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)
Date: 2018-06-15
Institutions: Directorate-General for Human Resources and Security, European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, European official, discrimination on the basis of nationality, equal treatment, nationality, servant (EU), staff regulations (EU)

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 15.6.2018  COM(2018) 377 final  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)  
 
 
SECTION 1 – BACKGROUND AND GENERAL PRINCIPLES 

1.  LEGAL 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 Regulations1. 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  

2  

3  

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. 
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. 
See for example Court Judgement of 30.6.1983 in Case 85/82 Schloh vs Council, point 26 
1 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
2.  SCOPE OF THE REPORT 

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.  

SECTION 2 – EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

1.  METHODOLOGY 

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 20034 or 
“indicative recruitment targets” since 20035. 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  

5  

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  
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). 

2 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
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 may6 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  

3 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
 
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 nationality7 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 apply8.  

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  
8  

Unless they provide evidence that they have irrevocably abandoned the UK nationality. 
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. 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
The resulting guiding rates are currently as follows (calculation in Annex 5): 

Member State 

Malta 

Luxembourg 

Cyprus 

Estonia 

Latvia 

Slovenia 

Lithuania 

Croatia 

Ireland 

Slovakia 

Finland 

Denmark 

Bulgaria 

Austria 

Sweden 

Guiding 
rate 

0,6% 
0,8% 
0,8% 
0,8% 
1,0% 
1,0% 
1,5% 
1,6% 
1,6% 
1,8% 
1,8% 
1,8% 
2,4% 
2,6% 
2,7% 

Member State 

Hungary 

Portugal 

Czech Republic 

Greece 

Belgium 

Netherlands 

Romania 

Poland 

Spain 

Italy 

France 

Germany 

Guiding 
rate 

3,0% 
3,1% 
3,1% 
3,1% 
3,1% 
3,9% 
4,5% 
8,2% 
8,9% 
11,2% 
11,6% 
13,8% 

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. 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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 monitoring9. 

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 pre-
determined  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 non-
managerial  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) 

6 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
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.  FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS 

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.  

7 

 
 
 
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 early10 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  States11),  are  significantly 
the 
underrepresented:  Denmark,  Germany,  Ireland,  France,  Luxembourg, 
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 nationalities12 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  

11  
12  

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. 
i.e. all Member States which became member of the European Union before 2004 
i.e., all pre-2004 Member States, the UK excluded. 

8 

 
 
 
                                                            
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  Spanish13,  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 come14: Czechs, Danes, Estonians, Irish, Cypriots, Latvians, Lithuanians, 
Luxembourgers, Poles and Slovenians. 

13  

14  

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. 
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  filled14  nationals  from  any  member  State 
should ideally represent at least 50% of the relevant guiding rate. 

9 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
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.  CONCLUSION  

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. 

10 

 
 
 
SECTION 3 – OTHER EU INSTITUTIONS  
WHERE THE STAFF REGULATIONS APPLY 

1. 

INTRODUCTION 

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. 

INSTITUTIONS  AND  BODIES  TREATED  AS  INSTITUTIONS  PURSUANT  TO  ARTICLE  1B  OF 
THE STAFF REGULATIONS (INSTITUTIONS) 

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"  effect15,  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 

11 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
3.  DECENTRALISED AGENCIES 

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. 

12 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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". 

13 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
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 Council18 
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  

18  

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 
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 

14 

 
 
                                                            
ANNEX 2: Guiding rates for EU-15 Member States19 

Annex 1 

GEOGRAPHICAL 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 

15 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
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…). 

16 

 
 
 
 
 Annex 1a 

(1) 

LU 
IE 
FI 
DK 
PT 
GR 
AT 
SE 
BE 
NL 
ES 
IT 
UK 
FR 
DE 

(2) 
Benelux 
Luxembourg 
Ireland 
Finland 
Denmark  
Portugal 
Greece 
Austria 
Sweden 
Belgium  
Netherlands 
Spain 
Italy 
UK 
France 
Germany 

Previous enlargements – guidelines 

1958 
(3) 
25,0% 

1973 
(4) 
18,0% 

3,5% - 4% 

3,5% - 4% 

25,0% 

25,0% 
25,0% 
100,0% 

18,0% 
18,0% 
18,0% 
18,0% 
97%-98% 

1981 
(5) 
(17,7%) 
1,5% 
3,5% 

3,5% 

4,5% 

8,1% 
8,1% 

17,7% 
17,7% 
17,7% 
17,7% 
100,0% 

1986 
(6) 
(15,1%) 
1,3% 
3,0% 

3,0% 
3,8% 
3,8% 

6,9% 
6,9% 
11,0% 
15,1% 
15,1% 
15,1% 
15,1% 
100,1% 

1995 
(7) 
(13,5%) 
0,9% 
2,7% 
2,7% 
2,7% 
3,6% 
3,6% 
4,0% 
4,0% 
6,3% 
6,3% 
9,8% 
13,4% 
13,4% 
13,4% 
13,4% 
100,2% 

17 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Comparative approach as used for the 1995 enlargement 

Annex 1b 

Inhabitants  

(3) 

0,1% 
0.4 
1,0% 
3.8 
1,4% 
5.2 
1,4% 
5.4 
2,7% 
10.3 
2,8% 
10.6 
2,1% 
8.1 
2,4% 
8.9 
2,7% 
10.3 
4,2% 
16.0 
40.3  10,6% 
57.9  15,3% 
60.0  15,8% 
59.2  15.6% 
82.3  21,7% 
378.7 100,0% 

GDP  

(4) 

Average 
(inhabitants, GDP) 
(5) 

Guidelines 
1995 

(6) 

(7) 

21 
114 
141 
181 
118 
128 
214 
246 
256 
430 
647 
1.224 
1.511 
1.458 
2.112 
8.801 

0,2% 
1,3% 
1,6% 
2,1% 
1,3% 
1,5% 
2,4% 
2,8% 
2,9% 
4,9% 
7,4% 
13,9% 
17,2% 
16,6% 
24,0% 
100,0% 

0,2% 
1,1% 
1,5% 
1,7% 
2,0% 
2,1% 
2,3% 
2,6% 
2,8% 
4,6% 
9.0% 
14,6% 
16,5% 
16,1% 
22,9% 
100,0% 

0,9% 
2,7% 

2,7% 
3,6% 
3,6% 

6,3% 
6,3% 
9,8% 
13,4% 
13,4% 
13,4% 
13,4% 
89,5% 

2,7% 

4,0% 
4,0% 

10,7% 

(1) 

(2) 

Portugal 

LU  Luxembourg 
Ireland 
IE 
Finland 
FI 
DK  Denmark  
PT 
GR  Greece 
AT  Austria 
SE 
Sweden 
BE  Belgium  
NL  Netherlands 
Spain 
ES 
IT 
Italy 
UK  UK 
FR 
DE  Germany 

France 

(1) EUROSTAT: inhabitants 2001  
(2) EUROSTAT: GDP at market prices 2001 

18 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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  States20  (hereafter  referred 
the  "2003  Communication").  The 
to  as 
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 come21. 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) 

b) 

first, the determination of the number of posts that should be earmarked for all New 
Member States taken together 

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  

21  

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 
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". 

19 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
The following table summarises the calculations made for the 200422, 200723 and 201324 
enlargements. 

Population new Member States (1) 
Population incumbents (1) 
MEP new Member State(s) 
MEP incumbents  
Votes in Council new Member State(s) 
Votes in Council incumbents 
Weight new Member State(s)  
Weight incumbents 

2004 
75.0 M 
378.7M 
162 
570 
84 
237 
21.6% 
78.4% 

2007 
29.5 M 
459.3 M 
50 
732 
24 
321 
7% 
93% 

2013 
4.4 M 
502.5 M 
12 
754 
7 
345 
1.5% 
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 
value 

Recruitment 
target AD 

Recruitment 
target AST 

14,3% 
3,4% 
3,2% 
4,5% 
7,0% 
14,2% 
2,4% 
39,0% 
3,9% 
8,1% 
100,0% 

34,0% 
66,0% 
100,0% 

n.a. 

