{"id":9288,"date":"2026-10-01T17:22:53","date_gmt":"2026-10-01T15:22:53","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/u4unity.eu\/?post_type=link&p=9288"},"modified":"2026-10-02T10:57:37","modified_gmt":"2026-10-02T08:57:37","slug":"the-link-n119","status":"publish","type":"link","link":"https:\/\/u4unity.eu\/en\/link\/the-link-n119\/","title":{"rendered":"The Link n\u00b0119"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

<\/span>2026 promotion exercise: the process is now in its final phase<\/strong><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n
\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

The 2026 promotion process is now entering its final phase. After the stages of merit comparison, consultation, and appeal examination, the final promotion decisions will be made by the Appointing Authority (AIPN) in mid-November, before the relevant administrative information is published.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The entire promotion process is beneficial as it enables clearer assessment of colleagues’ merits and ensures career progression is merit-based.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A structured procedure based on merit comparison<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

As a reminder, the annual promotion exercise began on 7 April 2026, after the appraisal exercise had finished. Initially, the directors consulted the appraisers. Subsequently, senior management in each Directorate-General conducted a comparative analysis to compile a draft list of officials proposed for promotion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Between 4 May and 3 June, each Director-General discussed their proposals with a delegation appointed by the Central Staff Committee. This two-way dialogue is an important stage in the procedure. Its purpose is to ensure the correct application of the rules and uphold the fundamental principle set out in Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, namely that promotion must be based on a genuine and fair comparison of the merits of eligible officials.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To this end, the following factors must be taken into account: performance reports since the last promotion, language skills, and level of responsibility.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The vital role of staff representatives<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

We are pleased that dialogue between the administration and staff representatives is an integral part of the procedure. It is through these discussions that we can effectively defend our colleagues, promote fairness, and address any questionable assessments. The text also states that the Director-General may amend the list of proposed promotions following these discussions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

While these discussions generally take place properly, certain situations continue to cause problems. For example, during these discussions, the administration sometimes claims that appraisal reports ‘do not fully reflect reality’ in order to justify not proposing a colleague for promotion. In this context, the role of staff representatives is all the more important.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Publication of nominations: a decisive step<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

On 11 June 2026, the list of colleagues nominated for promotion by the DGs was published in SYSPER and forwarded to the Joint Promotion Committee. Each colleague could therefore view their promotion file, as well as the nominations made by their DG and the Commission as a whole, via the ‘Promotion’ menu in SYSPER.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This publication is not merely a formality. It marks the start of a five-working-day period during which colleagues who have not been nominated can submit an appeal directly via their promotion file in SYSPER. In 2026, this option was available until 18 June.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is important to note that half-days count as full days when calculating this deadline, which may have prevented some colleagues from submitting an appeal in time.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The right of appeal must be exercised in full<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

We would like to make it clear that colleagues who have not been nominated are fully entitled to challenge this decision, provided that their career progression, commitment and performance justify a promotion. This step is essential. Promotion must depend on transparent, consistent and fair comparisons of merits, not opaque arrangements.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The performance reports, language skills and level of responsibility of all eligible colleagues must be assessed in a clear and consistent manner. If there is a discrepancy between the quality of an application and the decision not to recommend a promotion, it is legitimate to exercise one\u2019s right of appeal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Joint promotion committees are a practical means of rectifying injustices<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Following the appeal phase, the applications were examined by the preparatory groups of the joint promotion committees from 7 to 9 September. They are then due to be considered by the joint committees themselves in October. These bodies comprise administration and staff representatives appointed for this purpose. They will examine the proposals from the Directors-General, as well as the appeals and exceptional requests, before issuing their final recommendations to the Appointing Authority.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The joint promotion committees play a decisive role. They can recommend extra promotions to the Appointing Authority and have quotas representing 5 per cent of the total promotion quotas at their disposal for this purpose. This is an important tool, enabling certain injustices to be rectified and cases not recognised at DG level to be championed. We are delighted that the full range of quotas was utilised in 2026.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Remember these key points about the process:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The promotion process therefore involves several successive stages:<\/p>\n\n\n\n