Dear Mr R.,

On 4 December 2001, you made a complaint to the European Ombudsman concerning the reimbursement of travel expenses by the Commission.

On 8 March 2002, I forwarded the complaint to the President of the Commission. The Commission sent its opinion on 8 May 2002 and I forwarded it to you with an invitation to make observations, if you so wished. No observations appear to have been received from you.

I am writing now to let you know the results of the inquiries that have been made.

THE COMPLAINT

The complainant is a German national residing in Lima, Peru. He was invited to participate in the pre-selection test and the written test of Commission competition COM/A/6/01 which took place on 18 October 2001 in Dortmund, Germany. The Commission informed him that he would be entitled to travel expenses of 485 Euro.

The complainant puts forward that the sum proposed was unacceptable as it would not cover the actual travel costs.

Firstly, the complainant alleges that his right to sit the competition was restricted by limiting the reimbursement of the travel expenses to the territory of the European Union.

Secondly, the complainant claims that the European Union should enable candidates to participate in competitions in all its representation offices abroad as is done when similar procedures are organised by the German Foreign Office.

THE INQUIRY

The Commission's opinion

In summary, the Commission makes the following points:

Firstly, the reimbursement of travel expenses increases at each stage of the competition. There is no reimbursement foreseen for participants in pre-selection tests. Given that in the present case, the pre-selection test and the written test took place on the same day, the rules for the reimbursement of travel expenses for written tests applied.

All candidates with residence outside the European Union were treated equally as regards the reimbursement. The relevant provision provides for the sharing of travel costs. For candidates residing outside the European Union, the provision foresees the reimbursement of travel expenses from the geographical point within the territory of the European Union which is closest to the residence of the candidate(1).

In the complainant's case, the geographical point closest to Lima is Las Palmas in Spain. The distance from this point to Dortmund, the place where the competition took place, was the base for the reimbursement of travel expenses.

The Commission points out that the competition was organised in such a way, that candidates had to travel only once and could benefit from the reimbursement of travel expenses, as both the pre-selection tests and the written tests were held on the same day.

Secondly, competitions are carried out on the basis of equal treatment during the tests. Candidates should sit their exams on the same day, at the same time and on the same subject. Given that the Commission has offices in 130 countries all over the world, in different time zones and in countries with varying political stability, equal treatment could not be ensured if tests took place in all of these countries. It is therefore in the interest of all participants to hold the competition in centres within the Member States.

The complainant's observations

No observations were received from the complainant.

THE DECISION

1 Alleged restriction of complainant's rights to participate in a competition

1.1 The complainant alleges that his right to participate in Commission competition COM/A/6/01 was restricted by limiting the reimbursement of the travel expenses to the territory of the European Union.

1.2 In its opinion, the Commission pointed out that all candidates with residence outside the European Union were treated equally. The relevant provision provides for the sharing of travel costs for written tests. The provision foresees the reimbursement of travel expenses from the geographical point within the territory of the European Union which is closest to the residence of the candidate.

In the complainant's case, the geographical point closest to Lima is Las Palmas in Spain. The distance from this point to Dortmund, the place where the competition took place, was the base for the reimbursement of travel expenses.

Furthermore, the Commission stated that the competition was organised in such a way, that candidates had to travel only once and could benefit from the reimbursement of travel expenses, as both the pre-selection tests and the written tests were held on the same day.

1.3 The Ombudsman notes that the Commission has established internal rules concerning the reimbursement of travel expenses for candidates in competitions. On the basis of the information available to the Ombudsman, it appears that the Commission acted within its legal authority in establishing the rules and that it has applied the rules correctly in the present case.

1.4 In these circumstances, there appears to be no maladministration on the part of the Commission.

2. Competitions to be held in offices all over the world, for example at the complainant's residence in Lima, Peru

2.1 The complainant claims that the European Union should enable candidates to participate in competitions in all representation offices abroad as is done when similar procedures are organised by the German Foreign Office.

2.2 The Commission states that its competitions are carried out on the basis of equal treatment during the tests and that candidates should sit their exams on the same day, at the same time and on the same subject. Given that the Commission has offices in 130 countries all over the world, in different time zones and in countries with varying political stability, equal treatment could not be ensured if tests took place in all of these countries.

2.3 The Ombudsman considers that the Commission has offered a reasonable explanation of its decision to organise competitions solely on the territory of the European Union.

2.4 In view of the above, there appears to be no maladministration on the part of the Commission.

3 Conclusion

On the basis of the Ombudsman's inquiries into this complaint, there appears to have been no maladministration by the Commission. The Ombudsman therefore closes the case.

The President of the Commission will also be informed of this decision.

Yours sincerely,

 

Jacob SÖDERMAN

---

(1) Provisions for the reimbursement of travel expenses, 1996, Article 2 paragraph 2.