318 
76 
71 
100 
156 
316 
53 
867 
87 
180 
2224 

225 
437 
662 

149 

184 
44 
41 
58 
90 
182 
31 
501 
50 
104 
1284 

135 
261 
396 

100 

Czech Republic 
Estonia 
Cyprus 
Latvia 
Lithuania 
Hungary 
Malta 
Poland 
Slovenia 
Slovakia 
EU-10 (1) 

Bulgaria 
Romania 
EU-2 (2) 

Croatia (3) 
(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  
23  
24  

C(2003)436/5 of 14 February 2003, Commission meeting 1601 
C(2006)5778, written procedure of 24 November 2006 
SEC(2012)436final, Procédure écrite de finalisation of 11 July 2012 

20 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
ANNEX 4: Evolution of Member States population (excluding the UK) 

Luxembourg 

Cyprus 

Ireland 

Spain 

Sweden 

Malta 

Belgium 

France 

Austria 

Italy 

Denmark 

Netherlands 

Finland 

Slovenia 

2001 

439.500 

697.500 

2015 

562.958 

847.008 

3.832.783 

4.628.949 

40.665.542 

46.449.565 

8.882.792 

9.747.355 

391.415 

429.344 

10.263.414 

11.208.956 

61.357.400 

66.415.161 

8.032.926 

8.576.261 

56.960.692 

60.795.612 

5.349.212 

5.659.715 

15.987.075 

16.900.726 

5.181.115 

5.471.753 

1.990.094 

2.062.874 

Czech Republic 

10.414.373 

10.538.275 

Portugal 

Slovakia 

Poland 

Greece 

Germany 

Hungary 

Croatia 

Estonia 

Bulgaria 

Romania 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

10.256.658 

10.374.822 

5.402.547 

5.421.349 

38.253.955 

38.005.614 

10.934.097 

10.858.018 

82.259.540 

81.197.537 

10.200.298 

9.855.571 

4.437.460 

4.225.316 

1.388.000 

1.313.271 

7.928.901 

7.202.198 

22.132.000 

19.870.647 

2.364.254 

1.986.096 

3.483.972 

2.921.262 

2015 vs 2001 
28,1% 
21,4% 
20,8% 
14,2% 
9,7% 
9,7% 
9,2% 
8,2% 
6,8% 
6,7% 
5,8% 
5,7% 
5,6% 
3,7% 
1,2% 
1,2% 
0,3% 
-0,6% 
-0,7% 
-1,3% 
-3,4% 
-4,8% 
-5,4% 
-9,2% 
-10,2% 
-16,0% 
-16,2% 

Total 

429.487.515  443.526.213 

3,3% 

Source: Eurostat - date of extraction 23 January 2017 

21 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 5: Proposition for new Guiding rates: Application of the arithmetical method  

Member State 

Population 
2015 

Arithmetical 
Share 

Seats in EP 

Arithmetical 
Share 

Weighting of  
Votes in 
Council 

Arithmetical 
Share 

Guiding rate 

Malta 
Luxembourg 
Cyprus 
Estonia 
Latvia 
Slovenia 
Lithuania 
Croatia 
Ireland 
Slovakia 
Finland 
Denmark 
Bulgaria 
Austria 
Sweden 
Hungary 
Portugal 
Czech Republic 
Greece 
Belgium 
Netherlands 
Romania 
Poland 
Spain 
Italy 
France 
Germany 

429.344 
562.958 
847.008 
1.313.271 
1.986.096 
2.062.874 
2.921.262 
4.225.316 
4.628.949 
5.421.349 
5.471.753 
5.659.715 
7.202.198 
8.576.261 
9.747.355 
9.855.571 
10.374.822 
10.538.275 
10.858.018 
11.208.956 
16.900.726 
19.870.647 
38.005.614 
46.449.565 
60.795.612 
66.415.161 
81.197.537 

0,1% 
0,1% 
0,2% 
0,3% 
0,4% 
0,5% 
0,7% 
1,0% 
1,0% 
1,2% 
1,2% 
1,3% 
1,6% 
1,9% 
2,2% 
2,2% 
2,3% 
2,4% 
2,4% 
2,5% 
3,8% 
4,5% 
8,6% 
10,5% 
13,7% 
15,0% 
18,3% 

6 
6 
6 
6 
8 
8 
11 
11 
11 
13 
13 
13 
17 
18 
20 
21 
21 
21 
21 
21 
26 
32 
51 
54 
73 
74 
96 

0,9% 
0,9% 
0,9% 
0,9% 
1,2% 
1,2% 
1,6% 
1,6% 
1,6% 
1,9% 
1,9% 
1,9% 
2,5% 
2,7% 
2,9% 
3,1% 
3,1% 
3,1% 
3,1% 
3,1% 
3,8% 
4,7% 
7,5% 
8,0% 
10,8% 
10,9% 
14,2% 

3 
4 
4 
4 
4 
4 
7 
7 
7 
7 
7 
7 
10 
10 
10 
12 
12 
12 
12 
12 
13 
14 
27 
27 
29 
29 
29 

0,9% 
1,2% 
1,2% 
1,2% 
1,2% 
1,2% 
2,2% 
2,2% 
2,2% 
2,2% 
2,2% 
2,2% 
3,1% 
3,1% 
3,1% 
3,7% 
3,7% 
3,7% 
3,7% 
3,7% 
4,0% 
4,3% 
8,4% 
8,4% 
9,0% 
9,0% 
9,0% 

0,6% 
0,8% 
0,8% 
0,8% 
1,0% 
1,0% 
1,5% 
1,6% 
1,6% 
1,8% 
1,8% 
1,8% 
2,4% 
2,6% 
2,7% 
3,0% 
3,1% 
3,1% 
3,1% 
3,1% 
3,9% 
4,5% 
8,2% 
8,9% 
11,2% 
11,6% 
13,8% 

Total 

443.526.213 

100,0% 

678 

100,0% 

323 

100,0% 

100,0% 

22 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex 6: Distribution of non-managerial AD staff assigned in DGT or SCIC on 1.1.2017 

Pop 2015 & MEP's 
& Votes in Council 

AD5-AD14 
non management 
DGT & SCIC 

Guiding rate 

Targets in Heads 
(in 2017)  

Actual situation on 
1.1.2017 

Surplus or Deficit  
vs target 

Absolute 

Significant 
imbalance 
if below 

Absolute 

Significant 
imbalance if 
below 

Heads 

%ge 

Heads 
(in 2017) 

%ge of  
target 

Observed 
Significant 
Imbalance? 

Belgium 
Bulgaria 
Czech Republic 
Denmark 
Germany 
Estonia 
Ireland 
Greece 
Spain 
France 
Croatia 
Italy 
Cyprus 
Latvia 
Lithuania 
Luxembourg 
Hungary 
Malta 
Netherlands 
Austria 
Poland 
Portugal 
Romania 
Slovenia 
Slovakia 
Finland 
Sweden 

3.1% 
2.4% 
3.1% 
1.8% 
13.8% 
0.8% 
1.6% 
3.1% 
8.9% 
11.6% 
1.6% 
11.2% 
0.8% 
1.0% 
1.5% 
0.8% 
3.0% 
0.6% 
3.9% 
2.6% 
8.2% 
3.1% 
4.5% 
1.0% 
1.8% 
1.8% 
2.7% 

2.5% 
1.9% 
2.5% 
1.4% 
11.1% 
0.6% 
1.3% 
2.5% 
7.1% 
9.3% 
1.3% 
8.9% 
0.6% 
0.8% 
1.2% 
0.6% 
2.4% 
0.5% 
3.1% 
2.0% 
6.5% 
2.4% 
3.6% 
0.8% 
1.4% 
1.4% 
2.2% 

63 
49 
62 
36 
280 
16 
33 
63 
181 
235 
32 
226 
16 
19 
30 
15 
61 
13 
79 
52 
165 
62 
91 
19 
36 
36 
56 

50 
39 
50 
29 
224 
13 
26 
50 
145 
188 
26 
181 
13 
15 
24 
12 
49 
10 
63 
42 
132 
49 
73 
16 
29 
29 
45 

84  
26  
18  
29  
-115  
51  
7  
21  
-57  
-137  
27  
-97  
-12  
51  
41  
-12  
13  
45  
-38  
-39  
-79  
27  
-11  
53  
34  
58  
12  

233% 
154% 
129% 
180% 
59% 
410% 
123% 
134% 
69% 
42% 
184% 
57% 
26% 
362% 
236% 
20% 
121% 
450% 
52% 
25% 
52% 
144% 
88% 
370% 
195% 
262% 
122% 

YES 

YES 
YES 

YES 
YES 

YES 

YES 
YES 
YES 

147 
75 
80 
65 
165 
67 
40 
84 
124 
98 
59 
129 
4 
70 
71 
3 
74 
58 
41 
13 
86 
89 
80 
72 
70 
94 
68 

7.3% 
3.7% 
3.9% 
3.2% 
8.1% 
3.3% 
2.0% 
4.1% 
6.1% 
4.8% 
2.9% 
6.4% 
0.2% 
3.5% 
3.5% 
0.1% 
3.7% 
2.9% 
2.0% 
0.6% 
4.2% 
4.4% 
3.9% 
3.6% 
3.5% 
4.6% 
3.4% 

23 

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
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 
Council 

Guiding rate 

Targets in Heads 
(in 2017)  

Actual situation on 
1.1.2017 

Surplus or Deficit  
vs target 

AD5-AD8 outside 
DGT & SCIC 

Absolute 

Significant 
imbalance 
if below 

Absolute 

Significant 
imbalance if 
below 

Heads 

%ge 

Heads 
(in 2017) 

%ge of  
target 

Observed 
Significant 
Imbalance? 

