A reduction in grade for European Union (EU) agents can have significant consequences for their remuneration, career and future pension rights. When a staff member’s classification changes, it is necessary to examine the reasons for the decision, the safeguards that must be respected and the available avenues for challenging it.
The judgment in JS v Parliament of 7 October 2026 examined a temporary agent’s reduction from grade AD 15 to AD 10 within the administrators’ function group. One of its most significant aspects was the recognition that initial acceptance of a reduction in grade does not prevent the decision from being challenged later, preserving the possibility of seeking review of a measure affecting the agent’s professional and financial position. This article examines the safeguards applicable to a reduction in grade and the documents and deadlines that should be reviewed when preparing an administrative complaint and, where appropriate, subsequent court proceedings.
An indefinite contract and the right to retain a grade
An indefinite contract does not, in itself, guarantee that the same duties or grade will always be maintained. The duration of the employment relationship and the conditions attached to a post are separate matters. In JS v Parliament, the higher grade was linked to a temporary political role. Having an indefinite contract therefore did not, by itself, entitle the agent to retain that grade.
How, then, can the lawfulness of a reduction in grade for EU agents be assessed? When examining a reduction in grade for EU agents, the starting point is how the post and grade were obtained. The duties assigned and the contractual terms must be reviewed carefully to establish whether the grade was linked exclusively to specific responsibilities that have since ended. Both the change in duties and the newly assigned grade must also be justified. A reorganisation or change of management does not, on its own, make every reduction lawful.
💡 It is necessary to distinguish between a change in duties, a reduction in grade and a decrease in remuneration. These may occur together, as they did in this case, but they are not equivalent. Assessing the options for a complaint requires identifying exactly what the decision changes and how it affects the agent’s professional situation.
Can a decision be challenged after the new terms have been signed?
One of the most important safeguards confirmed by JS v Parliament is that signing a contractual amendment does not remove the right to challenge a reduction in grade within the EU civil service. In these proceedings, the European Parliament disputed the admissibility of the action on the grounds that the employee had signed the agreement and retained an indefinite contract. The General Court nevertheless held that a measure affecting duties, remuneration and pension rights could be challenged.
In this case, the loss of managerial responsibilities and the reduction from AD 15 to AD 10 constituted an act adversely affecting the agent. Signing the new terms did not remove that adverse effect or exclude judicial review. Otherwise, a potentially unlawful decision could escape judicial scrutiny simply because it had been incorporated into a signed document. The Court applied a safeguard already recognised in its case-law, particularly in the judgment in Ortega Urretavizcaya v Commission of 11 July 1996. Even where the amendment has already been signed, bringing an action allows the lawfulness of the measure to be examined, although any annulment will depend on the grounds and evidence submitted.
The facts of JS v Parliament
JS had worked for a political group in the European Parliament since 2015 as a temporary agent on an indefinite contract under Article 2(c) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union (CEOS). He had previously served as head of unit and reached grade AD 10. In 2022, he was appointed secretary-general of the group and assigned grade AD 15 through an amendment to his contract.
The situation changed after the European elections in June 2024. A new secretary-general was appointed on 3 July, followed by meetings and exchanges about JS’s future duties. On 23 July, he signed a contractual amendment assigning him political advisory duties at grade AD 10, step 1, with effect from 1 August. He retained grade AD 15 and the corresponding remuneration until 31 July. His employment therefore continued, but with different responsibilities and a lower grade. To challenge that decision, JS lodged an administrative complaint on 22 October 2024. After receiving an unfavourable response on 21 March 2025, he brought an action before the General Court.
Why the General Court upheld the reduction from AD 15 to AD 10
The contractual amendment set out the new duties and grade but did not expressly explain the reasons for the reduction. In assessing whether adequate reasons had been given, the Court also considered the information already known to JS and the explanations provided in the response to his administrative complaint under Article 90(2) of the EU Staff Regulations.
Although the agent knew that a new secretary-general had been appointed, that the role was temporary and that the group had only one AD 15 post, attached to the secretary-general’s position, the obligation to provide sufficient reasons for the decision still applied.
The right to be heard requires an opportunity to submit observations
When EU temporary agents face a reduction in grade, the right to be heard is a fundamental safeguard. Before an adverse decision is adopted, the agent must be given an opportunity to explain their position. In this case, the Court considered that the preceding meetings and communications had allowed JS to comment on his professional future. It also took into account that he was not required to sign the amendment immediately upon receiving it. What mattered was whether there had been an opportunity to be heard, even if the exchanges had not been formally described as a hearing.
💡 It is therefore important to gather all emails and meeting notes to establish what information was communicated, and when, and whether the agent had an opportunity to present their position before the institution took its final decision.
