES  FOR  SELECTED  MANAGEMENT  POSITION  

(BASIC SALARY PER MONTH IN EURO) 

Head of Unit 

Director 

Director General 

Old Staff 
Reg 

New Staff 
Reg 

Old 
Staff 
Reg 

New Staff 
Reg 

Old Staff 
Reg 

New Staff 
Reg 

Minimum grade / 
step (salary) 

A5 / 1  
(7 389) 

AD9 / 1 
(7 128)*** 

A2 / 1 
(12 881) 

AD14 /1 
(13 216)***

A1 / 1 
(14 515)  

AD15 /1 
(14 954)***

Maximum grade / 
step (salary) 

A3 / 8 
(15 173) 

AD14 / 5 
(14 954)***

A2 / 6 
(16 560) 

AD15 / 5 
(16 919)***

A1 / 6  
(18 371) 

AD16 / 3 
(18 371)***

Note: The basic salaries in the columns corresponding to data of the new Staff Regulations do not include the management allowance. Basic 
salary before any deductions of contributions and taxes (see box 1). These salaries are only applicable to staff recruited after 1.5.2004. For staff 
recruited before that date, Annex XIII to the new Staff Regulations applies (see Annex 1 to this report). The basic salaries mentioned here are 
mere upper and lower bounds and do not reflect the actual duration spent in the relevant grades. 

*** Without taking account of multiplying factor applied to staff recruited before 01/05/2004 (see box A1/annex 1). 

3°)  CAREERS  OF  TECHNICAL  AND  ADMINISTRATIVE  ASSISTANTS  ARE  BROADLY  EQUIVALENT 

UNDER THE OLD AND NEW STAFF REGULATIONS. 

Under the old Staff Regulations, technical and administrative assistants were recruited at grade 
B5.  They  have  all  been  recruited  as  AST3  under  the  new  scheme.  The  new  assistants  are  on 
average almost three years older than ex-Bs, which means that the increase in pensionable age 
from 60 to 63 has a limited impact on the length of their careers.  

For a career of normal speed (i.e. with duration in grades consistent with the average duration 
in  the  Commission),  assistants  in  the  new  system  earn  5 %  less  than  in  the  old  system  (4 % 
when taking into account retirement at 63 years old). Those with slow careers on average earn 
10 % less than in the old system, but fast-career assistants earn around 4 % more under the new 
rules  than  under  the  old  Staff  Regulations.  The  upshot  is  that  the  averages  of  careers  are 
broadly  equivalent  in  the  old  and  new  systems,  with  new  careers  being  only  3 %  less 
favourable than old careers.  

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
 
TABLE  4:  COMPARISON  BETWEEN  OLD  AND  NEW  CAREER  STRUCTURES  AT  RECRUITMENT,  
AFTER  10/20  YEARS  AND  AT  RETIREMENT  AGE  (GRADE  AND  BASIC  SALARY*  PER 
MONTH) 

Career steps 

Recruitment 

10 years 

20 years 

Retirement 

B Old career 
structure 

34 years old 
B5 / 2  
(EUR 3 739*) 

44 years old 
B3 / 3  
(EUR 5 072) 

54 years old 
B2 / 5  
(EUR 6 570) 

60 years old 
B1 / 5  
(EUR 7 779) 

AST3 New 
career structure  
normal 

36 years old 
AST3 / 1  
EUR 3 398*** 

46 years old 
AST6 / 1  
EUR 4 921*** 

56 years old 
AST8 / 1  
EUR 6 300*** 

63 years old 
AST9 / 3  
EUR 7 740*** 

slow 

fast 

AST3 / 1  
EUR 3 398*** 

AST5 / 2  
EUR 4 532*** 

AST7 / 2  
EUR 5 802*** 

AST8 / 3  
EUR 6 841*** 

AST3 / 1  
EUR 3 398*** 

AST6 / 2  
EUR 5 128*** 

AST9 / 2  
EUR 7 428*** 

AST11 / 2  
EUR 9 508*** 

* Monthly basic salary on salary scale as of 1.7.2010.Basic salary before any deductions of contributions and taxes (see box 1). 

