THE BACKGROUND TO THE COMPLAINT

1. On 5 December 2008, the complainant sat written admission tests for Open Competition EPSO AD/126/08 in Brussels. On the same day, he submitted all the necessary documents in order to be reimbursed a contribution to his travel and subsistence costs. For participants travelling from Greece, this amounted to EUR 450.

2. On 24 December 2008, the complainant sent an e-mail to EPSO requesting information on the estimated date of payment. His inquiry was transmitted to EPSO's Reimbursement service. On 9 January 2009, the latter replied that his file would be handled shortly, but they were unable to provide him with a payment date.

3. By e-mail of 10 February 2009, the complainant complained to EPSO that the reimbursement procedure was lengthy and bureaucratic. On the same day, EPSO's Reimbursement service replied that the subject was outside of its competencies, since all payments had to be accepted by the European Commission's Directorate-General for Budget (DG BUDG). They apologised for the delay, but at the same time refrained from informing him of a date by which the reimbursement would be made.

4. On 16 February 2009, the complainant turned to the European Ombudsman.

THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE INQUIRY

5. On 10 March 2009, the Ombudsman opened an inquiry into the following allegation and claim.

Allegation:

The procedure followed in order to reimburse candidates' contribution to travel and subsistence costs is unreasonably lengthy.

Claim:

A faster and less bureaucratic procedure should be adopted.

THE INQUIRY

6. On 10 March 2009, the Ombudsman invited EPSO to comment on the complainant's allegation and claim. He also asked EPSO to provide a copy of the rules governing the reimbursement of candidates, to explain in detail the procedure for reimbursing candidates and to indicate why such reimbursements are outside of EPSO's control and responsibility. On 13 May 2009, EPSO sent its opinion, which was forwarded to the complainant for observations. The complainant submitted his observations on 30 July 2009.

THE OMBUDSMAN'S ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS

Preliminary remark

7. In the course of the inquiry, the complainant informed the Ombudsman that, on 20 March 2009, he received the reimbursement in question. He further confirmed that he did not wish to withdraw his complaint. The Ombudsman notes that, in the present case, the complainant did not submit his complaint with a view to being reimbursed. In fact, the complainant never challenged that EPSO would eventually reimburse his travel expenses, but instead wished to express his dissatisfaction about the procedure followed.

A. Alleged delay in the reimbursement of contribution to travel and subsistence costs and related claim

Arguments presented to the Ombudsman

8. The complainant argued that the delay in reimbursement imposes a heavy burden, especially on candidates who are unemployed or students. He added that he received the reimbursement in question more than three months after the day of the written exams. In his opinion, such a delay could not be justified, since the reimbursement is carried out on the basis of standard calculations and awarded to candidates according to the kilometric distance between their place of residence and the location of their nearest test centre. The complainant suggested that a faster and less bureaucratic procedure should be adopted.

9. EPSO explained that, after candidates submit the requested documents, its competent services conduct numerous checks at different levels. Once the reimbursement requests are validated by EPSO, they are transmitted to the Commission's DG BUDG, the authority empowered to make such payments. The above procedure was followed in the complainant's case. EPSO acknowledged that the above delay was long and may have caused difficulties for the complainant. In this respect, it apologised to him for any inconvenience caused.

10. Furthermore, EPSO informed the Ombudsman that the rules on reimbursement of contributions to travel costs are under revision and that a discussion is currently being held between EPSO's services and the relevant services of the European Commission. The main goal of the above revision is to simplify and clarify the procedure.

The Ombudsman's assessment

11. The Ombudsman notes that EPSO did not respond to his information request referred to in paragraph 6 above. However, in light of the current reform of EPSO's relevant procedures, the Ombudsman does not consider it necessary to pursue the request within the present inquiry.

12. With regard to the substance of the allegation and claim taken up for inquiry, EPSO appears fully to recognise that the reimbursement made in this case was unjustifiably delayed. It furthermore stated that, together with the Commission, it is currently revising the procedure to make it more clear and simple.

B. Conclusion

The Ombudsman warmly welcomes EPSO's apology to the complainant and considers that, in light of the above-mentioned revision of the reimbursement procedure, no further inquiries are justified. He will, however, issue a further remark below, to which EPSO should respond within six months, in the framework of the usual follow-up procedure to critical and further remarks.

Further remark

The Ombudsman invites EPSO to inform him about the outcome of the revision of the reimbursement procedure and of the time frame for its implementation, including concrete information on the sharing, if any, of responsibilities and tasks between EPSO and the Commission.

The complainant and EPSO will be informed of this decision.

 

P. Nikiforos DIAMANDOUROS

Done in Strasbourg on 17 September 2009