Grade AD 15 was linked to a temporary political role
The European institutions have discretion to organise their services, but must act in the interests of the service and ensure that the duties correspond to the grade assigned. In this case, the role of secretary-general of the political group had a particular feature: it depended on elections and the support of the group’s leadership. Grade AD 15 had been awarded for the performance of that temporary role. The European Parliament therefore did not recognise an entitlement to retain it once those responsibilities had ended.
The Court also examined Article 10(3) of the CEOS. Although this provision requires a contractual amendment when a higher grade is assigned, the General Court held that it could not be interpreted as prohibiting assignment to a lower grade in the circumstances of the case. The Parliament’s internal rules on changes in duties were also taken into account.
As regards the new assignment, grade AD 10 was considered compatible with the administrative and political advisory duties entrusted to JS, and no mismatch between those duties and the grade had been established. His experience was compatible with those responsibilities, and no head-of-unit post was available. Having previously held such a position did not give him an automatic right to return to it.
Challenging proportionality required evidence of alternatives
Assessing the proportionality of a reduction in grade for EU staff requires consideration of its professional and financial consequences. A reduction of five grades clearly had a significant impact on the agent. However, the scale of that reduction was not enough to establish that the measure was disproportionate. The Court also examined whether less detrimental options were available to the institution. Its assessment took into account the existence of only one AD 15 post, reserved for the secretary-general, and the retention of the previous grade and remuneration until 31 July 2024.
💡 In practice, a complaint arguing that the institution could have adopted less detrimental measures instead of reducing the grade should identify specific alternatives, explain what they involve and demonstrate that they were genuinely available.
Each measure must be assessed in light of the individual employee’s circumstances. In this case, for example, a transition period of several weeks was taken into account. That does not mean that the same arrangement will be appropriate in every case.
The agent’s interests had to be taken into account
When changing an employee’s situation, the administration must consider their personal and professional interests alongside the needs of the service. This obligation requires a balancing of interests. In JS’s case, the Court considered that several measures had addressed his interests: temporarily maintaining his previous remuneration, allowing him to continue working until he completed the ten years of service relevant to his pension rights, and involving him in defining his new duties. The Court therefore found the Parliament’s assessment sufficient, even though the decision remained unfavourable to JS.
Which safeguards does this judgment reinforce and who is affected?
The judgment does not provide a general authorisation for reductions in grade for EU agents. Its main lesson is that signing a contractual amendment does not, in itself, prevent the underlying decision from being challenged before the General Court. This is an important safeguard for agents facing a change in duties or grade.
The judgment also identifies the matters that should be examined when defending staff rights. These include whether sufficient reasons were given, whether there was an opportunity to submit observations and be heard, and whether the new grade corresponds to the duties assigned. The assessment should also consider how the agent’s interests were weighed and which alternatives might have been available. JS was a temporary agent under Article 2(c) of the CEOS and had obtained grade AD 15 through a temporary political role. The judgment therefore does not provide a general justification for reducing the grade of a permanent official or an agent employed under different conditions.
In practical terms, the judgment highlights the importance of retaining all employment documents, including the contract, its amendments and related communications. It also offers a wider lesson for EU staff: decisions affecting a professional career are subject to legal safeguards and may be reviewed by a court, with their lawfulness assessed individually in light of the circumstances of each case.
Where a change in duties occurs in a context of professional isolation, repeated misconduct or possible retaliation, our analysis of workplace harassment in the European institutions may also be useful. These situations require a separate assessment and should not be confused with a reduction in grade.
How to respond to a reduction in grade for EU agents
A reduction in grade can affect years of professional progress, remuneration and pension rights. Challenging a measure that changes an EU staff member’s duties, classification or financial entitlements requires an individual assessment. A review of the case should include:
- The contract or appointment decision and any amendments, to establish how the grade was acquired and which conditions govern the employment relationship.
- The decision and its notification, to identify the measure that can be challenged and check the deadlines.
- The previous and new duties, together with the internal rules, to assess whether the assigned grade corresponds to the responsibilities involved.
- Emails and earlier communications, to determine whether an opportunity to submit observations was provided.
- Payslips and information on pension rights, to establish the financial impact of the change.
- Available posts or alternatives, to assess whether less detrimental options could have been adopted.
Understanding the financial impact also requires reviewing the components of remuneration. Where an allowance is received, our guide to the EU expatriation allowance explains its conditions and calculation.
Seeking legal advice as soon as the change is communicated allows its consequences to be assessed, potential irregularities to be identified and a response to be prepared within the applicable deadlines. An assessment of the case can be requested from our firm. Our analysis is tailored to each employee’s legal status and focuses on the safeguards that may be relied upon and the available options.
How to challenge a decision and which deadlines apply
When challenging a reduction in grade for EU staff, it is important to review the decision, the available remedies and the deadlines under the applicable rules. Preparation should begin with the first communication, identifying the act that can be challenged and the arguments that may be raised. For temporary agents, Article 46 of the CEOS refers to the remedies provided by the Staff Regulations. The ordinary procedure under Articles 90 and 91 comprises the following stages.