*** Without taking account of multiplying factor applied to staff recruited before 01/05/2004 (see box A1/annex 1). 

4°)  THE  PRINCIPLE  OF  EQUIVALENCE  OF  CAREERS  IS  CLEARLY  BREACHED  IN  THE  CASE  OF 
SECRETARIES/CLERKS,  WITH  NEW  RECRUITS  EARNING  A  LOT  MORE  IN  THE  NEW 
SYSTEM THAN IN THE OLD ONE. 

Under the previous Staff Regulations, secretaries/clerks were recruited at grade C5 and could 
reach grade C1. The maximum range of remuneration between the beginning and the end of a 
clerk’s career would go from 1 to 1.9 i.e. up to EUR 5 250 per month. Under the new rules, 
clerks enter at grade AST1 (1 300 of them have been recruited since 1 May 2004, i.e. more than 
25 % of all officials recruited since then) and can in theory reach grade AST 11, which means a 
maximum  range  of  remuneration  going  from  1  to  3.9,  up  to  more  than  EUR  10000  per 
month. 

In  terms  of  overall  remuneration  over  the  career,  clerks  recruited  after  1  May  2004  with  an 
average career earn 6% more in the new remuneration scale. With adjustment for the increase 
in pensionable age, a newly recruited clerk will get an average yearly remuneration 14 % 
higher than that of clerks whose whole careers were completed under the old rules. 

It  should  be  mentioned  that,  assuming  that  old  and  new  career  profiles  have  the  same  total 
number of years of activity (23.2 years on average calculated over the Commission population), 
a normal career will end at grade AST7, with a salary of EUR 5 802 per month. Assuming an 
extra  six  years  of  service  in  order  to  reach  the  pensionable  age  (63  years),  new 
secretaries/clerks  with  normal  careers  would  reach  grade  AST9  (more  than  EUR  7 000  per 
month)  These  results  are  based  on  the  assumption  that  a  career  starts  at  the  average  age  of 
recruitment. However, it should be borne in mind that a secretary recruited at the age of 23 will 
reach grade AST11 (up EUR 9 000 per month). 

It goes without saying that clerks hired at grade AST1 are not supposed to keep the same kind 
of  job  all  along  their  careers.  They  are  recruited  with  higher  qualifications  today  than 

EN 

13 

   EN 

previously required for C categories. The more they gain experience and are trained, the more 
responsibilities they can get. This goes in parallel with their prospects of promotion. 

The fact remains that the advantage of the new system is even more obvious for fast careers. 
Simulations show that fast-career secretaries/clerks will have a yearly remuneration over their 
career on average 30 % higher than under the old. Even slow-career clerks will on average earn 
more  under  the  new  Staff  Regulations.  A  further  point  to  note  is  that  slow-career 
secretaries/clerks earn more under the new rules than normal-career secretaries/clerks do 
under  the  old  rules.  All  in  all,  the  average  remuneration  for  careers  of  secretaries/clerks 
under  the  new  Staff  Regulations  is  16 %  above  the  average  for  careers  under  the  old 
rules. 

TABLE  5:  COMPARISON  BETWEEN  OLD  AND  NEW  CAREER  STRUCTURES  AT  RECRUITMENT,  
AFTER  10/20  YEARS  AND  AT  RETIREMENT  AGE  (GRADE  AND  BASIC*  SALARY  PER 
MONTH) 

Career steps 

Recruitment 

10 years 

20 years 

Retirement 

C Old career 
structure 

34 years old 
C5 / 2  
(EUR 2 881*) 

44 years old 
C3 / 4  
(EUR 3 710) 

54 years old 
C2 / 8  
(EUR 4 620) 

60 years old** 
C1 / 7  
(EUR 5 084) 

AST1 New 
career structure  
normal 

34 years old 
AST1 / 1  
EUR 2 654*** 

44 years old 
AST4 / 1  
EUR 3 844*** 

54 years old 
AST7 / 1  
EUR 5 568*** 

63 years old 
AST9 / 1  
EUR 7 128*** 

slow 

fast 

AST1 / 1  
EUR 2 654*** 

AST3 / 2  
EUR 3 540*** 

AST6 / 1  
EUR 4 921*** 

AST7 / 3  
EUR 6 046*** 

AST1 / 1  
EUR 2 654*** 

AST5 / 2  
EUR 4 532*** 

AST8 / 2  
EUR 6 565*** 

AST11 / 1  
EUR 9 125*** 

* Monthly basic salary on salary scale as of 1.7.2010.Basic salary before any deductions of contributions and taxes (see box 1). 

