Background to the complaint

1. The complainant, who lives in Belgium, applied for a post at the European Medicines Agency (EMA). EMA invited him to sit a test at its premises, at the time in London (United Kingdom)^[1].

2. The complainant asked EMA how much he would be reimbursed for his travel from Brussels (Belgium) to London. EMA informed him that it reimburses part of the travel expenses of applicants participating in its staff selection procedures by applying a flat-rate system, based on the linear distance between the applicant’s place of residence and EMA’s premises. The flat-rate amounts are pre-established for specific ‘distance intervals’^[2].

3. In subsequent correspondence with EMA, the complainant disagreed with its reimbursement policy. Since the complainant was not happy with EMA´s response to his concern, he turned to the Ombudsman in April 2018.

The inquiry

4. The Ombudsman opened an inquiry into the complainant’s concern that EMA’s travel reimbursement policy for job applicants is discriminatory.

5. During the inquiry, the Ombudsman asked EMA to clarify its rules on the reimbursement of travel expenses in staff selection procedures.

Arguments presented to the Ombudsman

6. The complainant argued that EMA’s policy to reimburse only a part of the travel expenses is unfair. Other EU agencies fully reimburse the travel expenses of job applicants. In addition, EMA´s flat-rate system is discriminatory for those applicants who have to travel longer distances. In the complainant´s view, people who cannot afford the travel cost might be deterred from applying for a job with EMA.

7. The complainant also argued that the travel reimbursement rules for job applicants are unjustifiably less advantageous than the travel reimbursement rules for EU staff.

8. EMA argued that its reimbursement policy is not discriminatory. It is based on objective data, such as the average of the actual expenses incurred by applicants in previous years^[3] and statistics on airfares provided by EMA’s travel agent. The reason why the flat-rate amounts are not in exact proportion to the travel distance is because a number of factors other than distance can affect travel costs, such as flight frequency, accessibility of other means of travel, airport taxes and so on. EMA’s reimbursement policy is based on, but is more favourable than, the policy applied by the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO), which is the EU body responsible for selecting the major part of EU staff.

9.  EMA also stated that a reimbursement policy based on flat-rate contributions allows for better budgetary management and entails a more reasonable administrative workload than reimbursement of actual costs.

The Ombudsman's assessment

10. The rules governing the employment conditions of EU staff provide that the EU institutions and bodies should seek to recruit staff on the broadest possible geographical basis from among nationals of EU Member States^[4]. While the institutions and bodies have a margin of discretion in determining how best to do this, it is clear that part-payment of travel costs to sit tests and attend interviews is one particularly important way of encouraging applications from a geographically diverse pool. That said, there is no specific requirement for all EU institutions and bodies to apply the same travel reimbursement rules, as long as the rules they apply are reasonable and fair.

11. The Ombudsman understands that it is for the purpose of geographical diversity that EMA reimburses part of the travel expenses of applicants participating in its staff selection procedures. EMA’s decision to apply a flat-rate reimbursement policy, a practice shared by many other EU institutions and bodies, allows it to reconcile this purpose with sound management of financial and administrative resources. EMA’s explanation of the methodology used to determine the flat rate amounts is reasonable.

12. Regarding the complainant´s argument that EMA’s reimbursement rules for job applicants are unjustifiably less advantageous than the reimbursement rules for EU staff, the Ombudsman notes that that these two categories of rules serve different purposes. EMA is thus not obliged to apply the same reimbursement rules to job applicants as it is to EU staff.

13. Having taken account of the arguments set out above, the Ombudsman finds no maladministration.

Conclusion

Based on the inquiry, the Ombudsman closes this case with the following conclusion:

There is no maladministration in this case concerning the reimbursement policy applied by the European Medicines Agency for its staff selection procedures.

The complainant and EMA will be informed of this decision.

 

Emily O'Reilly

European Ombudsman

Strasbourg, 10/09/2019

 

 

[1] On 1 March 2019, EMA relocated to Amsterdam (the Netherlands).

[2] See table in Annex (included in EMA’s Decision of the Executive Director on the contribution to travel and subsistence expenses for the candidate invited to attend a selection procedure (test, interview) or a medical examination, EMA/65520/2018, 1 April 2018, available at: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/other/decision-executive-director-contribution-travel-subsistence-expenses-candidates-invited-attend_en.pdf).

[3] Under a previous reimbursement policy, EMA reimbursed the actual travel costs of job applicants.

[4] See Article 27 of the Staff Regulations of Officials and Articles 12 and 82 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A01962R0031-20140501