Belgium 
Bulgaria 
Czech Republic 
Denmark 
Germany 
Estonia 
Ireland 
Greece 
Spain 
France 
Croatia 
Italy 
Cyprus 
Latvia 
Lithuania 
Luxembourg 
Hungary 
Malta 
Netherlands 
Austria 
Poland 
Portugal 
Romania 
Slovenia 
Slovakia 
Finland 
Sweden 

3.1% 
2.4% 
3.1% 
1.8% 
13.8% 
0.8% 
1.6% 
3.1% 
8.9% 
11.6% 
1.6% 
11.2% 
0.8% 
1.0% 
1.5% 
0.8% 
3.0% 
0.6% 
3.9% 
2.6% 
8.2% 
3.1% 
4.5% 
1.0% 
1.8% 
1.8% 
2.7% 

2.5% 
1.9% 
2.5% 
1.4% 
11.1% 
0.6% 
1.3% 
2.5% 
7.1% 
9.3% 
1.3% 
8.9% 
0.6% 
0.8% 
1.2% 
0.6% 
2.4% 
0.5% 
3.1% 
2.0% 
6.5% 
2.4% 
3.6% 
0.8% 
1.4% 
1.4% 
2.2% 

131 
102 
129 
75 
582 
34 
68 
130 
377 
490 
67 
470 
33 
40 
63 
32 
127 
27 
164 
108 
344 
129 
190 
41 
75 
75 
116 

105 
81 
103 
60 
466 
27 
54 
104 
301 
392 
53 
376 
26 
32 
50 
25 
102 
21 
131 
86 
275 
103 
152 
32 
60 
60 
93 

169  
157  
6  
-50  
-228  
5  
-40  
15  
-59  
-137  
26  
-29  
1  
8  
14  
-32  
91  
3  
-82  
-43  
118  
-68  
263  
9  
5  
-45  
-80  

229% 
255% 
105% 
33% 
61% 
115% 
41% 
111% 
84% 
72% 
140% 
94% 
105% 
119% 
123% 
0% 
172% 
112% 
50% 
60% 
134% 
47% 
238% 
123% 
107% 
40% 
31% 

YES 
YES 

YES 

YES 

YES 

YES 
YES 

YES 

YES 
YES 

300 
259 
135 
25 
354 
39 
28 
145 
318 
353 
93 
441 
34 
48 
77 
0 
218 
30 
82 
65 
462 
61 
453 
50 
80 
30 
36 

7.1% 
6.1% 
3.2% 
0.6% 
8.4% 
0.9% 
0.7% 
3.4% 
7.5% 
8.4% 
2.2% 
10.5% 
0.8% 
1.1% 
1.8% 
0.0% 
5.2% 
0.7% 
1.9% 
1.5% 
11.0% 
1.4% 
10.7% 
1.2% 
1.9% 
0.7% 
0.9% 

24 

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
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 
& Votes in Council 

Non-managers 
AD9-AD12 outside 
DGT & SCIC 

Belgium 
Bulgaria 
Czech Republic 
Denmark 
Germany 
Estonia 
Ireland 
Greece 
Spain 
France 
Croatia 
Italy 
Cyprus 
Latvia 
Lithuania 
Luxembourg 
Hungary 
Malta 
Netherlands 
Austria 
Poland 
Portugal 
Romania 
Slovenia 
Slovakia 
Finland 
Sweden 

Guiding rate 

Targets in Heads 
(in 2017)  

Actual situation on 
1.1.2017 

Surplus or Deficit  
vs target 

Absolute 

Significant 
imbalance 
if below 

Absolute 

Significant 
imbalance if 
below 

Heads 

%ge 

Heads 
(in 2017) 

%ge of  
target 

Observed 
Significant 
Imbalance? 

3.1% 
2.4% 
3.1% 
1.8% 
13.8% 
0.8% 
1.6% 
3.1% 
8.9% 
11.6% 
1.6% 
11.2% 
0.8% 
1.0% 
1.5% 
0.8% 
3.0% 
0.6% 
3.9% 
2.6% 
8.2% 
3.1% 
4.5% 
1.0% 
1.8% 
1.8% 
2.7% 

2.5% 
1.9% 
2.5% 
1.4% 
11.1% 
0.6% 
1.3% 
2.5% 
7.1% 
9.3% 
1.3% 
8.9% 
0.6% 
0.8% 
1.2% 
0.6% 
2.4% 
0.5% 
3.1% 
2.0% 
6.5% 
2.4% 
3.6% 
0.8% 
1.4% 
1.4% 
2.2% 

123 
95 
121 
71 
546 
32 
64 
122 
353 
459 
62 
441 
30 
38 
59 
30 
119 
25 
154 
101 
322 
121 
178 
38 
70 
70 
109 

98 
76 
97 
56 
437 
25 
51 
98 
282 
367 
50 
353 
24 
30 
47 
24 
95 
20 
123 
81 
258 
96 
143 
30 
56 
56 
87 

448  
-87  
-53  
0  
-43  
-10  
10  
42  
23  
46  
-59  
40  
-9  
-17  
-18  
-10  
-37  
-8  
6  
20  
-160  
-14  
-155  
-9  
-34  
59  
28  

464% 
8% 
56% 
101% 
92% 
69% 
116% 
134% 
107% 
110% 
5% 
109% 
69% 
56% 
70% 
67% 
69% 
68% 
104% 
120% 
50% 
89% 
13% 
76% 
51% 
184% 
126% 

YES 
YES 

YES 

YES 

YES 
YES 
YES 
YES 
YES 
YES 

YES 

YES 
YES 
YES 

571 
8 
68 
71 
503 
22 
74 
164 
376 
505 
3 
481 
21 
21 
41 
20 
82 
17 
160 
121 
162 
107 
23 
29 
36 
129 
137 

14.4% 
0.2% 
1.7% 
1.8% 
12.7% 
0.6% 
1.9% 
4.1% 
9.5% 
12.8% 
0.1% 
12.2% 
0.5% 
0.5% 
1.0% 
0.5% 
2.1% 
0.4% 
4.0% 
3.1% 
4.1% 
2.7% 
0.6% 
0.7% 
0.9% 
3.3% 
3.5% 

25 

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
Annex 7c: British non-management AD staff on 1.1.2017 
Distribution by grade 

British nationals assigned to  
non-management tasks… 
…outside DGT & SCIC 
…in DGT or SCIC 
Total 

Distribution by age 

AD5-AD8 

AD9-AD12 

AD13-AD14 

81 
50 
131 

170 
56 
226 

110 
41 
151 

Total 

361 
147 
508 

British non-management AD officials 
by age on 1.1.2017 (persons) 

British non-management AD officials 
by age on 1.1.2017 (cumulated) 

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

25 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 61 63 65

25 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 61 63 65

26 

 
 
 
   
 
 
 
 
Annex 7d: Double nationalities on 1.1.2018 among Officials and Temporary Staff at the Commission  

U
T
L

L
R

I

A
T

I

1 

3 

13 

A
V
L

T
L
M

D
L
N

L
O
P

T
R
P

U
O
R

K
V
S

N
V
S

2 

6 

3 

4 

1 

1 

y
t
i
l
a
n
o
i
t
a
N

t
s
1

AUT 

BEL 

BGR 

CYP 

CZE 

DEU 

DNK 

ESP 

EST 

FIN 

FRA 

GBR 

GRC 

HRV 

HUN 

IRL 

ITA 

LTU 

LUX 

LVA 

MLT 

NLD 

POL 

PRT 

ROU 

SVK 

SVN 

SWE 

P
Y
C

R
G
B

2 

N
F

I

T
S
E

1 

K
N
D

P
S
E

7 

1 

1 

4 

E
Z
C

2 

1 

U
E
D

3 

4 

6 

1 

3 

3 

1 

1 

14 

8 

2 

3 

3 

T
U
A

2 

1 

2 

2 

2 

1 

L
E
B

1 

17 

3 

1 

7 

3 

7 

28 

12 

20 

2 

5 

4 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

2 

1 

4 

3 

2 

7 

1 

10 

1 

9 

1 

6 

3 

2 

83 

1 

13 

1 

1 

1 

1 

2 

22 

8 

56 

5 

1 

4 

1 

2nd Nationality 

R
B
G

C
R
G

V
R
H

15 

12 

2 

3 

6 

9 

N
U
H

2 

1 

12 

4 

1 

2 

1 

5 

1 

31 

4 

1 

57 

17 

1 

2 

1 

5 

4 

1 

2 

2 

3 

2 

4 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

27 

1 

1 

3 

1 

1 

8 

2 

1 

1 

1 

A
R
F

2 

26 

14 

4 

3 

12 

4 

16 

25 

11 

3 

13 

2 

13 

1 

2 

1 

22 

2 

20 

4 

3 

X
U
L

5 

1 

1 

15 

1 

1 

1 

1 

3 

1 

1 

1 

5 

2 

1 

1 

14 

2 

7 

2 

4 

2 

1 

1 

4 

2 

6 

3 

2 

1 

3 

1 

1 

1 

2 

1 

7 

1 

2 

1 

5 

4 

1 

3 

2 

1 

2 

2 

1 

1 

2 

1 

7 

4 

1 

1 

1 

2 

1 

2 

E
W
S

1 

2 

1 

1 

1 

4 

1 

1 

2 

1 

l
a
t
o
T

7 

114 

46 

24 

15 

59 

9 

34 

1 

1 

128 

111 

48 

14 

34 

68 

67 

5 

6 

1 

2 

10 

71 

17 

108 

20 

8 

13 

  Total 

11 

220 

4 

6 

9 

3 

25 

1 

3 

203  173 

36 

10 

19 

33 

72 

2 

30 

1 

0 

25 

21 

13 

15 

5 

3 

15 

1041 

27 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex 8a: Statistics of EPSO AD5 competitions (excluding linguists) over the period 2010-mid 2017 

Cumulated 
Applications 

Cumulated 
Laureates 

Population 
(Millions) 

Guiding 
rates 

Distributionof 
laureates 

Surplus or Deficit 
vs Guiding rate 

Laureates as 
%ge of 
Guiding rate 

Significant 
imbalance in 
EPSO lists*? 