** The actual retirement age observed in the Commission over the period 2000-2004 for C-grade officials was 57,2 i.e. significantly lower than 
that of other Institutions (see Annex 4). This is partly explained by the inclusion of some beneficiaries of invalidity pensions. It has therefore 
been decided to show here the statutory pensionable age (60 years old prior to 2004). 

*** Without taking account of multiplying factor applied to staff recruited before 01/05/2004 (see box A1/annex 1). 

III – CONCLUSION  

This  report  is  based  on  certain  hypotheses  concerning  length  of  careers  and  promotion  rates, 
which  are  however  believed  to  be  highly  plausible.  The  fact  that  the  new  Staff  Regulations 
have been in force only since May 2004 makes it very difficult to anticipate future behaviour of 
newly recruited staff. In particular, retirement age and career length are highly hypothetical. It 
is therefore important to continue monitoring the equivalence of careers. 

However, this report has identified some differences between the old and new career structures. 
In  particular,  experienced  administrators  tend  to  earn  less  under  the  new  career  structure, 
whereas secretaries/clerks earn significantly more under the new rules. 

EN 

14 

   EN 

TABLE 6: DIFFERENCE BETWEEN OLD AND NEW CARRIER STRUCTURES  

Slow 
career 

Normal 
career 

Fast 
career 

Average 
careers 

+6% 

+14% 

+30% 

+16% 

-10% 

-4% 

+4% 

-3% 

-10% 

-4% 

+7% 

-3% 

-17% 

-12% 

-2% 

-11% 

-7% 

-2% 

+8% 

-1% 

Clerks 

ex C / AST 1 

Assistants  

ex B / AST 3 

Junior 
administrators 

ex A8 / AD5 

Administrators 

ex A7 / AD6 

Administrators 

ex A7 / AD7 

Source: DG HR 

Note: "+" means that the new career structure is more favourable than the old one in terms of average yearly remuneration over the career 
(adjusted for change in pensionable age). 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
ANNEX 1 

Financial implications of the promotion rates (percentages) provided for in Annex XIII 
to the Staff Regulations and integration of officials in service before 1 May 2004 into the 
new career system, including application of the attestation procedure 

Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations provides for transitional measures applicable to officials 
who  were  appointed  before  1  May  2004.  It  lays  down  rules  designed  progressively  to  ease 
officials  from  the  old  career  paths  into  the ones  provided  for  by  the  new  Staff  Regulations. 
One  aspect  of  this  progressive  integration  is  that  the  rates  in  Annex  I.B  are  not  directly 
applicable to the previous career structure and are temporarily replaced by ad hoc rates. This 
annex gives some statistics about the career paths of the officials concerned by Annex XIII, 
measured  by  their  salary  increase  over  the  period  2004-2009,  which  can  be  read  as  a  direct 
proxy for the  financial  implications of this transition period2. Section a) of this annex gives 
actual  salary  increase  of  each  of  the  four  categories  of  officials  existing  prior  1  May  2004, 
section  b)  analyses  in  more  details  the  impact  of  the  attestation  procedure  and  section  c) 
points out some inconsistencies that Annex XIII has introduced especially as regards higher 
grades and management positions. 

A) IMPACT OF ANNEX XIII ACROSS CATEGORIES OF OFFICIALS 

The method followed here is to calculate the amount by which the basic salary of officials in 
service  before  1  May  2004  and  still  in  service  in  May  2009  increased  between  these  two 
dates.  This  increase  is  compared  with  the  increase  that  would  have  ensued  had  no  change 
been  made  to  the  Staff  Regulations.  It  is  also  compared  with  the  increase  that  would  have 
occurred if the officials concerned had benefited from the average salary increase under the 
new remuneration scale.  

