R&D by your side in the upcoming scientific competitions!
Here are the tools and assistance that we are going to offer:
1) Personal Coaching Services for Administrators
EU Training helps EPSO candidates tackle weaknesses through personal coaching services. EU career experts help you review and improve your EPSO application, CV and Talent Screener.
This service is offered with 30% discount to our members! Join us to receive your discount code.
2) CBT online package www.eutraining.eu
Computer Based Test online packages are also available with a 30% discount to our members! Join us to receive your discount code.
3) Training on CBT via videoconference
For the internal competitions AST-SC, AST 2, AST 4, AD 6, 7, 8, 10 and 12 R&D offers free training to its members on CBT (AST-SC, AST 2 and AD 6). These sessions take place in Brussels. In case you cannot attend our training in person in Brussels, we also offer a videoconference session from Ispra on the following dates:
- 26.02.2019 - 17:30-19:30: Verbal and Abstract Reasoning
- 12.03.2019 - 17:30-19:30: Numerical Reasoning
4) 2-day intensive Assessment Centre training course
A 2-day training free of charge to R&D Members who have passed the talent screener will be organised in Ispra on 8th and 9th of July 2019. The course will be held by Phil Gaskell, an expert in training for EPSO tests.
The topics covered in the training are:
• Case Study
• Specific Competence Interview
• Oral Presentation
• Group Exercise
Further information will be given closer to the training date.
Being R&D member provides a wealth of advantages. Don't miss the opportunity to start enjoying our offers immediately!
Kind regards,
Your R&D Team
Car registration in Italy
The Your Europe pages for EU citizens make it clear that you may be fined:
• if you have to register your car but you fail to do so on time
• if you don't pay the relevant taxes
• if you drive with a number plate from another EU country without a proof of residency and a valid road-worthiness test.
Note that it is also specified that if you haven't registered your car in your new country, you may not lend or rent it to a resident of that country if you aren't in the car with him/her.
Additionally, the recently approved (December 2018) so-called 'decreto sicurezza', has added a further provision that anyone resident for 60 days in Italy may only drive an Italian registered car. Failing to comply with this law will likely entail very large fines (of over €700) and also possible seizure of the foreign-registered vehicle. This recent legislation will probably mean an increased vigilance on this matter by law enforcement personnel, and it also has an immediate impact on enforcement – whereas it was not straightforward for an officer to ascertain that a foreign registered vehicle had been in Italy for 12 months it is much more straightforward to ascertain residency. We are aware of a case of at least one large fine and vehicle confiscation already having taken place in the province based on this new provision (see the JRC Ispra Welcome Desk post on @Connected about Registration of cars in Italy, which provides the official guidance from our employer on this matter).
R&D would welcome better harmonisation of EU legislation which currently constrains freedom of movement around the EU. Indeed the Commission is fully aware that the obligation to register a motor vehicle in another country when it is already registered in the country of origin has been a source of complaints all over Europe for many years and has attempted to address the issue. R&D is also concerned about the excessively short 60 day residency period in the new Italian regulation and are seeking advice as to whether it is compatible with EU free movement rules. We are also entering discussions with the JRC regarding the full implications.
Nevertheless, it remains the case that working at JRC Ispra implies being resident (see our FAQs related to residency requirements), and therefore meeting the legal obligation to drive a locally registered car (as indeed is the case for EC staff in Belgium and Luxembourg). Beyond the registration issues, we would remind colleagues that a foreign-based car insurance may not be valid when a vehicle is used mainly in Italy.
R&D offers the following services in order to help colleagues with foreign registered cars and who wish to continue to use them and/or import them into Italy:
• Multilingual support in launching the importation procedure of a vehicle
• Recommendation of a professional, reliable and competent agency which will take care of the importation procedure
• Ditto also for the conversion of foreign driving licences
• A discount on agency fees (discount on government taxes is obviously not possible)*
• Explanation on how to pay Italian car tax (bollo)
We are also currently in discussions with a local insurance company to obtain recognition of the accident free years of driving from a foreign vehicle insurance (bonus-malus).
Finally, we remind colleagues returning home for a visit to e.g. France, Germany or Austria with their Italian registered car to always bring proof of Italian residency with them!
*Details of Studio Zeta convention for R&D members
REGISTRATION IN ITALY OF FOREIGN REGISTERED VEHICLE
Cost: €70 Agency fees (instead of €85)+ Variable costs/Government taxes*.
*The Variable Costs/Government taxes cost depends on a number of factors and could be on average around €500.
Individual quotations will be provided on request directly by Studiozeta.
Documentation needed: identity card, Codice Fiscale, current vehicle registration, vehicle technical documentation
CONVERSION OF DRIVING LICENCES (A/B type)
Cost: €100 Agency fees (instead of €115) + €25 for medical visit*.
*The medical visit is compulsory.
Documentation needed: "old" driving licence, identity card, Codice Fiscale, 3 passport photos.