Participants 
/Mn hab 

Success 
rate 

EPSO AD5 
competitions 
2010- mid 2017 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Czech Republic 

Denmark 

Germany 

Estonia 

Ireland 

Greece 

Spain 

France 

Croatia 

Italy 

Cyprus 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

Hungary 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Austria 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovenia 

Slovakia 

Finland 

Sweden 

19795 

11275 

3452 

1966 

17583 

1789 

2028 

18787 

27569 

19208 

4239 

49325 

1077 

2172 

4339 

526 

6435 

930 

4532 

3779 

11452 

10322 

25933 

2475 

4144 

3208 

3132 

171 

38 

15 

10 

205 

2 

11 

49 

177 

163 

26 

261 

0 

7 

9 

0 

56 

5 

71 

38 

30 

32 

91 

6 

17 

23 

24 

11.2 

7.2 

10.5 

5.7 

81.2 

1.3 

4.6 

10.9 

46.4 

66.4 

4.2 

60.8 

0.8 

2.0 

2.9 

0.6 

9.9 

0.4 

16.9 

8.6 

38.0 

10.4 

19.9 

2.1 

5.4 

5.5 

9.7 

3.1% 

2.4% 

3.1% 

1.8% 

13.8% 

0.8% 

1.6% 

3.1% 

8.9% 

11.6% 

1.6% 

11.2% 

0.8% 

1.0% 

1.5% 

0.8% 

3.0% 

0.6% 

3.9% 

2.6% 

8.2% 

3.1% 

4.5% 

1.0% 

1.8% 

1.8% 

2.7% 

11.1% 

2.5% 

1.0% 

0.7% 

13.3% 

0.1% 

0.7% 

3.2% 

11.5% 

10.6% 

1.7% 

17.0% 

0.0% 

0.5% 

0.6% 

0.0% 

3.6% 

0.3% 

4.6% 

2.5% 

2.0% 

2.1% 

5.9% 

0.4% 

1.1% 

1.5% 

1.6% 

8.0% 

0.1% 

-2.1% 

-1.1% 

-0.5% 

-0.7% 

-0.9% 

0.1% 

2.6% 

-1.0% 

0.1% 

5.8% 

-0.8% 

-0.5% 

-0.9% 

-0.8% 

0.6% 

-0.3% 

0.7% 

-0.1% 

-6.2% 

-1.0% 

1.4% 

-0.6% 

-0.7% 

-0.3% 

-1.2% 

EU27 

443.5 
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 

100.0% 

100.0% 

261472 

0.0% 

1537 

28 

YES 

YES 

YES 

YES 

YES 

YES 

YES 

YES 

YES 

YES 

357% 

103% 

32% 

36% 

97% 

16% 

44% 

103% 

129% 

91% 

109% 

152% 

0% 

48% 

39% 

0% 

121% 

51% 

119% 

96% 

24% 

68% 

131% 

41% 

63% 

84% 

57% 

100% 

1766 

1565 

328 

347 

217 

1362 

438 

1730 

594 

289 

1003 

811 

1272 

1094 

1485 

934 

653 

2166 

268 

441 

301 

995 

1305 

1200 

764 

586 

321 

590 

0.9% 

0.3% 

0.4% 

0.5% 

1.2% 

0.1% 

0.5% 

0.3% 

0.6% 

0.8% 

0.6% 

0.5% 

0.0% 

0.3% 

0.2% 

0.0% 

0.9% 

0.5% 

1.6% 

1.0% 

0.3% 

0.3% 

0.4% 

0.2% 

0.4% 

0.7% 

0.8% 

0.6% 

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
Annex 8b: Statistics of EPSO AD Specialist competitions (excluding linguists) over the period 2010-2016 

EPSO AD Specialist 
competitions 2010-16 

Cumulated 
Applications 

Cumulated 
Laureates 

Population 
(Millions) 

Guiding 
rates 

Distributionof 
laureates 

Surplus or Deficit 
vs Guiding rate 

Laureates as 
%ge of 
Guiding rate 

Significant 
imbalance in 
EPSO lists*? 

Participants 

/Mn hab 

Success 
rate 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Czech Republic 

Denmark 

Germany 

Estonia 

Ireland 

Greece 

Spain 

France 

Croatia 

Italy 

Cyprus 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

Hungary 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Austria 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovenia 

Slovakia 

Finland 

Sweden 

4862 

2172 

451 

219 

2886 

313 

571 

3955 

7493 

5324 

875 

10420 

238 

327 

767 

117 

1019 

147 

954 

636 

2093 

2515 

424 

526 

744 

501 

476 

122 

21 

8 

10 

132 

6 

11 

78 

157 

106 

19 

245 

3 

6 

13 

3 

32 

2 

35 

27 

44 

34 

47 

11 

16 

12 

15 

11.2 

7.2 

10.5 

5.7 

81.2 

1.3 

4.6 

10.9 

46.4 

66.4 

4.2 

60.8 

0.8 

2.0 

2.9 

0.6 

9.9 

0.4 

16.9 

8.6 

38.0 

10.4 

19.9 

2.1 

5.4 

5.5 

9.7 

3.1% 

2.4% 

3.1% 

1.8% 

13.8% 

0.8% 

1.6% 

3.1% 

8.9% 

11.6% 

1.6% 

11.2% 

0.8% 

1.0% 

1.5% 

0.8% 

3.0% 

0.6% 

3.9% 

2.6% 

8.2% 

3.1% 

4.5% 

1.0% 

1.8% 

1.8% 

2.7% 

10.0% 

1.7% 

0.7% 

0.8% 

10.9% 

0.5% 

0.9% 

6.4% 

12.9% 

8.7% 

1.6% 

20.2% 

0.2% 

0.5% 

1.1% 

0.2% 

2.6% 

0.2% 

2.9% 

2.2% 

3.6% 

2.8% 

3.9% 

0.9% 

1.3% 

1.0% 

1.2% 

6.9% 

-0.7% 

-2.4% 

-1.0% 

-3.0% 

-0.3% 

-0.7% 

3.3% 

4.0% 

-2.9% 

0.0% 

9.0% 

-0.5% 

-0.5% 

-0.4% 

-0.5% 

-0.4% 

-0.5% 

-1.0% 

-0.3% 

-4.5% 

-0.3% 

-0.6% 

-0.1% 

-0.5% 

-0.8% 

-1.5% 

EU27 
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 

100.0% 

100.0% 

51025 

443.5 

0.0% 

1215 

322% 

72% 

21% 

46% 

79% 

61% 

56% 

208% 

145% 

75% 

100% 

181% 

32% 

52% 

72% 

33% 

87% 

26% 

74% 

87% 

44% 

92% 

86% 

94% 

74% 

56% 

45% 

100% 

YES 

YES 

YES 

YES 

YES 

YES 

YES 

434 

302 

43 

39 

36 

238 

123 

364 

161 

80 

207 

171 

281 

165 

263 

208 

103 

342 

56 

74 

55 

242 

21 

255 

137 

92 

49 

115 

2.5% 

1.0% 

1.8% 

4.6% 

4.6% 

1.9% 

1.9% 

2.0% 

2.1% 

2.0% 

2.2% 

2.4% 

1.3% 

1.8% 

1.7% 

2.6% 

3.1% 

1.4% 

3.7% 

4.2% 

2.1% 

1.4% 

11.1% 

2.1% 

2.2% 

2.4% 

3.2% 

2.4% 

29 

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
Annex 8c: Validated applications in the latest (ongoing) AD competition 

EPSO AD/338/17 

Applications 

Population 
(Millions) 

Participants 
/Mn hab* 

As %ge of EU 
average 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Czech Republic 

Denmark 

Germany 

Estonia 

Ireland 

Greece 

Spain 

France 

Croatia 

Italy 

Cyprus 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

Hungary 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Austria 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovenia 

Slovakia 

Finland 

Sweden 

2073 
913 
264 
197 
1867 
152 
245 
3306 
3731 
2184 
525 
6341 
163 
156 
370 
71 
533 
103 
1072 
507 
1025 
1028 
1875 
248 
297 
399 
288 
29933 

274% 
188% 
37% 
52% 
34% 
171% 
78% 
451% 
119% 
49% 
184% 
155% 
285% 
116% 
188% 
187% 
80% 
355% 
94% 
88% 
40% 
147% 
140% 
178% 
81% 
108% 
44% 
100% 

185 
127 
25 
35 
23 
116 
53 
304 
80 
33 
124 
104 
192 
79 
127 
126 
54 
240 
63 
59 
27 
99 
94 
120 
55 
73 
30 
67 

11.2 
7.2 
10.5 
5.7 
81.2 
1.3 
4.6 
10.9 
46.4 
66.4 
4.2 
60.8 
0.8 
2.0 
2.9 
0.6 
9.9 
0.4 
16.9 
8.6 
38.0 
10.4 
19.9 
2.1 
5.4 
5.5 
9.7 
443.5 

30 

EU 
*: 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 

n
o
i
t
u
t
i
t
s
n
I

t
n
e
m
a
i
l
r
a
P
n
a
e
p
o
r
u
E

l
i
c
n
u
o
C
S
G

Methodology and criteria for 
assessing geographical balance 

Indicator(s) of 
(significant) imbalance 

Observed (significant) 
imbalance by 
Member State 

Objective justification of the imbalance 

The  European  Parliament  has  not  yet  held  a  debate  or  discussion  on  the 
issue. Columns to the right are therefore built under the assumptions that: 

Underrepresented: UK 
and to a lesser extent DE  

  Geographical  balance  could  be  assessed  at  aggregate  level  (all 

 

function groups together). 
The share of each national cohort within the EP Secretariat could 
be compared to the respective Member States’ share of the total 
EU population. 