The  calculation  shows  that  all  officials  recruited  before  1  May  2004  have  benefited  from  a 
salary increase higher than they would have received if no change had been made to the Staff 
Regulations. This advantage is limited for category A, where the salary increase has been 0.1 
percentage  point  per  year  more  than  it  would  have  been  without  any  reform  of  the  Staff 
Regulations  and  only  slightly  less  (-0.1  percentage  points)  than  it  would  have  been  if  the 
officials concerned had benefited from the rates in Annex I.B to the new Staff Regulations . 

For category B, the advantage over the old Staff Regulations has been more significant than 
for A grades. Assistants have increased their salary by 0.5 percentage points more each year 
than  under  the  old  rules.  This  is  even  more  than  the  increase  provided  for  in  the  new  Staff 
Regulations.  

In the cases of former categories C and D, the observed salary increase takes no account of 
the attestation procedure provided for in Article 10(3) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations. 
On  that  basis,  the  salary  increase  for  categories  C  and  D  has  been  1.5  times  higher  than  it 
would have been under the old rules. The resulting advantage is 0.6 percentage points per year 
for  category  D  and  0.7  percentage  points  for  category  C.  This  increase  is,  however, 

2 

The  results  in  this  annex  are  based  on  data  related  to  Commission  staff.  They  may  not  be  directly 
applicable to other Institutions since the implementation of Annex XIII may differ from one Institution 
to the other. 

EN 

16 

   EN 

                                                 
significantly  below  the  increase  provided  for  in the  new  Staff  Regulations  for  the  assistants 
function group.  

B) IMPACT OF THE ATTESTATION PROCEDURE 

The  attestation  procedure,  whereby  ex-category  C  and  D  officials  may  change  career 
(qualitative change) and become members of the assistants function group without restriction, 
has helped further increase their remuneration. 

The  computation  shows  that,  after  five  years,  the  attestation  procedure  has  had  a  very 
significant impact in terms of salary increase for those who have benefited from it. Attested C 
grades,  for  instance,  have  received  a  salary  increase  almost  twice  as  high  as  under  the  old 
Staff Regulations. The difference is even higher for D grades whose salary increase has been 
almost three times what it would have been had the old Staff Regulations remained in place.  

However, on average, the overall impact of the attestation procedure on categories C and D 
has  been  more  limited.  The  average  yearly  salary  increase  for  all  category  D  officials  was 
only  0.1  percentage  point  more  than  without  the  attestation  procedure  and  0.2  percentage 
points as regards category C officials. This can be explained mainly by the fact that, during 
the  period  from  1  May  2004  to  1  May  2009,  only  a  limited  fraction  of  all  the  officials 
potentially  eligible  benefited  from  the  attestation  procedure  (28 %  of  officials  in  category  C 
and only 12 % of officials in category D).  

C) IMPACT ON HIGHEST GRADES AND MANAGEMENT POSITIONS 

The catching-up process by which old career paths are progressively converted into the new 
ones  relies  heavily  on  the  promotion  system.  In  fact,  the  catching-up  process  does  not  start 
until the first promotion after 1 May 2004. Until they are promoted, officials keep the same 
multiplication factor as provided for in Article 7 of Annex XIII, as calculated on 1 May 2004. 

However, there has been no transition process for the types of post listed in Annex Ia to the 
Staff Regulations. In particular, before 1 May 2004 Directors-General and Deputy Directors-
General were all at grade A1 only. Since then, however, Directors-General may be at either 
grade  AD15  or  AD16.  Directors  too  can  now  reach  grade  AD15.  All  officials  occupying  a 
post  of  Director  before  1  May  2004  were  put  in  grade  AD15,  as  were  former  A3  officials 
promoted to Director since then. However, Directors in post prior to 1 May 2004 who have 
been  appointed  Director-General  since  that  date  have  not  been  automatically  promoted 
(actually only a very limited fraction of them have been promoted). They are therefore not yet 
converging towards the new career paths. 

