Background to the complaint

1. In November 2017, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) invited the complainant to a job interview at its premises, at the time in London, UK^[1]. The complainant, who was living in Boston, USA, booked a direct return flight to London.

2. EMA informed the complainant that, according to its travel reimbursement rules in place at the time^[2], travel from outside the EU would be reimbursed only from the point of entry into the European territory of the EU Member State which is nearest to the place of the candidate´s residence. In the complainant´s case, that point of entry was considered to be Cork, Ireland. As the complainant had booked a direct flight from the USA to London, EMA agreed to reimburse him the cost of a return flight ticket from Cork to London.

3. In subsequent correspondence with EMA, the complainant disagreed with its reimbursement policy. Dissatisfied with EMA´s response to his concern, the complainant turned to the Ombudsman in May 2018.

The inquiry

4. The Ombudsman opened an inquiry into the complainant’s concern that EMA’s travel reimbursement policy was unfair and discriminatory. The complainant wanted EMA to reimburse his return flight ticket from Boston to London.

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 reimbursement rules discriminated against candidates who could not afford to travel and who, as a result, were excluded from staff selection procedures involving in-person interviews. The complainant did not agree with EMA’s interpretation of the reimbursement rules, that is, that it applied a fictitious entry point into the EU in case of a direct flight to London from outside the EU. He argued that, in any event, considering Cork (and not, for example, EU Member States’ islands in the Atlantic Ocean) to be the closest point of entry from the USA into EU territory was arbitrary.

7. EMA stated that part-payment, instead of full reimbursement, of travel expenses, also for candidates travelling from outside the EU, is in line with the strict budgetary principles that it has to follow to manage resources efficiently and effectively. In the case of the complainant, EMA correctly applied the rules in place at the time, which had been communicated to the complainant before he booked his travel.

8. EMA further stated that choosing Cork as the reference point for determining the travel expenses to be reimbursed is linked to the methodology previously used by EU institutions to determine the distance between the place of employment and the place of origin for EU staff when the place of origin was outside the EU. Cork was considered to be the reference point of entry into the EU when the place of origin was in the USA.

9. Finally, EMA stated that, in 2018, it changed its reimbursement policy, which now makes no distinction between travel from inside and outside the EU.

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^[3]. 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. At the same time, part-payment of travel costs, rather than full reimbursement, reconciles the obligation to seek to recruit staff from a geographically diverse pool with sound management of financial resources.

11. EMA is thus entitled to limit the reimbursement of travels costs. Again, it has a margin of discretion in deciding how exactly to do this.

12. The Ombudsman finds it reasonable that EMA’s policy was, at the time, based on distances covered only within the EU. Bearing in mind the obligation of sound management of financial resources, EMA was not obliged to take into account the fact that an EU national invited to an interview may be residing outside the EU. The Ombudsman also finds reasonable EMA’s choice to determine the EU entry point as the entry point into the European territory of the closest EU Member State. Reimbursement based on the distance from, for instance, the closest EU Outermost Region would lead to a much more arbitrary result for candidates and a higher and more unpredictable financial burden for EMA. On this basis, the Ombudsman finds that there was no maladministration in this case.

13. That said, the Ombudsman welcomes the fact that EMA has since changed its reimbursement rules. It now reimburses part of the travel expenses by applying a flat-rate system (with a ceiling), based on the linear distance between the candidate’s place of residence - also outside the EU - and EMA’s premises^[4]. This allows candidates travelling from outside the EU to obtain reimbursement that is more closely linked to the actual distance travelled, which is an even more rational calculation method, particularly in the eyes of  candidates.

Conclusion

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

There was no maladministration by the European Medicines Agency.

The complainant and EMA will be informed of this decision.

 

Emily O'Reilly

European Ombudsman

Strasbourg, 22/10/2019

 

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

[2] EMA changed its travel reimbursement rules in April 2018.

[3] 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.

[4] See 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.