Appointments are available on Mondays and Fridays every week.
Please contact the R&D secretariat for further details.
Upcoming Scientific Competitions
We have strongly insisted on the need to organise scientific competitions over the last few years. Finally, the JRC has acknowledged that projected numbers of retirements over the next years make it necessary to recruit permanent staff in the near future.
In recent months the GT-CCR (Groupe Technique Coordination Concours Recherche), which has members from both administration and staff representatives, has been working on steering the process for an upcoming external (open to all EU citizens) competition for Scientific Research Administrators (AD7). The JRC, in collaboration with EPSO and DG.HR, is completing preparations for a new public competition to create a reserve list for subsequent recruitment of AD grade permanent staff.
The details of the competition are still being finalised and cannot be made public at this stage. In the meantime, we would like to reassure you that all details are being scrutinised to ensure a fair and successful competition for the future recruitment plans of the JRC and which will provide opportunities for talented scientists, also including those currently working as temporary staff.
We particularly welcome the fact that this competition is part of a new permanent plan for recruitment, aiming at launching ad-hoc competitions every year, with alternating AD and AST competitions. While we would have preferred to see an AST competition launched next year (in parallel with the AD one), we may comprehend the rationale to hold it in 2020 – provided that the recruitment plan will be implemented as promised, with a clear commitment to anticipate future retirements with full replacement by permanent staff, and no shift towards precariousness.
At a recent joint committee meeting, our DG has unambiguously confirmed to staff representatives that there are no plans to alter the current permanent vs temporary staff ratio, and that frequency of future competitions and numbers of laureates in each will be aimed at ensuring this ratio is maintained. He clarified that a previously advertised 30% permanent vs non-permanent ratio is intended as a minimum target for each Unit, intended to correct upwards units with a currently low ratio, and not as a downwards target for the JRC as a whole.
We will keep on monitoring that promises of today will not become the fake news of tomorrow.
Last but not least, internal competitions will soon be launched and the Head of DG.HR Mrs Souka recently agreed that the research field should be considered for these competitions, but it is unclear how this will actually be implemented. Mrs Souka also agreed that internal competitions should be more regular so that ALL talented and dedicated temporary staff have a fair chance to benefit from these opportunities.
"Solidarity sale in support of Amatrice"
R&D Ispra is proud to join and support the solidarity action in favour of Amatrice carried out by R&D Brussels since last year:
"Solidarity sale in support of Amatrice"
"24/08/2016: Amatrice and other prosperous touristic villages in Central Italy got hit by a terrible earthquake. Two years later these places are still lying in ruins and the inhabitants feel abandoned…"
Help Amatrice become once again the beautiful land we remind!
How? By buying Parmigiano Reggiano DOP by 7th September 2018:
Click here to place your order of "PARMIGIANO REGGIANO DOP" (in the form you will find the description of the product, the link to his producer, the price per kilo and a report of donations collected in the past).
As the date of the payment is requested in the above linked application form, before placing your order is necessary to transfer money by bank transfer to:
Account owner: R&D BRUSSELS - IBAN : BE26 3101 1895 5129
Description: “Solidarity sale of Parmigiano – Purchase of ….. KG - NAME, First name "
Important! Please note that the description mentioned will be very important for accounting reasons, in order to identify the correct destinations of your donation!
In order to organise the deliveries, please, send a copy of your bank transfer to R&D Ispra Secretariat by sending a message to JRC-R&D-ISPRA@ec.europa.eu
•The delivery is scheduled for the end of September and you will be informed by R&D Ispra Secretariat when and where (at Ispra) to collect your order.
•If you need more information, do not hesitate to contact our secretariat (9645)!
Related posts:
1.Solidarity sale of parmesan – 17/05/2017
2.Solidarity sale of parmesan report - 03/07/2018
3.New solidarity sale of parmesan – 12/07/2018
Call for action against privileged recruitments
"Junior Programme"
Alias
"buddies first"
R&D shares the anger of staff, but we
do not limit ourselves to simply denouncing the
indecent nature of this programme.
R&D has created an art. 90 template which
any staff member may use to lodge a formal complaint.
- Who can lodge a complaint: any official, contract agent, trainee or other member of staff, regardless of grade or function group.
- Why lodge a complaint: because of the preferential nature of this programme, which does not guarantee a fair and transparent recruitment procedure.
- How to submit a complaint:
==> complete
the enclosed template with your personal data
(fields highlighted in yellow), print, sign and scan it;
==> send the signed scanned PDF to HR MAIL E2 no later than 7 September 2018, i.e. within three months from the publication of the CEI notice;
==> if you wish, notify us that you have lodged this complaint.
We can't blindly pretend that everything is just fine: together, let's put an end to this scandalous procedure!
We invite everybody to join this action and we remind that lodging an appeal is a staff right that can produce no negative effect!
We invite everybody to join this action and we remind that lodging an appeal is a staff right that can produce no negative effect!