This lack of synchronisation between the introduction of the new career structure in terms of 
type  of  post  occupied  and  convergence  towards  the  new  salary  grid  has  produced  a  certain 
number of unexpected results:  

–  some  staff  in  the  Commission  who  do  not  occupy  a  function  of  a  Director-General  were 

nevertheless paid more, in May 2009, than those who do;  

–  officials occupying a post of Director before 1 May 2004 and appointed Director-General 
since  then,  have  received  an  average  salary  increase  over  the  period  May  2004  to  May 

EN 

17 

   EN 

2009 almost three times smaller than the salary increase received by those who were Heads 
of Unit prior to 1 May 2004 and who have been appointed Directors since then; 

–  some  heads  of  Unit  appointed  Director  since  1 May  2004  but  who  have  not  yet  been 
promoted  to  a  higher  grade  since  then  earn  less  than  Heads  of  Unit  in  their  own 
Directorate.  They  sometimes  even  earn  less  than  some  administrators  working  in  their 
Directorate. 

It should be mentioned that the new career structure may have greater effects as regards salary 
structure within Units than originally anticipated. For example, it is not impossible that a head 
of Unit might earn less than all other officials working in his or her Unit, including his or her 
secretary.  This  latter  hypothetical  example  is  not  specifically  caused  by  the  provisions  of 
Annex XIII, but by the types of post listed in Annex Ia. Heads of Unit may be appointed at 
grade AD9, whereas administrators can reach grade AD14 (i.e. five grades more as opposed 
to  only  one  grade  more  under  the  previous  Staff  Regulations)  and  secretaries/clerks  grade 
AST11 (two grades more than the entry grade of Heads of Units). However, Annex XIII with 
the convergence of the multiplication factor amplifies some of these effects of the new career 
structure in some cases. 

BOX A1, MULTIPLICATION FACTOR 

Box A1, Multiplication factor 

The 2004 Staff Regulations created a new career system, moving in two stages from categories A, B, 
C and D to the AD and AST function groups. The transition affected not just the grades, but also the 
pay scale. At the end of the transition period, which varies for each official, basic salaries are brought 
into line with the new pay scale so that all officials in the same grade and step will receive the same 
basic pay. Pays of officials are therefore progressively inserted into the new pay scale (as provided for 
by Article 7(7) of Annex XIII on transitional measures of the Staff Regulations).  

These  transitional  measures  initially  served  the  purpose  of  ensuring  that  the basic  pay  would  not be 
reduced as a result of the entry into force of the revised Staff Regulations on 1st May 2004 thanks to 
the multiplication factor. Equally, they foresee that basic pay will become at the end of the transitional 
period equal to that provided for in the new pay scale. Once this happens, the multiplication factor will 
be 1.  

More precisely, on 1st May 2004, basic salaries remained unchanged, but were instead calculated by 
reference to the new pay and career scale. The multiplication factor, as calculated on 1st May 2004, 
expresses the relationship between the salary received on that date and the salary provided for by the 
new  salary  grid  ("reference  salary").Until  officials  are  promoted  for  the  first  time  under  the  revised 
Staff  Regulations  (after  1st  May  2004),  the  basic  salary  remains  below  the  reference  salary  for  the 
grade and step in the new salary grid. When officials are promoted, the relationship between the new 
basic  salary  and  the  reference  salary  changes.  A  new  multiplication  factor  is  calculated.  The  basic 
salary  is  then  progressively  brought  into  line  with  the  reference  salary.  This  is  done  in  one  of  two 
ways:  

For officials with a multiplication factor lower than 1 

For the vast majority of staff whose basic salary is below the reference salary provided for by the new 
scale after their first promotion, the salary increases every two years while remaining in the first step 
of that grade, until the basic salary reaches the reference salary for that grade's first step. With each 
two-yearly salary increase, the recalculated multiplication factor will approach 1,0. Once that point is 
reached, official continue to progress in salary and in step. 

