In recent weeks, a petition presented as an initiative of a “collective” of contract and temporary staff has gathered significant support across the institutions, calling for improvements in the working and career conditions of non-permanent staff. The proposals put forward aim to enhance mobility, career prospects, and access to permanent positions for contract agents (CAs) and temporary agents (TAs), in a context where their contribution to the functioning of the institutions is widely recognised. Against this backdrop, AACIE wishes to contribute to the discussion by providing a constructive assessment of the proposed measures and by outlining areas where more structural solutions may be needed.
AACIE shares the concern for improving the conditions of contract and temporary staff and acknowledges the engagement shown by the many signatories of the recent appeal. However, AACIE considers that the measures proposed in this petition fall short of addressing the structural problems facing contract agents and, in some respects, risk perpetuating the very precariousness they aim to resolve.
The appeal was launched by the Contract and Temporary Staff Collective, an initiative which, to AACIE’s knowledge, is coordinated by a specific trade union rather than constituting an independent collective of contract agents (CAs) and temporary agents (TAs).
The document rightly acknowledges the essential contribution made by contract and temporary staff to the functioning of the institutions and recognises the need for career prospects, mobility, and a degree of professional continuity. AACIE also welcomes specific proposals, such as allowing staff members’ children to complete their educational cycle in European Schools even if the employment contract is terminated early. However, AACIE wishes to highlight several shortcomings in the overall approach.
First, key proposals remain vague on implementation. In particular, the call to “organise” a transition from CA to TA contracts does not specify the development of a binding mechanism. In the absence of such mechanisms — which do not exist under the current framework — the decision on contract transitions would remain entirely at the discretion of the administration, typically at Unit or DG level. This is already the case today. The proposal thus creates an expectation without suggesting the means to fulfil it adequately.
Second, while the appeal presents a number of measures as structural improvements, several of them reflect arrangements that are already possible or already in place. Internal competitions for CAs and TAs already take place at a frequency comparable to that proposed—namely, four competitions for permanent civil service posts over a six-year period for contract staff. In practice, internal competitions at AD5 and AD6 level are, in principle, organised every two years, while TAs have access to more frequent competitions and without level restrictions. The more meaningful reform would be to remove the minimum three-year service requirement that applies to all CAs in order to be eligible for internal competitions—a point that the appeal does not address.
Other proposals, such as interinstitutional mobility mechanisms and transfers between function groups, are welcome aspirations, but as formulated they remain incremental adjustments within the existing fragmented system rather than steps toward genuine structural reform.
Third, the proposed succession of CA and TA contracts would extend precarious employment for up to 12 years. AACIE acknowledges that the stated objective—enabling staff to accrue pension rights—is both legitimate and important. However, subjecting staff to 12 years of precarious employment represents a disproportionate trade-off for pension eligibility and entails a prolonged period of significant uncertainty. This approach runs counter to the principles imposed on Member States, which prohibit the prolonged use of fixed-term contracts and their termination for purely utilitarian reasons — notably to reduce staff costs by replacing experienced staff with younger and less costly workers performing the same tasks. A reform genuinely aimed at securing pension rights should not require over a decade of contractual precariousness to achieve them.
Rather than addressing the root causes of these problems — arbitrariness, randomness, and precariousness — the proposals risk institutionalising them while offering expectations to staff that the current framework cannot deliver.
AACIE recognises the good intention behind this initiative. At the same time, AACIE believes that any meaningful reflection on the future functioning of the institutions — including in the context of the high-level group led by Ms Catherine Day and ongoing assessments — must move beyond incremental or cosmetic measures and directly confront the structural imbalances affecting contract staff.
AACIE’s position is that the fundamental problem lies in the fragmentation of staff categories itself. Any genuine reform must pursue the convergence and harmonization of the contractual framework for CAs, TAs, and permanent staff, ensuring a clear and predictable pathway from fixed-term to permanent employment. This objective must be guided by principles applicable to all categories of staff: equal pay for equal work, equal opportunities, transparency in recruitment and open access to career development, and fair treatment across staff categories, with the ultimate goal of eliminating existing structural discrimination.
Your Title Goes Here
Your content goes here. Edit or remove this text inline or in the module Content settings. You can also style every aspect of this content in the module Design settings and even apply custom CSS to this text in the module Advanced settings.