Related post:
New Composition of the Local Staff Committee Ispra- Seville
Following the great result of AnotheR&Dimension at the recent LSC elections, on June 26th, Athanasios Katsogiannis was
elected new President of the LSC Ispra-Seville
by 2/3 of the new LSC elected members, ensuring continuity with the excellent
work carried out by the outgoing LSC President, Davide Auteri.
We are proud
for the support that staff have demonstrated to AnotheR&Dimension and its ambitious programme Ispra Heart of EU. Thanks to it, we have
been able to set our vision for the future of Ispra as a main target for the activity
of the next LSC, as formally agreed by a large majority of LSC members.
Once more, AnotheR&Dimension confirms its values:
Once more, AnotheR&Dimension confirms its values:
"Standing up for one set of Staff Regulations for all institutions and places of employment, protecting the rights of the colleagues, the equality of treatment, the transparency of procedures, fighting against abuses. Solidarity being the foundation of our joint action, we do not spare our efforts to assist and defend our colleagues in precarious situations, without ever making deceptive promises, nor playing demagogy."
Thank you all!
Note to Commissioner Oettinger on appointment of Mr Selmayr as new Secretary-General and on other appointments
Brussels, 23 March 2018
Note to Mr Günther OETTINGER
Commissioner in charge of Budget and Human Resources
A major political crisis that severely damages the reputation of our institution
It is with consternation that the staff became aware of the spate of articles from an indignant press (see press review in annex) of the stormy climate of your hearing at the EP (Commission’s Integrity Policy, in particular the appointment of the Secretary-General of the Commission … see the video), and of the 140 questions that COCOBU (link) has just sent to the Commission as part of the ongoing investigation in view of the vote of the plenary of the EP, planned for 18 April.
This is purely and simply a first!
However, we note that, about the appointment of the new Secretary-General, your answer firmly resumes the same arguments you put forward during your hearing of 12 March at the European Parliament — hearing which did trigger major outcry —, immediately relayed by a press, as indignant as the MEPs, unanimously highlighting the Commission’s lack of awareness of the seriousness of the situation.
Your attempt to convince your political and media interlocutors that the criticisms they expressed against this appointment would be unfounded, that the Commission had, in this case, “religiously respected the letter and the spirit of the Staff Regulations” in a gesture worthy of the “2018 Ideal Procedure Award”, proved to be perfectly vain, if not counter-productive.
The clearly predictable consequence of your speaking in Parliament will have been — as MEP Verhofstadt, who is certainly not a Eurosceptic or an enemy of our institution, confirmed to President Juncker (link) — that, for the first time of this legislature, ALL the deputies, regardless of their political orientation or the strength of their commitment to the European project, rebelled against and totally rejected your explanations.
Everybody accused the Commission of “treating them as children” or “as fools” or that “you had to be blind, deaf and stupid” to believe your words.
And to highlight the seriousness of the crisis of confidence, Mr Verhofstadt openly said that the Juncker Commission was taking the risk of following the fate of the Santer Commission.
Yesterday it was the turn of the delegations in the Council to express their criticism by inviting the Commission to cooperate loyally with the EP.
No, Commissioner, the Staff Regulations has nothing to do with it, and it is out of the question that the staff will undergo yet another punitive reform, as in 2004.
Worse still: by trying at all costs to convince that, in proceeding with this appointment, the Commission had simply religiously respected the Staff Regulations, you suggested that the Commission could soon do it again with other jobs / officials.
It was therefore inevitable that the only possible political response to your defense tactics was to urgently demand you… a change in Staff Regulations! This is exactly what several members told you during your hearing.
However, in your reply, it was with great surprise that we took note of your response to the MEPs about a possible reform of our Staff Regulations: “if you want to change it, we will have to talk about it” and that “(…) the Staff Regulations can be changed.”
However, in this controversy, the Staff Regulations have nothing to do with it: the general principles of equal treatment of potential candidates, publicity and transparency of the selection procedures of officials within the Union’s institutions are well stated in our Staff Regulations and are fundamental rules to which the institution cannot derogate.
This is what we are asking you to strongly reaffirm during your hearing on March 27 before the COCOBU.
The Commission’s implementation decisions need to be improved in-depth
The internal decisions and procedures of the Commission implementing these provisions must be amended to meet the expectations of the press, the EP, the European Ombudsman, the public opinion but also and above all, of your staff, who has the right to ensure that the vocation of staff to pursue a career within the institution is taken into account, in order to avoid the massive use of transfers in the interest of the service, so as to not publish the posts and to not make a real comparative analysis of the applications, or to abruptly dismiss colleagues and totally politicize the nominations, etc.