Over represented: BE, 
EE, FI, HR, LT, LU, LV, 
MT, SL et SK 

All imbalances are objectively justified by 
  UK,  DE  :  limited  attractiveness  of  the  EU 
institutions  and/or  an  EU  career;  numbers  of 
laureates on EPSO reserve lists 

  BE,  LU  :  places  of  work  effect  +  cross-border 

commuting effect 

(translation, 

  EE, FI, HR, LT, LV, MT, SL and SK: linguistic 
services 
lawyer 
linguists) provided in all official languages; the 
minimum  critical  mass  of 
linguistic  staff 
needed  has  a  greater 
impact  for  smaller 
Member States. 

interpretation, 

Geographical balance is assessed at 
aggregate level (all function groups 
together). 
Benchmark: the average between the 
relevant Member State share in 
  EU population 
  MEP's 
  Council votes before Lisbon Rules 

Imbalance is observed when 
the actual share of nationals 
deviates from the benchmark  
by more than +/-20% 
Significant imbalance is 
observed when a share of a 
given nationality is below 
40% or above 400% of that 
benchmark. 

Significantly under-
represented: CY, DE and 
UK  
Significantly over-
represented: BE 

All imbalances are objectively justified by…  
CY, DE, UK: low number of laureates on EPSO 
reserve lists 
BE: seat effect 

Balance is also influenced by the high relative 
weight of the linguistic services 

31 

e
r
u
t
u
f
d
e
t
c
e
p
x
E

e
c
n
a
l
a
b
m

I

e
r
u
s
a
e
m
e
t
a
i
r
p
o
r
p
p
A

7
2
.
t
r
A
r
e
d
n
u

d
e
g
a
s
i
v
n
e
/
n
e
k
a
t

O
N
O
N

/

O
N
O
N

/

O
N

o
t

t
l
u
c
i
f
f
i
d

y
r
e
V

h
g
i
h
a
o
t

e
u
d

t
c
i
d
e
r
p

y
t
n
i
a
t
r
e
c
n
u
f
o

l
e
v
e
l

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Methodology and criteria for 
assessing geographical balance 

Indicator(s) of 
(significant) imbalance 

Observed (significant) 
imbalance by 
Member State 

Objective justification of the imbalance 

n
o
i
t
u
t
i
t
s
n
I

f
o
t
r
u
o
C

e
c
i
t
s
u
J

f
o
t
r
u
o
C

s
r
o
t
i
d
u
A

Geographical balance is assessed at 
aggregate level (all function groups 
together). 
Benchmark:  the  share  of  the  relevant 
the  EU 
Member  State  population  in 
population 

Geographical balance is assessed at 
aggregate level (all function groups 
together). 
Benchmark:  the  share  of  the  relevant 
Member  State  population  in  the  EU 
population 

Geographical balance is assessed at 
function groups level, with a focus on 
ADs). 
Benchmark: the share of the relevant 
Member State population in the EU 
population 

n
a
e
p
o
r
u
E

n
o
i
t
c
A

l
a
n
r
e
t
x
E

e
c
i
v
r
e
S

e
r
u
t
u
f
d
e
t
c
e
p
x
E

e
c
n
a
l
a
b
m

I

O
N

e
r
u
s
a
e
m
e
t
a
i
r
p
o
r
p
p
A

7
2
.
t
r
A
r
e
d
n
u

d
e
g
a
s
i
v
n
e
/
n
e
k
a
t

n
i

o
s
l
a
(

O
N
O
N

/

)
t
i
x
e
r
B

f
o
w
e
i
v

y
l
b
i
s
s
o
p
t
p
e
c
x
e
O
N

C
S
-
T
S
A
e
h
t

n
i

p
u
o
r
g
n
o
i
t
c
n
u
f

O
N

O
N
O
N

/

O
N
O
N

/

Underrepresented: UK 

Overrepresented: FR, BE 

All imbalances are objectively justified by… 
  FR, BE: the Court works in French (mitigated 
by extensive language courses programme). 

  UK: Difficulty to recruit UK nationals 

Underrepresented: UK 

Overrepresented: BE, PT 

All imbalances are objectively justified by… 
the  peculiarities  of  Luxembourg  in  terms  of  size, 
large  number  of  cross-border 
attractiveness, 
workers and large number of PT residents. 

No observed imbalance  

n/a 

Imbalance is observed in case 
of blatant under or 
overrepresentation.  
Significant imbalance is not 
defined 

Imbalance is observed when 
the actual share of nationals 
deviates from the benchmark  
by more than +/-20% 
Significant imbalance is 
observed when such deviation 
exceeds +/-50% 

Significant imbalance is 
observed when nationals of a 
Member State are not present 
at all (or significantly 
underrepresented). 

32 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Methodology and criteria for 
assessing geographical balance 

Indicator(s) of 
(significant) imbalance 

Observed (significant) 
imbalance by 
Member State 

Objective justification of the imbalance 

e
r
u
t
u
f
d
e
t
c
e
p
x
E

e
c
n
a
l
a
b
m

I

e
r
u
s
a
e
m
e
t
a
i
r
p
o
r
p
p
A

7
2
.
t
r
A
r
e
d
n
u

d
e
g
a
s
i
v
n
e
/
n
e
k
a
t

Due to lack of formal definition, the 
EESC does not assess Geographical 
balance using a specific methodology  

Lack of nationals from one or 
more member States could be 
a sign of imbalance 

Geographical balance is assessed at 
aggregate level (all function groups 
together). 
Benchmark: the average between the 
relevant Member State share in 
  EU population 
  MEP's 
  Council votes before Lisbon Rules 

Imbalance is observed when 
the actual share of nationals 
deviates is lower than 50% or 
higher than 200% of the 
benchmark. 
Significant imbalance is 
observed when the share 
significantly deviates from 
this bracket  

Underrepresented: CY 
NB: however, the EESC was 
able to recruit a national 
after the cut off date 

High number of BE, IT, 
EE, LV, SL etc. 

Significantly under-
represented: LU and UK  

Significantly over-
represented: BE 

All imbalances are objectively justified by… 
the small number of CY nationals on EPSO lists; 
the small number of vacancies due to downsizing; 
the seat effect and  
other historical reasons (IT) 

The  relative  weight  of  the  language  services  also 
influences the balance 
All imbalances are objectively justified by… 
The size of the institution  
Headquarter effect 
Limited attractiveness of EU institutions  for 
nationals of some member States 
Small size of certain member States 

Given the small size of the Cor, precaution in the 
interpretation of figures is necessary 

y
l
b
i
s
s
o
p
t
p
e
c
x
e
O
N

r
o
T
I
X
E
R
B

,
r
e
v
e
w
o
H

.

O
N

C
S
-
T
S
A
e
h
t

n
i

p
u
o
r
g
n
o
i
t
c
n
u
f

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
c

f
o

n
o
i
t
a
r
o
i
r
e
t
e
d

e
c
n
e
u
l
f
n
i
n
a

e
v
a
h

t
h
g
i
m

Given  the  size  of  the  institution,  it  has 
never defined geographical (im)balance.  
Presence  of  nationals  from  all  Member 
States  weighted  with  population  size 
could be an indicator  

Imbalance is observed in case 
of under or over 
representation without 
objective justification 

Significant over-
representation: FR, in the 
AST function group 

All imbalances are objectively justified by… 
 
 
 

The seat effect in France, 
the difficulties to recruit in Strasburg 
historical  reasons  (large  number  of  temporary 
posts) 

O
N

O
N
O
N

/

O
N
O
N

/

O
N
O
N

/

n
o
i
t
u
t
i
t
s
n
I

c
i
m
o
n
o
c
E

.
r
u
E

e
h
t

f
o
e
e
t
t
i

m
m
o
C

l
a
i
c
o
S
d
n
a

e
e
t
t
i

m
m
o
C

s
n
o
i
g
e
R

n
a
e
p
o
r
u
E
e
h
T

n
a
m
s
d
u
b
m
O

33 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
n
o
i
t
u
t
i
t
s
n
I

Methodology and criteria for 
assessing geographical balance 

Indicator(s) of 
(significant) imbalance 

Observed (significant) 
imbalance by 
Member State 

Objective justification of the imbalance 

n/a 

NO 

n/a. 