Prior administrative complaint under Article 90 of the EU Staff Regulations
The first step is to lodge a complaint with the competent authority of the institution within three months. For an individual decision, the period runs from notification and, in any event, no later than the date on which the person concerned became aware of it. How and when the measure was communicated must therefore be checked carefully. The complaint should identify the decision being challenged, the grounds of objection and the action requested from the administration.
💡 A well-prepared complaint allows the measure to be reviewed and lays the groundwork for any subsequent action before the General Court.
For more detail on identifying the challengeable decision and preparing this initial stage, see our guide to the prior complaint under Article 90(2) of the EU Staff Regulations.
The European institution’s response
The administration has four months from the date the complaint is lodged to respond. If no response is received within that period, the complaint is deemed to have been rejected by an implied decision.
💡 The absence of a response must therefore be monitored, as the expiry of that period starts the time limit for bringing an action before the General Court.
Bringing an action before the General Court
If the complaint is rejected, an action may be brought within three months of notification of the unfavourable response or of the implied rejection. If an express rejection is notified after the implied rejection but before the time limit for bringing an action expires, that time limit starts running again.
The time limit for court proceedings is extended by a single period of ten days on account of distance. This extension does not apply to the prior administrative complaint. The procedural rules on calculating time limits and non-working days must also be considered when determining the exact deadline.
Preparing the case from the outset
The judgment in JS v Parliament illustrates why the administrative complaint must be prepared carefully. One argument raised before the Court—that a new contract should have been concluded instead of amending the existing one—was held inadmissible because it had not been raised in the prior complaint. It is also important to remember that lodging a complaint does not automatically suspend implementation of the decision. If interim measures are needed to provide protection while the case is pending, their availability must be assessed separately.
💡 Practical advice: The administrative complaint should be treated as the foundation of the case. Arguments omitted at this stage may be difficult to rely on before the Court later. The case should therefore be prepared thoroughly from the outset.
The administrative complaint must identify why the decision is being challenged. Although some arguments may be developed further before the General Court, objections that the institution has had no opportunity to examine should not be left until the court application. At Arthur & Marin, we review the decision, notification dates and supporting documents to assess the available options and prepare the administrative complaint.
Our legal assessment and its implications for future cases
As discussed above, the General Court distinguishes between accepting a document and examining whether its contents comply with the applicable rules. In cases involving a reduction in grade for EU agents, this safeguard preserves judicial scrutiny even where the employment relationship continues and the agent has accepted the new terms.
The relationship between the post and the grade is decisive
In future cases, we consider it important to establish whether the grade was linked to a temporary responsibility or had been acquired through another route during the employee’s career. The judgment does not allow these situations to be treated as equivalent.
Knowing that a post will change does not mean knowing all the consequences
The General Court considered that the preceding meetings and communications had allowed the agent to express his position and understand the reasons for the change. This illustrates the importance of exchanges with the European institution. In our view, however, other cases will require a close examination of what information was provided and when. Knowledge of the new grade, duties or loss of remuneration cannot always be presumed. If these details are communicated only after the decision has been taken, compliance with the right to be heard may be called into question.
The choice of the new grade must also be examined
One of the most important issues raised by the judgment is the distinction between explaining why particular duties have ended and justifying the new classification. Explaining why AD 15 cannot be retained does not, by itself, explain why AD 10 rather than another grade should be assigned. The judgment examined whether the new duties were compatible with the new grade. In other cases, the actual responsibilities should likewise be assessed against the classification of the new post.
Alternatives should be supported by evidence from the administrative complaint stage
The General Court also attached importance to alternatives, particularly whether less detrimental solutions could have been applied. It is therefore useful to identify those options and provide evidence showing that they are, or were, genuinely available. In our view, a complaint will be stronger when it clearly explains what is being challenged, why and on what evidence. This judgment provides an important reference for future cases involving EU staff, identifying the matters on which legal scrutiny should focus: how the grade was obtained, the information received, the new responsibilities and the available alternatives.
Legal advice on a change in duties or grade
At Arthur & Marin, we provide legal advice to EU officials and agents facing decisions affecting their duties, grade, remuneration or career. In cases involving a reduction in grade for EU agents, we assist from the outset by reviewing the file, preparing the administrative complaint and, where appropriate, representing the client before the General Court. We examine the available options and deadlines without waiting for informal exchanges with the institution to conclude. Each case is assessed individually by our team specialising in European Union law, taking into account the employee’s safeguards, the evidence and the available grounds of challenge.
Contact us by email at info@arthurmarin.com or by telephone on +32 465 345 345, briefly identifying the institution, the measure communicated and the date of notification.
💡 Has a reduction in grade or a change in duties been notified? Request a legal assessment of the situation to understand the available options and the deadlines that must be met. Contact our firm to discuss how to protect a professional career and prepare a response in time.