Similarly, we must put an end once and for all to the hateful practice of the “elevator”, namely the appointment, sometimes even through an “external” procedure, of a cabinet member to a managerial position that s/he will actually never hold, to be seconded right after to a cabinet, sometimes the same, having thus acquired the grade and level of a job never practiced, and to the “parachuting” of which Mr Selmayr himself — with very clear and praiseworthy remarks — so well recognized the harmful consequences, subsequently denied by the facts and that we obviously were the only ones to take seriously (read our notes of 28/02/2018, 09/01/2018, 02/06/2017, 16/05/2017, 22/03/2017, 06/02/2017).
In addition, it is also necessary that the Administration commits to fully assuming its role of guardian of our Staff Regulations and ceases to appear as a simple and docile linchpin!
This commitment is all the more urgent as many more “parachuting” have already been announced before the end of the Juncker Commission.
As to the rest, we believe it is appropriate to deal, without further delay though with humility and lucidity, with the reservations expressed towards this appointment and to provide the explanations, which the Commission must communicate, in a transparent manner.
We must start by immediately correcting a disastrous communication strategy that has largely contributed to the outbreak of the current political crisis.
Procedures “Ã la carte”?
In the Commission’s first press statements, it was quite inappropriate to let believe that in our institution the choice of the procedure for filling the posts would be left to the candidate’s discretion (but obviously not just any…), like a menu of the day.
Instead of contributing to the confusion, the Commission should have clarified the basic difference between the grade of a staff member and the level of her/his employment as a result of her/his normal career progression, and those which can to be attributed to her/him during a temporary secondment to a cabinet.
Articles 37 and 38 of the Staff Regulations are unambiguous in this respect: the level of the job held within a cabinet and the corresponding grade are, by nature, only temporary.
At the end of such secondment, the officer resumes her/his career at the grade and level of employment s/he held before her/his secondment.
Insofar as Article 29 of the Staff Regulations strictly regulates the way the institution can provide for the employment of Deputy-SG, the explanations initially given, claiming that Mr Selmayr would have chosen the “most difficult” procedure, not only lack any legal basis, but they have undeniably added legal controversy to political polemics, suggesting that, in our institution and with regard to our Staff Regulations, the choice of procedure would be left to the discretion of the candidate (but obviously not just any…), Ã la carte!
How many applications for the post of Deputy Secretary-General? “Several”, then “Less than four”, then “only two” and finally “only one”… Will anyone go lower?
Likewise, it is inconceivable to have surrendered as the Commission did, to contradictory successive statements as to the number of candidates for the post of Deputy Secretary-General, varying (depending on the outside temperature?) from “several” to “less than four”, to “only two”… to end up admitting that “only one”, that of Mr Selmayr, remained in competition after the other candidature was withdrawn just before the beginning of the evaluation procedure.
During your hearing at the EP, we noted that you have not denied the statements made by the press or contradicted those of the Members on this issue. They all tended to say that, during the selection procedure for the filling of the post of Deputy Secretary-General, no comparative analysis of the candidatures had been possible, since the only other application submitted by the President’s deputy head of cabinet had been withdrawn before the start of the evaluation procedure and that only Mr Selmayr was a candidate for the post.
Without waiting for this to be revealed and thus sparing our institution the suspicion of non-transparency, which has hung over it ever since in the international press, the Commission should have therefore confirmed in all sincerity and from the outset how the procedure had unfolded.
To that end, why did you try to trivialize the process of appointing the Deputy Secretary-General, stating as you do in your reply, that it is normal, in the context of a nomination procedure, that “certain applications are withdrawn “?
You forgot that, in the present case, not only were there only two applications, but the second was almost immediately withdrawn and came from a colleague who was subject to the direct authority of the successful candidate and who, once the appointment was decided, took the place that had remained free!
To cut short and to appreciate the so-called banal character of such a situation, can you tell us if such a situation has already been verified, even just once, in the history of our institution?
Rather than trying to claim that Mr Selmayr’s choice was made following the comparative analysis of several candidates, the Commission would have done better to assume its political responsibility by waiving its right to re-publish the call for applications to create new ones.
It is now urgent to provide the appropriate explanations in relation to aspects that it is useless to continue to deny and the Commission must assume the political responsibility for its decisions.
It is perfectly useless to deny the unique nature of the concomitance between the appointment of Mr Selmayr as Deputy Secretary-General and his transfer, the next minute, to the Secretary-General’s seat, which was still warm by the incumbent who had just resigned.
The Commission can at most try to defend the full legality of this unique phenomenon of perforation of the administrative space-time on the grounds that there is no legal provision expressly prohibiting it, according to a model stating that it would be “forbidden to forbid what is not”.
To cut short and in order to appreciate the supposedly ordinary nature of the approach that the Commission is trying to defend, can you tell us in how many other cases this double procedure has been followed in such a small space-time?
It is equally useless to deny the unprecedented nature of the choice of a Secretary-General who has never previously exercised responsibility for an operational service. Just as it is futile to refuse to assume the political responsibility for such a choice, which undoubtedly constitutes a profound break with the usual practice in this area ever since the creation of our institution.
To date, the secretaries-general \who succeeded Mr Emile Noel had come from the ranks of colleagues, all of whom had actually held senior management positions, even Director-General in a DG.