  The EDPS is a small institution dealing 
r
o
s
i
v
r
e
p
u
S
n
o
i
t
c
e
t
o
r
P

with a very specific subject. Recruitments 
are therefore made on the basis of specific 
profiles and EPSO reserve lists in data 
protection as well as on the small pool of 
applicants. The question of balanced 
representation has not been considered so 
far given to the specificity of profiles and 
difficulty to recruit.  

a
t
a
D
n
a
e
p
o
r
u
E

e
r
u
t
u
f
d
e
t
c
e
p
x
E

e
c
n
a
l
a
b
m

I

e
r
u
s
a
e
m
e
t
a
i
r
p
o
r
p
p
A

7
2
.
t
r
A
r
e
d
n
u

d
e
g
a
s
i
v
n
e
/
n
e
k
a
t

.

O
N

O
N
O
N

/

34 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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 

Belgium 
Bulgaria 
Czech Republic 
Denmark 
Germany 
Estonia 
Ireland 
Greece 
Spain 
France 
Croatia 
Italy 
Cyprus 
Latvia 
Lithuania 
Luxembourg 
Hungary 
Malta 
Netherlands 
Austria 
Poland 
Portugal 
Romania 
Slovenia 
Slovakia 
Finland 
Sweden 
UK 
Total 

EP 

SG Council 

CoJ 

EEAS 

EESC 

CoR 

EO 

EDPS 

Total 

182 
75 
69 
60 
218 
55 
27 
100 
175 
217 
68 
201 
6 
55 
56 
13 
89 
45 
63 
32 
111 
84 
97 
58 
64 
91 
70 
118 
2,499 

116 
41 
44 
44 
91 
41 
28 
50 
86 
92 
31 
77 
2 
35 
38 
6 
42 
32 
32 
18 
61 
62 
57 
40 
37 
58 
40 
50 
1,351 

108 
33 
34 
35 
69 
30 
14 
47 
70 
185 
29 
78 
2 
32 
33 
9 
39 
24 
22 
13 
43 
38 
37 
32 
32 
31 
36 
50 
1,205 

72 
9 
19 
32 
87 
22 
26 
37 
77 
100 
9 
105 
3 
7 
19 
4 
16 
10 
32 
24 
39 
31 
24 
13 
5 
19 
34 
72 
947 

30 
8 
8 
14 
26 
8 
3 
17 
20 
18 
6 
30 
0 
5 
9 
1 
10 
5 
10 
9 
11 
10 
15 
4 
7 
11 
8 
15 
318 

16 
12 
12 
3 
26 
5 
5 
10 
12 
19 
7 
24 
0 
11 
9 
0 
8 
4 
6 
2 
20 
7 
14 
10 
12 
10 
8 
10 
282 

530 
178 
189 
191 
525 
161 
109 
264 
446 
640 
150 
519 
14 
145 
164 
33 
206 
121 
167 
100 
289 
233 
246 
158 
157 
221 
198 
316 
6,670 

6 
0 
1 
1 
3 
0 
0 
0 
4 
4 
0 
4 
1 
0 
0 
0 
1 
0 
1 
0 
2 
0 
1 
1 
0 
0 
1 
0 
31 

0 
0 
2 
2 
5 
0 
6 
3 
2 
5 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
1 
1 
1 
2 
2 
1 
1 
0 
0 
1 
1 
1 
37 

35 

 
 
 
 
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  

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Czech Republic 

Denmark 

Germany 

Estonia 

Ireland 

Greece 

Spain 

France 

Croatia 

Italy 

Cyprus 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

Hungary 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Austria 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovenia 

Slovakia 

Finland 

Sweden 

UK 

Total 

EP 

7% 

3% 

3% 

2% 

9% 

2% 

1% 

4% 

7% 

9% 

3% 

8% 

0% 

2% 

2% 

1% 

4% 

2% 

3% 

1% 

4% 

3% 

4% 

2% 

3% 

4% 

3% 

5% 

SG Council 

CoJ 

EEAS 

EESC 

CoR 

9% 

3% 

3% 

3% 

7% 

3% 

2% 

4% 

6% 

7% 

2% 

6% 

0% 

3% 

3% 

0% 

3% 

2% 

2% 

1% 

5% 

5% 

4% 

3% 

3% 

4% 

3% 

4% 

9% 

3% 

3% 

3% 

6% 

2% 

1% 

4% 

6% 

15% 

2% 

6% 

0% 

3% 

3% 

1% 

3% 

2% 

2% 

1% 

4% 

3% 

3% 

3% 

3% 

3% 

3% 

4% 

8% 

1% 

2% 

3% 

9% 

2% 

3% 

4% 

8% 

11% 

1% 

11% 

0% 

1% 

2% 

0% 

2% 

1% 

3% 

3% 

4% 

3% 

3% 

1% 

1% 

2% 

4% 

8% 

9% 

3% 

3% 

4% 

8% 

3% 

1% 

5% 

6% 

6% 

2% 

9% 

0% 

2% 

3% 

0% 

3% 

2% 

3% 

3% 

3% 

3% 

5% 

1% 

2% 

3% 

3% 

5% 

6% 

4% 

4% 

1% 

9% 

2% 

2% 

4% 

4% 

7% 

2% 

9% 

0% 

4% 

3% 

0% 

3% 

1% 

2% 

1% 

7% 

2% 

5% 

4% 

4% 

4% 

3% 

4% 

EO 

0% 

0% 

5% 

5% 

14% 

0% 

16% 

8% 

5% 

14% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

3% 

3% 

3% 

5% 

5% 

3% 

3% 

0% 

0% 

3% 

3% 

3% 

EDPS 

Total 

19% 

0% 

3% 

3% 

10% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

13% 

13% 

0% 

13% 

3% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

3% 

0% 

3% 

0% 

6% 

0% 

3% 

3% 

0% 

0% 

3% 

0% 

8% 

3% 

3% 

3% 

8% 

2% 

2% 

4% 

7% 

10% 

2% 

8% 

0% 

2% 

2% 

0% 

3% 

2% 

3% 

1% 

4% 

3% 

4% 

2% 

2% 

3% 

3% 

5% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

36 

 
 
Annex 12 : Summary of the Contributions made by Agencies 

NB: All Statements and wording reflect the relevant agency's declarations 

Y
C
N
E
G
A

Methodology and criteria for 
assessing geographical balance 

Indicator(s) of (significant) 
imbalance 

Observed (significant) 
imbalance by 
Member State 

Objective justification of the imbalance 

R
E
C
A

Geographical  balance 
is  assessed  by 
reference  to  the  representation  of  each 
nationality among staff 

Imbalance is observed if less than 
50% of the Member States are 
represented among staff or if staff 
from one nationality represent more 
than 50% of total staff 

No 

N/A 

F
E
D
E
C

L
O
P
E
C

 Geographical balance is assessed by 
P
O

reference to the representation of each 
nationality among staff 

Significant imbalance is observed 
when one nationality exceeds 40% 
of the establishment plan 

No 

CEPOL does not have a definition in 
place of what constitutes a “balanced 
representation” of each nationality among 
its staff. The geographical balance is 
included in monthly internal reporting as 
well as in the annual account. 

CEPOL would consider that a 
“significant imbalance” is in place 
where one nationality comprises 
more than 50% of all staff (TA, CA 
& SNEs). 

In the period 2014 – 2016, 
following the relocation 
of the agency from the 
UK to Hungary, an 
increase in the number of 
Hungarian nationals was 
observed. However, 
significant imbalance is 
not reached yet. 