EN 

18 

   EN 

For officials with a multiplication factor higher than 1 

For another smaller group of officials,  however, promotion under the new career  system  means that 
their  new  basic  salary  is  higher  than  the  reference  salary,  resulting  in  a  multiplication  factor  greater 
than 1. In order to avoid unjust enrichment and to ensure that at the end of the transitional period all 
staff in the same grade and step receive the same basic pay, the multiplication factor has to be reduced 
to one – indeed, the Courts have confirmed that a factor greater than 1 is an "anomaly" which should 
not be tolerated. Two years after promotion, on the occasion of the advancement in step, the part of the 
multiplication factor which exceeds 1 is converted into seniority in the step. This means that officials 
advance directly to step 2, 3, 4 or 5, depending on the value of their base salaries. 

In addition to such multiplication factor, the transition period also provides for a so called protection 
of nominal income by which an official cannot earn less than what he/she would have received under 
the old rules through automatic advancement in step in the grade formerly occupied by him/her. 

More than five years after the transitional period has started, the multiplication factor is not yet equal 
to  1,0  for  all  officials.  On  1  January  2011,  more  than  50%  of  officials  in  the  Commission  recruited 
before 1 May 2004 have a multiplication factor below 1. This means that they earn less than the salary 
corresponding  to  their  grade/step  in  the  salary  scale.  The  difference  between  the  salary  actually 
received  and  the  salary  corresponding  to  the  grade  is  still  very  significant  for  some  officials.  The 
reduction can represent up to 20% salary off, with an average 6% reduction for those who have not 
reached the end of the transition. 

The multiplication factor concerns potentially all grades, including top management grades resulting in 
some director generals AD15/AD16 earning actually 10% less than they would without multiplication 
factor. 

EN 

19 

   EN 

ANNEX 2 

The remuneration scale in the new Staff Regulations makes a fast career more remunerative 
overall  than  under  the  previous  rules,  whereas  those  with  slow  careers  earn  less.  However, 
this difference is not symmetrical i.e. the benefit from a fast career is greater than the penalty 
for  a  slow  one.  Table  A1  illustrates  this  effect:  an  official  appointed  at  grade  AD5  with  a 
normal career (i.e. being promoted according to the multiplication rates set out in Annex IB of 
the  Staff  Regulations)  will  earn  on  average  85 000  €  per  year  over  his/her  whole  career.  If 
he/she spends 25% time less in each grade than for a normal career (for instance 3 years in 
grade AD9 instead of 4), he/she will earn 17% more each year over his/her whole career. If, 
on  the  contrary,  he/she  spends  25%  more  time  in  each  grade  (e.g.  5  years  in  grade  AD9 
instead of 4), he/she will earn 10% less over his/her whole career. This asymmetrical effect as 
more or less the same according to the grade of appointment: those with slow careers earn, on 
average, 9% less whereas those with fast careers earn 15% more. 

TABLE  A1:  DIFFERENCE  OF  REMUNERATION  UNDER  THE  NEW  STAFF  REGULATIONS  

DEPENDING OF CAREER SPEED 

Career type  
(grade at appointment) 

Normal career 
 (average yearly basic salary in €)

Slow career 
 (% difference with normal) 

Fast career 
 (% difference with normal)

AD5 

AD7 

AST1 

85 243 

91 703 

48 588 

AST3 
Source: European Commission, DG HR 
Note: basic salary (as of 1st May 2004) excluding yearly adjustments.  

57 206 

-10% 

-8% 

-10% 

-9% 

17% 

14% 

18% 

14% 

EN 

20 

   EN 

ANNEX 3 

Table  A2  shows  the  proportion  of  officials  in  each  grades  who  have  been  promoted  after  a 
shorter (or longer, as the case may be) period of time compared to the average seniority before 
promotion of all the officials between the period 2000-2004. A shorter (longer) period means 
25% less (or more) than the average. 

It follows that, assuming that 60% of officials have normal careers, 20% have slower careers 
and  20%  faster  careers,  the  results  are  in  line  with  the  observed  data  in  the  Commission 
during the period 2000-2004. 