Our aim is not to question the professional qualities of Mr Selmayr or the formal legitimacy of the President to appoint the Secretary-General of an institution he presides.
Nevertheless, it is impossible to deny that, in this case and for the first time in the history of our institution, the choice fell on a colleague who had no experience of supervising a European operational service.
Explaining and assuming the political responsibility for such a surprising break with past practices: this is what your interlocutors have kept asking you, tirelessly, without ever getting an answer.
Blunt dismissal of management of three Directors-General: Unum castigabis, centum emendabis?
We also note that in your reply you did not feel it was necessary to answer our questions concerning the treatment, for the least expeditious, reserved to three of our colleagues Directors-General who were informed, within a few minutes of interview and without prior notification, of the irrevocable decision to terminate their duties immediately, a decision to be ratified the morning after by the College.
We had, however, pointed out that your explanations on this issue were all the more necessary because an imaginative press was already fantasizing about the possibility that these decisions actually came from the future-ex-head of cabinet of the president / future-new Secretary-General, who would have begun to shape the Commission “by dismissing Directors-General he did not like”.
Should we regard your silence on this aspect of the case as a benevolent guarantee of the method used?
Did the Commission also “religiously respect the spirit and the letter of the Staff Regulations” since they contain no written provision prohibiting such a procedure — quickly and informally implemented, in half an hour, from 6pm to 6:30pm — and they do not establish any specific format for the composition of the high-level delegation responsible for announcing the “good news”?
Why bother with these brief interviews the day before when a tweet would have done the deal, especially because “it is not prohibited”?
From the Commission “is not the Montessori School” to the set of “The Apprentice” (“You are fired!”): Is this the first application of a new management culture?
To stay with the television metaphor introduced by the press, which considers that the Commission suddenly became the set of “House of Cards”, we are more tempted here by the scenario of “The Apprentice: “You are fired!”.
As several members asked you during your hearing, it is necessary to deny unambiguously that it would actually be a question of implementing a new managerial style based on fear and no longer on loyal collaboration, definitely favouring blind obedience to the detriment of initiative and the collective independence of its staff. This would be a direct attack on the interests of the Union, its institutions and its public service.
This is also what we are asking you to strongly deny.
It is necessary to deny as clearly and equally, any political will to question the independence of our Legal Service, a real pride of our institution!
In the same vein, the staff was particularly shocked by the press articles and the questions raised by the deputies, reporting an alleged will to question the independence of our Legal Service, which carries out every day, as Politico says, a “sanity check” of our institution, and to place it under the authority of the Secretary-General.
Such a dismantling of the service responsible for ensuring respect for the rule of law in the Commission since 1958 would further aggravate the crisis of confidence between officials and the public vis-Ã -vis the institution.
We must not forget that the independence and excellence of our Legal Service is also a fundamental guarantee for European citizens who are entitled to be reassured that all the decisions adopted by our institution are fully respectful of the legal framework in force.
The rather timid and very vague denials, so far pronounced, are far from being able to allay these fears.
We are therefore asking you to reassure the staff and external observers by formally confirming that the Commission, all throughout the duration of its mandate, has no intention to:
In addition, in order to dispel the information reported in the press, announcing that this post will be subject to a further “parachuting” by simple transfer in the interest of the service, it is urgent to also confirm that, in the event that the current Director-General of the Legal Service would retire before the end of the term of office of this Commission, the choice of his successor will be the subject of the publication of an open and transparent selection procedure, since the appointment for the post of Head of the Legal Service is one of the most sensitive.
Conclusion
In view of the foregoing, we would be grateful if you could answer our questions, so that we could actually answer the questions of our colleagues, in the collective interest, and to safeguard the reputation of the whole institution already weakened by the unfortunate management of the Barroso case, and now undermined by this new political and media crisis that should have been carefully avoided while the European project is being challenged and subjected to populist attacks from all sides.
President
CC:
Mr J-C Juncker, President
Ladies and Gentlemen College Members
Mr M. Selmayr, Secretary General
Mr L. Romero Requena, DG SJ
Ms I. Souka, DG DGHR
Mr C. Roques, Mr L. Duluc DG HR
Mr Verhofstadt, MEP
Staff of the European institutions
For Press review and related posts, please read more...
Subject : Your reply of 9 March to our note of 28 February concerning
the College’s decisions of 21 February on the appointment of Mr Selmayr
as the new Secretary-General and on several other appointments of
Directors-General and Deputy Directors-General.
In our note dated 28 February (link) we had drawn your attention to the deep perplexity voiced by the staff of the Commission and other institutions vis-Ã -vis these appointments, and we had relayed various questions to you.
As part of the frank and open dialogue with staff representatives that
you wished to establish, we would like to express our disappointment on
the clarifications put forward in your reply of 9 March (link).
Unfortunately, these do not meet the questions we are entitled to ask
ourselves and, above all, they remain surprisingly silent on some of
them.
