Background to the complaint

1. In June 2018, the complainant travelled from Zagreb, Croatia, to Brussels, Belgium, for a job interview with the European Parliament for a post as a `contract agent´^[1]. In the invitation to the interview, Parliament had informed the complainant that it would not reimburse any travel expenses.

2. Following the interview, Parliament informed the complainant that he was not selected for the post. The complainant then asked Parliament for detailed feedback on the outcome of the interview. He also wanted to know why Parliament was not reimbursing the travel expenses of interviewed candidates in the same way as the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO).

3. Parliament replied that a member of the selection board^[2] had given the complainant feedback on the outcome of the interview by telephone in July 2018. Regarding the reimbursement question, Parliament stated that EPSO has its own reimbursement rules that apply to candidates in staff selection procedures organised by EPSO. Parliament has similar reimbursement rules but they were not applicable in this case.

4. The complainant then wrote again to Parliament, maintaining his requests to receive written feedback on the interview and to be reimbursed his travel expenses. He argued that Parliament´s refusal to reimburse travel expenses is discriminatory against job applicants who cannot afford to cover such expenses and who are thus discouraged from participating in staff selection procedures which entail travelling to Brussels.

5. As both requests remained unanswered, the complainant turned to the Ombudsman in January 2019.

The inquiry

6. The Ombudsman opened an inquiry into the complainant’s concern about Parliament’s refusal to give written feedback and to reimburse him his travel expenses. The complainant wanted Parliament to give him written feedback. He also wanted Parliament to reimburse him and others affected the costs for travelling to Brussels.

7. During the inquiry, the Ombudsman asked Parliament to clarify its rules on the reimbursement of expenses for staff selection procedures.

Regarding the feedback

Arguments presented to the Ombudsman

8. The complainant contended that it is standard practice in staff selection procedures organised by EU institutions and bodies to provide, upon request, detailed written feedback on the performance in an interview. Feedback over the telephone “is not a legal act”, he said, and thus violates the principle of transparency. The complainant wished to receive feedback on his weaknesses as he was preparing for other similar staff selection procedures.

The Ombudsman's assessment

9. From a strictly legal perspective, a selection board has a wide margin of discretion when assessing candidates in a staff selection procedure^[3]. The selection board has the widest margin of discretion regarding oral tests^[4]. In view of that wide discretion, a selection board cannot be required to identify which of the candidate’s answers were considered unsatisfactory or to explain why they were considered unsatisfactory.^[5]

10. While Parliament may therefore not have been legally required to give detailed written feedback, it was reasonable for the complainant, who had prepared for, travelled for and taken the interview, to expect to receive feedback. The Ombudsman welcomes the fact that Parliament gave the complainant feedback by telephone, as it demonstrates its readiness to engage with people who want to work for it.

Regarding the reimbursement of travel expenses

Arguments presented to the Ombudsman

11. The complainant contended that Parliament failed to explain why its reimbursement rules were not applicable in his case. In his view, Parliament´s refusal to reimburse travel expenses leads to discrimination, as it favours candidates who live closer to Brussels or can afford to travel to Brussels.

12. Parliament stated that there are no rules in the EU Staff Regulations^[6] on reimbursement of travel expenses. Parliament has its own rules, which at the time of the complainant’s interview reimbursed part of the travel and subsistence expenses incurred when participating in interviews and tests to fill civil servant and temporary agent posts only^[7]. As the complainant was interviewed for a contract agent post, he was not eligible for reimbursement under Parliament’s rules^[8]. Parliament had treated all interviewed candidates for the contract agent post in the same way. None of them had received any reimbursement.

13. Parliament stated that it has since changed its reimbursement rules so that they cover expenses also for those travelling for an interview for a contract agent post.

The Ombudsman's assessment

14. The rules governing the employment conditions of EU staff provide that the EU institutions should seek to recruit staff on the broadest possible geographical basis from among nationals of EU Member States^[9]. While the institutions have a margin of discretion in determining how best to do this, it is clear that part-payment of travel and other costs is one particularly important way of encouraging applications from a geographically diverse pool.

15. The Ombudsman understands that it is for this purpose that Parliament’s rules provided for reimbursement of travel and subsistence expenses for candidates for EU civil servant and temporary agent posts.

16. The Ombudsman appreciates that EU civil servants, temporary agents and contract agents are all distinct categories of staff. As such, Parliament was not obliged to apply the same reimbursement rules for civil servant and temporary agent candidates to potential contract agents.

17. Parliament’s decision not to reimburse the complainant was in line with its rules in place at the time and respected equal treatment among candidates for the same category of post. Moreover, Parliament informed the complainant in its invitation that his expenses would not be covered.

18. That said, it cannot be excluded that the rules in place at the time risked having the effect of discouraging certain candidates for contract agent posts from attending interviews and tests.

19. Parliament has, in the meantime, changed its rules. The Ombudsman welcomes Parliament’s decision to include contract agent posts under its new reimbursement rules^[10]. Going forward, contract agent candidates will receive part-payment of their travel and subsistence expenses, in the same way as civil servant and temporary agent candidates.

20. Therefore, although she can appreciate the complainant’s sense of grievance surrounding the rules in place at the time, the Ombudsman does not find maladministration in this case.

Conclusion

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

There was no maladministration by the European Parliament.

The complainant and the European Parliament will be informed of this decision.

 

Emily O'Reilly

European Ombudsman

Strasbourg, 26/09/2019

 

[1] 'Contract agents' are staff recruited on fixed term contracts to provide additional capacity where there are not enough civil servants available with the required skills.

[2] Each selection process has its own selection board, which is responsible for selecting candidates at each stage and for drawing up the final list of successful candidates.

[3] See, by analogy, judgment of the Court of First Instance of 19 February 2004, Konstantopoulou v Court of Justice, T-19/03, paragraph 43 (http://curia.europa.eu/juris/showPdf.jsf?text=&docid=48932&pageIndex=0&doclang=FR&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=2147799).

[4] Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 25 May 2011, Meierhofer v Commission, F-74/07 RENV, paragraph 63 (http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=82224&pageIndex=0&doclang=FR&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=11308333).  

[5] Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 11 December 2012, Mata Blanco v Commission, F-65/10, paragraph 109 (http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=131681&pageIndex=0&doclang=FR&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=12853032).

[6] The Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Economic Community and the European Atomic Energy Community: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A01962R0031-20140501

[7] Provisions governing part-payment of the travel and subsistence expenses of people invited to attend oral tests in connection with open competitions or notices of recruitment, interviews or medical examinations, 22 June 2015. The Ombudsman’s inquiry team reviewed a copy of these rules.

[8] Parliament pointed out that the title of the 2015 rules mentioned tests and interviews in connection with open competitions (for civil servants) or notices of recruitment (for temporary agents) only. Parliament does not select contract agents through these procedures, but through so-called Contract Agent Selection Tests (‘CASTs’).

[9] This applies to temporary agent, contract agent and civil servant recruitment (see Article 27 of the Staff Regulations and Articles 12 and 82 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union).

[10] Parliament adopted the new rules on 6 February 2019 and these came into force on 1 March 2019. The Ombudsman’s inquiry team reviewed a copy of these rules.