37 

N/A 

N/A 

e
r
u
t
u
f
d
e
t
c
e
p
x
E

e
c
n
a
l
a
b
m

I

e
r
u
s
a
e
m
e
t
a
i
r
p
o
r
p
p
A

7
2
.
t
r
A
r
e
d
n
u

d
e
g
a
s
i
v
n
e
/
n
e
k
a
t

n
o
i
t
c
e
r
r
o
c

t
u
b
o
N

a

s
i

t
n
e
i
c
i
f
f
e
o
c

m
e
l
b
o
r
p

o
N

t
n
e
r
r
u
c
n
o

d
e
s
a
b
(

s
e
Y

)
s
d
n
e
r
t

O
N
O
N

/

O
N
O
N

/

r
e
d
n
u
/
o
N

n
o
i
t
a
r
e
d
i
s
n
o
c

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Y
C
N
E
G
A

O
V
P
C

A
S
A
E

C
D
C
E

P
O
I
E

A
E
E

Methodology and criteria for 
assessing geographical balance 

Indicator(s) of (significant) 
imbalance 

Observed (significant) 
imbalance by 
Member State 

Objective justification of the imbalance 

No methodology has been set 
General administrative staff out of the 
scope 

Imbalance is observed if in more 
than 2 managers or more than 40% 
of AD staff have the same 
nationality 

No 

N/A 

Geographical balance is monitored and 
compared to population of Member States 

N/A 

No, taking into account 
the specificity of the 
agency (see justification) 

Staff distribution is consistent with the Agency's 
understanding of the distribution of aviation experts 
among MS 

Geographical balance is assessed at 
aggregate level (all function groups 
together). 
Benchmark: all MS should be represented 
A second assessment is done by reference 
to population and seats at the European 
Parliament 

A

Number of nationalities represented 

Larger and older member States are 
expected to have a larger representation 

Significant imbalance if  large 
number of MS are either not 
represented or significantly 
under/over represented 

Sweden is over 
represented 

Seat effect 

Significant imbalance would occur 
if the agency was unable to attract 
staff from variety of nationalities 

Imbalance is observed when the 
share of larger/older MS 
nationalities decreases 

No 

No 

EIOPA inherited staff from CEIOPS 
Seat effect 

N/A 

e
r
u
t
u
f
d
e
t
c
e
p
x
E

e
c
n
a
l
a
b
m

I

e
r
u
s
a
e
m
e
t
a
i
r
p
o
r
p
p
A

7
2
.
t
r
A
r
e
d
n
u

d
e
g
a
s
i
v
n
e
/
n
e
k
a
t

o
N

o
N

o
N

o
N

o
N

O
N
O
N

/

O
N
O
N

/

O
N
O
N

/

O
N
O
N

/

O
N
O
N

/

38 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Methodology and criteria for 
assessing geographical balance 

Indicator(s) of (significant) 
imbalance 

Observed (significant) 
imbalance by 
Member State 

Objective justification of the imbalance 

No methodology or criteria are 
established. A methodology (if adopted), 
should take into account elements like the 
seat effect of the consequences of a 
decentralised location 

N/A 

One nationality represents 
40% of staff 

N/A 

e
r
u
t
u
f
d
e
t
c
e
p
x
E

e
c
n
a
l
a
b
m

I

o
N

e
r
u
s
a
e
m
e
t
a
i
r
p
o
r
p
p
A

l
a
i
c
o
s
(

O
N
O
N

/

7
2
.
t
r
A
r
e
d
n
u

d
e
g
a
s
i
v
n
e
/
n
e
k
a
t

s
e
r
u
s
a
e
m

)
d
e
g
a
s
i
v
n
e

Geographical balance is assessed at 
aggregate level (all function groups 
together, Temporary and Contract staff). 
Benchmark: the share of the relevant 
Member State population in the EU/EEA 
population  

Imbalance is observed when the 
actual share of nationals deviates 
from the benchmark  by more than 
+ 100% or – 50% 

Under-represented: NL, 
DE, LU (and Norway) 
Over-represented: EE, 
GR, IE, LV, LT, PT and 
SK 

Grading of jobs at EMA (lower than other 
agencies) render the agency less attractive for some 
nationalities. Follow-up of job mapping exercise 
may improve the situation. 

s
t
i
a
w
A

n
o
i
t
a
c
o
l
e
r

A

All member States should be represented 

Significant imbalance is observed if 
staff from one nationality represent 
more than 30% of staff 

No 

N/A 

Geographical balance is assessed at 
aggregate level (all function groups 
together). 
Benchmark: the share of the relevant 
Member State population in the EU 
population 

Significant imbalance is observed 
when the actual share of nationals 
deviates from the benchmark  by 
more than + 100% or – 50% 

Significantly under-
represented: FR, IT, UK 
Significantly over-
represented: PT, GR, BE 

Steadily decreasing correction coefficient 
Difficulty of employment for spouses 

o
N

s
e
Y

O
N
O
N

/

O
N
O
N

/

l
a
i
c
o
s

:
S
E
Y
O
N

/

)
e
r
u
s
a
e
m

Y
C
N
E
G
A

A
S
F
E

A
M
E

D
D
C
M
E

A
S
M
E

39 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Y
C
N
E
G
A

Methodology and criteria for 
assessing geographical balance 

Indicator(s) of (significant) 
imbalance 

Observed (significant) 
imbalance by 
Member State 

Objective justification of the imbalance 

A
S
I
N
E

Geographical balance is monitored and 
compared to population of Member 
States.  

Imbalance is observed if Staff from 
a specific nationality represents 
more than 50% of the total staff. 

NO 

N/A but Greece economic crisis and drop/low 
correction coefficient leads to majority of 
applicants with origin from the MS 

F
T
E

Count the number of nationalities 
represented 

Imbalance is observed if less than 
60% of nationalities are represented 
Significant imbalance if one 
nationality represents more than 
40% of all staff 

No 

N/A 

  Geographical balance is assessed at 
O
aggregate level (all function groups 
P
I
together). 
U
E
All member States should be represented 

Imbalance is observed if a member 
State is overrepresented compared 
to others, taking however into 
account its size 

Spain is overrepresented 

Seat effect 

Geographical balance is assessed at 
aggregate level (all function groups 
together). 
Benchmark: the share of the relevant 
Member State population in the EU 
population 

Not defined in the answer 

Underrepresented: DE, 
UK, SWE, DK, MT, SL 
No significant 
underrepresentation 

Seat effect: a presence of up to 30% of staff with 
nationality of the seat of assignment is tolerable 
Distant location of the Headquarters 
Low correction coefficient 
Difficulty of employment for spouses 

 Number of MS represented 

Not defined 

No 

N/A 

a
s
i
L
U
E

-

d
n
u
o
f
o
r
u
E

40 

e
r
u
t
u
f
d
e
t
c
e
p
x
E

e
c
n
a
l
a
b
m

I

e
r
u
s
a
e
m
e
t
a
i
r
p
o
r
p
p
A

7
2
.
t
r
A
r
e
d
n
u

d
e
g
a
s
i
v
n
e
/
n
e
k
a
t

o
N

o
N

o
N

o
N

O
N
O
N

/

O
N
O
N

/

O
N
O
N

/

O
N
O
N

/

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Y
C
N
E
G
A

s
u
j
o
r
u
E

x
e
t
n
o
r
F

Methodology and criteria for 
assessing geographical balance 

Indicator(s) of (significant) 
imbalance 

Observed (significant) 
imbalance by 
Member State 

Objective justification of the imbalance 

t

 N/A 

N/A 

No imbalance observed 
but NL group is the 
largest 

Seat effect 

Geographical balance is assessed at 
aggregate level (all function groups 
together). 
Benchmark: a mix of "equal distribution" 
(all Member States with an equal weight) 
and the share of the relevant Member 
State population in the EU population 

Significant imbalance is observed 
when 
  a nationality is not represented 

 

among staff 
the actual share of nationals 
deviates from the population 
share by more than +/- 50% 

Yes (both under 
representation and over 
representation 

No objective justification. 
However, the low correction coefficient applicable 
to Poland renders the agency less attractive 

e
r
u
t
u
f
d
e
t
c
e
p
x
E

e
c
n
a
l
a
b
m

I

e
r
u
s
a
e
m
e
t
a
i
r
p
o
r
p
p
A

7
2
.
t
r
A
r
e
d
n
u

d
e
g
a
s
i
v
n
e
/
n
e
k
a
t

o
N

O
N
O
N

/

o
t
d
e
k
n
i
l
(

s
e
Y

n
o
i
t
c
e
r
r
o
c

)
t
n
e
i
c
i
f
f
e
o
c

s
t
i
a
w
a
(

O
N
O
N

/

n
o
i
s
s
i
m
m
o
C

)
e
v
i
t
a
i
t
i
n
i

41 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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 

AD's officials & 
Temporary Staff 

Belgium 
Bulgaria 
Czech Republic 
Denmark 
Germany 
Estonia 
Ireland 
Greece 
Spain 
France 
Croatia 
Italy 
Cyprus 
Latvia 
Lithuania 
Luxembourg 
Hungary 
Malta 
Netherlands 
Austria 
Poland 
Portugal 
Romania 
Slovenia 
Slovakia 
Finland 
Sweden 
UK 
Total 

R
E
C
A

3 
2 
1 
0 
2 
0 
1 
4 
3 
4 
0 
6 
2 
0 
0 
0 
4 
0 
2 
1 
0 
1 
1 
10 
1 
0 
0 
0 
48 

P
O
F
E
D
E
C

7 
1 
2 
2 
10 
0 
0 
28 
3 
11 
0 
7 
0 
2 
0 
1 
0 
1 
2 
2 
1 
1 
3 
1 
1 
1 
0 
3 
90 

L
O
P
E
C

1 
0 
0 
1 
2 
1 
0 
2 
0 
0 
0 
1 
0 
1 
0 
0 
3 
0 
2 
1 
0 
0 
1 
0 
1 
0 
0 
0 
17 

O
V
P
C

0 
0 
0 
0 
2 
0 
1 
0 
2 
2 
0 
1 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
1 
2 
0 
0 
0 
0 
1 
0 
12 

C
D
C
E

6 
5 
1 
1 
14 
0 
0 
3 
2 
15 
0 
10 
0 
2 
0 
0 
3 
2 
2 
1 
1 
4 
3 
1 
1 
7 
15 
7 
106 