Regarding the massive support reactions of our colleagues to our approach
As a starting point, I would like to inform you that, after the
circulation of our notes on this hot topic to your attention as well as
to Mr Selmayr’s (who still hasn’t unanswered to this day…), we recorded
unprecedented support and strong encouragement to relentlessly continue
our efforts for the general interest, and we would like to sincerely
thank the hundreds of colleagues who have shown their support to the
difficult task of calling you to greater lucidity on the events and on
their potential consequences.
These reactions are all the more significant given the heavy climate of fear and forced loyalty that broke out within the services to which the brutal dismissal of our three colleagues Directors-General has undoubtedly contributed. This is how most of our colleagues confirmed the informal nature of their signs of support.
The message we are sending you, on behalf of our colleagues, is very clear: in the name of the general interest, your staff is not willing to pay the consequences of the political and media crisis triggered by the appointment of the new Secretary-General, and even less keen to be imposed a new reform of the Staff Regulations.
These reactions are all the more significant given the heavy climate of fear and forced loyalty that broke out within the services to which the brutal dismissal of our three colleagues Directors-General has undoubtedly contributed. This is how most of our colleagues confirmed the informal nature of their signs of support.
The message we are sending you, on behalf of our colleagues, is very clear: in the name of the general interest, your staff is not willing to pay the consequences of the political and media crisis triggered by the appointment of the new Secretary-General, and even less keen to be imposed a new reform of the Staff Regulations.
A major political crisis that severely damages the reputation of our institution
It is with consternation that the staff became aware of the spate of articles from an indignant press (see press review in annex) of the stormy climate of your hearing at the EP (Commission’s Integrity Policy, in particular the appointment of the Secretary-General of the Commission … see the video), and of the 140 questions that COCOBU (link) has just sent to the Commission as part of the ongoing investigation in view of the vote of the plenary of the EP, planned for 18 April.
This is purely and simply a first!
However, we note that, about the appointment of the new Secretary-General, your answer firmly resumes the same arguments you put forward during your hearing of 12 March at the European Parliament — hearing which did trigger major outcry —, immediately relayed by a press, as indignant as the MEPs, unanimously highlighting the Commission’s lack of awareness of the seriousness of the situation.
Your attempt to convince your political and media interlocutors that the criticisms they expressed against this appointment would be unfounded, that the Commission had, in this case, “religiously respected the letter and the spirit of the Staff Regulations” in a gesture worthy of the “2018 Ideal Procedure Award”, proved to be perfectly vain, if not counter-productive.
The clearly predictable consequence of your speaking in Parliament will have been — as MEP Verhofstadt, who is certainly not a Eurosceptic or an enemy of our institution, confirmed to President Juncker (link) — that, for the first time of this legislature, ALL the deputies, regardless of their political orientation or the strength of their commitment to the European project, rebelled against and totally rejected your explanations.
Everybody accused the Commission of “treating them as children” or “as fools” or that “you had to be blind, deaf and stupid” to believe your words.
And to highlight the seriousness of the crisis of confidence, Mr Verhofstadt openly said that the Juncker Commission was taking the risk of following the fate of the Santer Commission.
Yesterday it was the turn of the delegations in the Council to express their criticism by inviting the Commission to cooperate loyally with the EP.
No, Commissioner, the Staff Regulations has nothing to do with it, and it is out of the question that the staff will undergo yet another punitive reform, as in 2004.
Worse still: by trying at all costs to convince that, in proceeding with this appointment, the Commission had simply religiously respected the Staff Regulations, you suggested that the Commission could soon do it again with other jobs / officials.
It was therefore inevitable that the only possible political response to your defense tactics was to urgently demand you… a change in Staff Regulations! This is exactly what several members told you during your hearing.
However, in your reply, it was with great surprise that we took note of your response to the MEPs about a possible reform of our Staff Regulations: “if you want to change it, we will have to talk about it” and that “(…) the Staff Regulations can be changed.”
However, in this controversy, the Staff Regulations have nothing to do with it: the general principles of equal treatment of potential candidates, publicity and transparency of the selection procedures of officials within the Union’s institutions are well stated in our Staff Regulations and are fundamental rules to which the institution cannot derogate.
This is what we are asking you to strongly reaffirm during your hearing on March 27 before the COCOBU.
The Commission’s implementation decisions need to be improved in-depth
The internal decisions and procedures of the Commission implementing these provisions must be amended to meet the expectations of the press, the EP, the European Ombudsman, the public opinion but also and above all, of your staff, who has the right to ensure that the vocation of staff to pursue a career within the institution is taken into account, in order to avoid the massive use of transfers in the interest of the service, so as to not publish the posts and to not make a real comparative analysis of the applications, or to abruptly dismiss colleagues and totally politicize the nominations, etc.
