# Decision in case 1708/2018/NH on the European External Action Service’s approach to the ‘travel days’ granted to staff working in an EU civilian mission in Africa
- Author: European Ombudsman
- Date: 2019-04-11T00:00+02:00[Europe/Paris]
- [URL](https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/decision/en/112442)
---
> The case concerned how the European External Action Service (EEAS) handled a complaint by a staff member in an EU civilian mission in Africa concerning a new policy for granting 'travel days. Travel days are additional leave days given when staff members go on holiday entailing a long trip.
>
> In the course of the inquiry, the EEAS settled its initial failure to reply to the complaint. On the basis of the explanations given by the EEAS, the Ombudsman found the new policy on travel days to be a logical understanding of the applicable rules. The Ombudsman therefore closed the inquiry with a finding of no maladministration.
>
Background to the complaint
---------------------------
**1.** The complainant works as an international staff member for an EU civilian mission^[\[1\]](#_ftn1){#_ftnref1}^ in an African country.
**2.** When taking annual leave, mission staff members have a right to additional leave days in the form of "travel days" to compensate for the usually long travel given the remote geographical location of EU missions. The rules in place, laid down in the Mission's operational plan ("the OPLAN"), give staff members one travel day per month to be used together with leave outside the Mission area. This applies only when the trip lasts 12 hours or more. Those rules should be in accordance with the Mission's administrative notice.^[\[2\]](#_ftn2){#_ftnref2}^
**3.** On 28 June 2018, the Mission sent an administrative notice to its staff stating that, as of that date, the number of travel days would be limited to one day *per completed return journey* per month. The notice specified, as an example, that if the leave is taken for travel over two months, one travel day may be granted for the month of departure, or for the month of return if the staff member already benefited from a travel day during the month of departure.
**4.**The complainant challenged the administrative notice, arguing that it unfairly reduced the number of travel days given to mission staff members. He therefore asked the European External Action Service (EEAS) to annul the administrative notice.
**5.**Having received no reply from the EEAS, the complainant turned to the Ombudsman in October 2018.
The inquiry
-----------
**6.**The Ombudsman opened an inquiry into the failure of the EEAS to reply to the complainant's concerns regarding the administrative notice allegedly reducing the right of staff members to travel days.
**7.**In the course of the inquiry, the Ombudsman received the reply of the EEAS on the complaint and, subsequently, the comments of the complainant.
The new policy on 'travel days'
-------------------------------
### Arguments presented to the Ombudsman
#### On the procedure
**8.**The EEAS initially argued that the complainant had used the wrong channel to complain about the administrative notice. According to the EEAS, the complainant should have addressed his Head of Mission. Following the Ombudsman's intervention, the EEAS nevertheless replied to the complaint on the substance.
#### On the substance
**9.** The complainant argued that the administrative notice violated the OPLAN, because it limited the number of travel days for staff members compared to the rights set out in the OPLAN. The Mission's administrative notice should set out *the details* of the rules in the OPLAN, not *restrict* the rules in the OPLAN. The complainant considered that the administrative notice discriminates against staff members who take leave less often.
**10.**The EEAS argued that the administrative notice did not depart from the OPLAN as it did not take away the right to travel days. Heads of Mission should have the necessary flexibility to interpret the rules in place to take into account the reality of the host country.
### The Ombudsman's assessment
**11.**The Ombudsman welcomes the fact that the EEAS has replied to the complainant on the substance, despite initially arguing that his complaint was inadmissible. The EEAS has thus settled this aspect of the complaint to the Ombudsman.
**12.** On the substantive issue, the Ombudsman considers reasonable the interpretation of 'travel days' set out in the administrative notice adopted by the Head of Mission. In the Ombudsman's view, one travel day per month ***per completed return journey*** is a more logical, and fair, understanding of the rule in the OPLAN than the previous policy, which made the number of travel days dependent on whether the completed return journey - no matter how short - took place within the same calendar month or over two calendar months. On the basis of the above, the Ombudsman finds no maladministration regarding this aspect of the case.
Conclusions
-----------
Based on the inquiry, the Ombudsman closes this case with the following finding:{#_ftnref3}
**The European External Action Service has settled the issue of failure to reply to the complaint about the administrative notice on travel days. The Ombudsman finds no maladministration regarding the content of that administrative notice.**
The complainant and the EEAS will be informed of this decision.
Tina Nilsson
Head of Inquiries - Unit 4
Strasbourg, 11/04/2019
[\[1\]](#_ftnref1){#_ftn1} EU missions are civilian or military overseas operations undertaken by the European Union. EU missions are taking place in Europe, Africa and Asia and are part of the EU's Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP).
[\[2\]](#_ftnref2){#_ftn2} Annex 8 of the Mission's operational plan (OPLAN), which is a confidential document classified as "EU RESTRICTED".