TABLE A2: PROPORTION OF OFFICIALS WITH LONGER / FASTER CAREERS  

OLD STAFF REGULATION 

(in %, period 2000-2004)) 

grade 

At least 25% 
longer 

At least 25% 
faster 

A5 

A6 

A7 

A8 

Average A 

B2 

B3 

B4 

B5 

Average B 

C2 

C3 

C4 

C5 

Average C 

26 

19 

19 

13 

21 

14 

23 

18 

19 

19 

13 

19 

19 

21 

19 

32 

14 

15 

24 

22 

16 

17 

12 

32 

19 

12 

19 

11 

36 

20 

EN 

21 

   EN 

 
ANNEX 4 

Tables  A3  to  A6  below  compare  career  data  as  between  the  Commission  and  the  other 
Institutions/bodies who have replied to the Commission's questionnaire. 

Data related to other Institutions and bodies are broadly in line with that of the Commission. 
Some differences are visible especially where the sample of officials concerned is very small 
in some bodies. When less than 10 people are concerned, the data is marked with a *. 

It  should  be  mentioned  that  while  the  average  pension  age  of  Commission  official  is  lower 
than that of other Institutions and bodies, the average recruitment age tends to be younger as 
well. 

TABLE A3: AVERAGE PENSION AGE (2000-2004) 

OLD STAFF REGULATION 

career  Parliament  Council Commission

A 

B 

C 

62,2 

63,5 

62,4 

61,5 

61,5 

60,9 

60,6 

59,7 

57,2 

Court of 
Justice 

61,1 

61,5 

62,4 

EESC  CoR 

61,4 

63,2* 

60* 

59,6* 

60 

61,7* 

TABLE A4: AVERAGE RECRUITMENT AGE (2000-2004) 

OLD STAFF REGULATION 

grade  Parliament  Council Commission

A7 

A8 

B5 

C5 

34,4 

29,5 

35,6 

37,0 

35,0 

n.a. 

37,0 

37,0 

34,1 

30,2 

33,6 

34,0 

Court of 
Justice 

34,0 

n.a. 

38,1 

36,4 

EESC  CoR 

37,0 

36,2 

29,5*  29,2* 

34,3*  35,0* 

37,4 

36,7 

EN 

22 

   EN 

 
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
TABLE A5: AVERAGE RECRUITMENT AGE (2004-2009) 

NEW STAFF REGULATION 

grade  Parliament  Council Commission

AD7 

AD6 

AD5 

AST3 

AST1 

33,9 

37,9 

33,3 

36,6 

34,2 

34,0 

37,0 

33,0 

36,0 

33,0 

36,9  

37,4 

31,6 

36,3 

34,0 

Court of 
Justice 

32,2 

38,5* 

33,1 

36,3 

33,6 

EESC  CoR 

41,3*  33,6* 

37,7 

36,9* 

33,4 

33,8 

35,7 

37,7 

33,9 

33,1 

TABLE  A6:  AVERAGE  SENIORITY  BEFORE  PROMOTION  (IN  YEARS  2000-

2004) 

OLD STAFF REGULATION 

grade  Parliament  Council Commission

Court of 
Justice 

EESC  CoR 

7,1 

4,5 

3,9 

3,9 

7,1 

6,4 

5,9 

2,3 

9,7 

6,6 

5,7 

2,9 

5,8 

5,7 

4,8 

1,3* 

8,0* 

4,5* 

4,2* 

1,9 

7,8 

6,0 

2,8 

1,9 

2,2* 

4,7* 

2,1* 

n.a. 

6,7* 

1,8* 

2,8* 

n.a. 

3,8* 

3,4 

2,5 

n.a. 

A5 

A6 

A7 

A8 

B2 

B3 

B4 

B5 

C2 

C3 

C4 

C5 

5,1 

4,8 

5,3 

2,6 

5,1 

5,3 

5,0 

3,2 

6,7 

5,3 

6,1 

3,1 

8,7 

4,3 

4,0 

n.a. 

7,2 

5,2 

2,6 

2,2 

11,6 

6,5 

3,1 

2,7 

6,9 

5,0 

4,6 

2,1 

7,6 

6,1 

5,5 

2,4 

8,4 

5,8 

5,6 

2,6 

23 

EN 

   EN