Similarly, we must put an end once and for all to the hateful practice of the “elevator”, namely the appointment, sometimes even through an “external” procedure, of a cabinet member to a managerial position that s/he will actually never hold, to be seconded right after to a cabinet, sometimes the same, having thus acquired the grade and level of a job never practiced, and to the “parachuting” of which Mr Selmayr himself — with very clear and praiseworthy remarks — so well recognized the harmful consequences, subsequently denied by the facts and that we obviously were the only ones to take seriously (read our notes of 28/02/2018, 09/01/2018, 02/06/2017, 16/05/2017, 22/03/2017, 06/02/2017).
In addition, it is also necessary that the Administration commits to fully assuming its role of guardian of our Staff Regulations and ceases to appear as a simple and docile linchpin!
This commitment is all the more urgent as many more “parachuting” have already been announced before the end of the Juncker Commission.
As to the rest, we believe it is appropriate to deal, without further delay though with humility and lucidity, with the reservations expressed towards this appointment and to provide the explanations, which the Commission must communicate, in a transparent manner.
We must start by immediately correcting a disastrous communication strategy that has largely contributed to the outbreak of the current political crisis.
Procedures “Ã la carte”?
In the Commission’s first press statements, it was quite inappropriate to let believe that in our institution the choice of the procedure for filling the posts would be left to the candidate’s discretion (but obviously not just any…), like a menu of the day.
Instead of contributing to the confusion, the Commission should have clarified the basic difference between the grade of a staff member and the level of her/his employment as a result of her/his normal career progression, and those which can to be attributed to her/him during a temporary secondment to a cabinet.
Articles 37 and 38 of the Staff Regulations are unambiguous in this respect: the level of the job held within a cabinet and the corresponding grade are, by nature, only temporary.
At the end of such secondment, the officer resumes her/his career at the grade and level of employment s/he held before her/his secondment.
Insofar as Article 29 of the Staff Regulations strictly regulates the way the institution can provide for the employment of Deputy-SG, the explanations initially given, claiming that Mr Selmayr would have chosen the “most difficult” procedure, not only lack any legal basis, but they have undeniably added legal controversy to political polemics, suggesting that, in our institution and with regard to our Staff Regulations, the choice of procedure would be left to the discretion of the candidate (but obviously not just any…), Ã la carte!
How many applications for the post of Deputy Secretary-General? “Several”, then “Less than four”, then “only two” and finally “only one”… Will anyone go lower?
Likewise, it is inconceivable to have surrendered as the Commission did, to contradictory successive statements as to the number of candidates for the post of Deputy Secretary-General, varying (depending on the outside temperature?) from “several” to “less than four”, to “only two”… to end up admitting that “only one”, that of Mr Selmayr, remained in competition after the other candidature was withdrawn just before the beginning of the evaluation procedure.
During your hearing at the EP, we noted that you have not denied the statements made by the press or contradicted those of the Members on this issue. They all tended to say that, during the selection procedure for the filling of the post of Deputy Secretary-General, no comparative analysis of the candidatures had been possible, since the only other application submitted by the President’s deputy head of cabinet had been withdrawn before the start of the evaluation procedure and that only Mr Selmayr was a candidate for the post.
Without waiting for this to be revealed and thus sparing our institution the suspicion of non-transparency, which has hung over it ever since in the international press, the Commission should have therefore confirmed in all sincerity and from the outset how the procedure had unfolded.
To that end, why did you try to trivialize the process of appointing the Deputy Secretary-General, stating as you do in your reply, that it is normal, in the context of a nomination procedure, that “certain applications are withdrawn “?
You forgot that, in the present case, not only were there only two applications, but the second was almost immediately withdrawn and came from a colleague who was subject to the direct authority of the successful candidate and who, once the appointment was decided, took the place that had remained free!
To cut short and to appreciate the so-called banal character of such a situation, can you tell us if such a situation has already been verified, even just once, in the history of our institution?
Rather than trying to claim that Mr Selmayr’s choice was made following the comparative analysis of several candidates, the Commission would have done better to assume its political responsibility by waiving its right to re-publish the call for applications to create new ones.
It is now urgent to provide the appropriate explanations in relation to aspects that it is useless to continue to deny and the Commission must assume the political responsibility for its decisions.
It is perfectly useless to deny the unique nature of the concomitance between the appointment of Mr Selmayr as Deputy Secretary-General and his transfer, the next minute, to the Secretary-General’s seat, which was still warm by the incumbent who had just resigned.
The Commission can at most try to defend the full legality of this unique phenomenon of perforation of the administrative space-time on the grounds that there is no legal provision expressly prohibiting it, according to a model stating that it would be “forbidden to forbid what is not”.
To cut short and in order to appreciate the supposedly ordinary nature of the approach that the Commission is trying to defend, can you tell us in how many other cases this double procedure has been followed in such a small space-time?
It is equally useless to deny the unprecedented nature of the choice of a Secretary-General who has never previously exercised responsibility for an operational service. Just as it is futile to refuse to assume the political responsibility for such a choice, which undoubtedly constitutes a profound break with the usual practice in this area ever since the creation of our institution.