A
S
A
E

18 
6 
5 
5 
95 
1 
5 
10 
51 
125 
1 
74 
2 
3 
3 
0 
5 
0 
26 
8 
5 
11 
20 
4 
7 
7 
4 
43 
544 

A
E
E

4 
0 
0 
7 
10 
1 
3 
1 
3 
6 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
1 
0 
3 
1 
1 
4 
2 
1 
1 
1 
3 
6 
59 

A
P
O
E

I

4 
4 
2 
2 
10 
0 
2 
3 
9 
2 
0 
4 
0 
1 
0 
0 
2 
0 
7 
4 
2 
8 
0 
2 
0 
1 
0 
5 
74 

A
S
F
E

23 
0 
1 
1 
15 
0 
2 
8 
18 
17 
0 
78 
0 
1 
0 
3 
6 
0 
6 
9 
0 
8 
1 
0 
1 
1 
0 
13 
212 

*: 0.5 FTE converted to 1     **:  TA only 

)
*
*
(

A
S
M
E

5 
3 
1 
1 
7 
2 
3 
10 
15 
11 

10 
1 
1 
0 
0 
1 
3 
4 
1 
10 
28 
3 
0 
0 
2 
1 
9 
132 

A
S
N
E

I

1 
0 
1 
0 
2 
0 
2 
8 
1 
2 
0 
1 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
1 
2 
4 
0 
0 
0 
0 
1 
26 

F
T
E

4 
2 
0 
1 
5 
0 
2 
2 
4 
3 
0 
7 
1 
1 
0 
0 
0 
0 
4 
2 
0 
2 
2 
0 
0 
2 
1 
7 
52 

A
D
D
C
M
E

4 
3 
0 
0 
4 
0 
3 
0 
4 
5 
0 
5 
0 
1 
0 
1 
0 
0 
1 
0 
1 
6 
1 
0 
0 
0 
0 
8 
47 

A
M
E

15 
5 
2 
5 
28 
0 
13 
20 
40 
56 
2 
43 
0 
2 
1 
0 
4 
1 
1 
7 
8 
20 
8 
0 
3 
4 
6 
36 
330 

42 

O
P

I
-

U
E

13 
1 
6 
2 
36 
0 
6 
4 
48 
26 
0 
20 
0 
0 
4 
0 
5 
0 
8 
6 
11 
13 
2 
1 
2 
3 
1 
12 
230 

a
s
i
L
-
U
E

4 
3 
1 
0 
4 
4 
1 
5 
3 
17 
1 
8 
0 
0 
2 
0 
4 
0 
0 
0 
4 
1 
8 
0 
2 
0 
0 
0 
72 

d
n
u
o
f
o
r
u
E

3 
0 
0 
0 
4 
0 
6 
2 
6 
3 
0 
3 
0 
0 
1 
1 
2 
0 
4 
4 
1 
1 
0 
0 
0 
1 
2 
3 
47 

j

t
s
u
o
r
u
E

)
*
(

5 
2 
0 
0 
3 
1 
1 
6 
8 
3 
0 
7 
0 
2 
1 
0 
1 
0 
8 
2 
2 
2 
4 
2 
1 
0 
4 
6 
71 

x
e
t
n
o
r
F

4 
5 
2 
1 
9 
0 
1 
10 
8 
6 
1 
10 
0 
1 
5 
1 
8 
0 
4 
3 
23 
7 
13 
2 
2 
4 
0 
5 
135 

Total 

124 
42 
25 
29 
262 
10 
52 
126 
228 
314 
5 
295 
6 
18 
17 
7 
49 
7 
84 
52 
72 
121 
76 
24 
23 
34 
38 
164 
2,304 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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 

AD's officials & 
Temporary Staff 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Czech Republic 

Denmark 

Germany 

Estonia 

Ireland 

Greece 

Spain 

France 

Croatia 

Italy 

Cyprus 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

Hungary 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Austria 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovenia 

Slovakia 

Finland 

Sweden 

UK 

Total 
*: TA only 

R
E
C
A

6% 

4% 

2% 

0% 

4% 

0% 

2% 

8% 

6% 

8% 

0% 

13% 

4% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

8% 

0% 

4% 

2% 

0% 

2% 

2% 

21% 

2% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

P
O
F
E
D
E
C

8% 

1% 

2% 

2% 

L
O
P
E
C

6% 

0% 

0% 

6% 

O
V
P
C

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

C
D
C
E

6% 

5% 

1% 

1% 

A
S
A
E

3% 

1% 

1% 

1% 

11% 

12% 

17% 

13% 

17% 

0% 

0% 

31% 

3% 

12% 

0% 

8% 

0% 

2% 

0% 

1% 

0% 

1% 

2% 

2% 

1% 

1% 

3% 

1% 

1% 

1% 

0% 

3% 

6% 

0% 

12% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

6% 

0% 

6% 

0% 

0% 

18% 

0% 

12% 

6% 

0% 

0% 

6% 

0% 

6% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

8% 

0% 

17% 

17% 

0% 

8% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

8% 

17% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

8% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

3% 

2% 

14% 

0% 

9% 

0% 

2% 

0% 

0% 

3% 

2% 

2% 

1% 

1% 

4% 

3% 

1% 

1% 

7% 

14% 

7% 

0% 

1% 

2% 

9% 

23% 

0% 

14% 

0% 

1% 

1% 

0% 

1% 

0% 

5% 

1% 

1% 

2% 

4% 

1% 

1% 

1% 

1% 

8% 

A
E
E

7% 

0% 

0% 

12% 

17% 

2% 

5% 

2% 

5% 

10% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

2% 

0% 

5% 

2% 

2% 

7% 

3% 

2% 

2% 

2% 

5% 

10% 

A
P
O
E

I

5% 

5% 

3% 

3% 

14% 

0% 

3% 

4% 

12% 

3% 

0% 

5% 

0% 

1% 

0% 

0% 

3% 

0% 

9% 

5% 

3% 

11% 

0% 

3% 

0% 

1% 

0% 

7% 

A
S
F
E

11% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

7% 

0% 

1% 

4% 

8% 

8% 

0% 

37% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

1% 

3% 

0% 

3% 

4% 

0% 

4% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

6% 

A
M
E

5% 

2% 

1% 

2% 

8% 

0% 

4% 

6% 

12% 

17% 

1% 

13% 

0% 

1% 

0% 

0% 

1% 

0% 

0% 

2% 

2% 

6% 

2% 

0% 

1% 

1% 

2% 

A
D
D
C
M
E

9% 

6% 

0% 

0% 

9% 

0% 

6% 

0% 

9% 

11% 

0% 

11% 

0% 

2% 

0% 

2% 

0% 

0% 

2% 

0% 

2% 

)
*
(

A
S
M
E

4% 

2% 

1% 

1% 

5% 

2% 

2% 

8% 

11% 

8% 

0% 

8% 

1% 

1% 

0% 

0% 

1% 

2% 

3% 

1% 

8% 

13% 

21% 

2% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

2% 

0% 

0% 

2% 

1% 

7% 

A
S
N
E

I

4% 

0% 

4% 

0% 

8% 

0% 

8% 

31% 

4% 

8% 

0% 

4% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

4% 

8% 

15% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

4% 

F
T
E

8% 

4% 

0% 

2% 

O
P

I
-

U
E

6% 

0% 

3% 

1% 

10% 

16% 

0% 

4% 

4% 

8% 

6% 

0% 

13% 

2% 

2% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

8% 

4% 

0% 

4% 

4% 

0% 

0% 

4% 

2% 

13% 

0% 

3% 

2% 

21% 

11% 

0% 

9% 

0% 

0% 

2% 

0% 

2% 

0% 

3% 

3% 

5% 

6% 

1% 

0% 

1% 

1% 

0% 

5% 

a
s
i
L
-
U
E

6% 

4% 

1% 

0% 

6% 

6% 

1% 

7% 

4% 

24% 

1% 

11% 

0% 

0% 

3% 

0% 

6% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

6% 

1% 

11% 

0% 

3% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

d
n
u
o
f
o
r
u
E

6% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

9% 

0% 

13% 

4% 

13% 

6% 

0% 

6% 

0% 

0% 

2% 

2% 

4% 

0% 

9% 

9% 

2% 

2% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

2% 

4% 

6% 

j

t
s
u
o
r
u
E

7% 

3% 

0% 

0% 

4% 

1% 

1% 

8% 

11% 

4% 

0% 

10% 

0% 

3% 

1% 

0% 

1% 

0% 

11% 

3% 

3% 

3% 

6% 

3% 

1% 

0% 

6% 

8% 

x
e
t
n
o
r
F

3% 

4% 

1% 

1% 

7% 

0% 

1% 

7% 

6% 

4% 

1% 

7% 

0% 

1% 

4% 

1% 

6% 

0% 

3% 

2% 

17% 

5% 

10% 

1% 

1% 

3% 

0% 

4% 

Total 

5% 

2% 

1% 

1% 

11% 

0% 

2% 

5% 

10% 

14% 

0% 

13% 

0% 

1% 

1% 

0% 

2% 

0% 

4% 

2% 

3% 

5% 

3% 

1% 

1% 

1% 

2% 

7% 

11% 

17% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

43