To date, the secretaries-general \who succeeded Mr Emile Noel had come from the ranks of colleagues, all of whom had actually held senior management positions, even Director-General in a DG.
Our aim is not to question the professional qualities of Mr Selmayr or the formal legitimacy of the President to appoint the Secretary-General of an institution he presides.
Nevertheless, it is impossible to deny that, in this case and for the first time in the history of our institution, the choice fell on a colleague who had no experience of supervising a European operational service.
Explaining and assuming the political responsibility for such a surprising break with past practices: this is what your interlocutors have kept asking you, tirelessly, without ever getting an answer.
Blunt dismissal of management of three Directors-General: Unum castigabis, centum emendabis?
We also note that in your reply you did not feel it was necessary to answer our questions concerning the treatment, for the least expeditious, reserved to three of our colleagues Directors-General who were informed, within a few minutes of interview and without prior notification, of the irrevocable decision to terminate their duties immediately, a decision to be ratified the morning after by the College.
We had, however, pointed out that your explanations on this issue were all the more necessary because an imaginative press was already fantasizing about the possibility that these decisions actually came from the future-ex-head of cabinet of the president / future-new Secretary-General, who would have begun to shape the Commission “by dismissing Directors-General he did not like”.
Should we regard your silence on this aspect of the case as a benevolent guarantee of the method used?
Did the Commission also “religiously respect the spirit and the letter of the Staff Regulations” since they contain no written provision prohibiting such a procedure — quickly and informally implemented, in half an hour, from 6pm to 6:30pm — and they do not establish any specific format for the composition of the high-level delegation responsible for announcing the “good news”?
Why bother with these brief interviews the day before when a tweet would have done the deal, especially because “it is not prohibited”?
From the Commission “is not the Montessori School” to the set of “The Apprentice” (“You are fired!”): Is this the first application of a new management culture?
To stay with the television metaphor introduced by the press, which considers that the Commission suddenly became the set of “House of Cards”, we are more tempted here by the scenario of “The Apprentice: “You are fired!”.
As several members asked you during your hearing, it is necessary to deny unambiguously that it would actually be a question of implementing a new managerial style based on fear and no longer on loyal collaboration, definitely favouring blind obedience to the detriment of initiative and the collective independence of its staff. This would be a direct attack on the interests of the Union, its institutions and its public service.
This is also what we are asking you to strongly deny.
It is necessary to deny as clearly and equally, any political will to question the independence of our Legal Service, a real pride of our institution!
In the same vein, the staff was particularly shocked by the press articles and the questions raised by the deputies, reporting an alleged will to question the independence of our Legal Service, which carries out every day, as Politico says, a “sanity check” of our institution, and to place it under the authority of the Secretary-General.
Such a dismantling of the service responsible for ensuring respect for the rule of law in the Commission since 1958 would further aggravate the crisis of confidence between officials and the public vis-Ã -vis the institution.
We must not forget that the independence and excellence of our Legal Service is also a fundamental guarantee for European citizens who are entitled to be reassured that all the decisions adopted by our institution are fully respectful of the legal framework in force.
The rather timid and very vague denials, so far pronounced, are far from being able to allay these fears.
We are therefore asking you to reassure the staff and external observers by formally confirming that the Commission, all throughout the duration of its mandate, has no intention to:
- modify the organizational chart of the Legal Service;
- transfer it under the authority of the Secretary-General;
- change the structure, functioning and tasks of the Legal Service as they currently exist;
- take any action whatsoever that would undermine the independence of the Legal Service, or prevent it from providing the College with frank, objective and complete legal advice;
- prevent the Legal Service from continuing to file written submissions in all the prejudicial questions referred to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling.
In addition, in order to dispel the information reported in the press, announcing that this post will be subject to a further “parachuting” by simple transfer in the interest of the service, it is urgent to also confirm that, in the event that the current Director-General of the Legal Service would retire before the end of the term of office of this Commission, the choice of his successor will be the subject of the publication of an open and transparent selection procedure, since the appointment for the post of Head of the Legal Service is one of the most sensitive.
Conclusion
In view of the foregoing, we would be grateful if you could answer our questions, so that we could actually answer the questions of our colleagues, in the collective interest, and to safeguard the reputation of the whole institution already weakened by the unfortunate management of the Barroso case, and now undermined by this new political and media crisis that should have been carefully avoided while the European project is being challenged and subjected to populist attacks from all sides.
Cristiano Sebastiani,
President
CC:
Mr J-C Juncker, President
Ladies and Gentlemen College Members
Mr M. Selmayr, Secretary General
Mr L. Romero Requena, DG SJ
Ms I. Souka, DG DGHR
Mr C. Roques, Mr L. Duluc DG HR
Mr Verhofstadt, MEP
Staff of the European institutions
For Press review and related posts, please read more...
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)
