*Update 16.09.2024 we have received no response to our May note as yet.*
Original article: In our May newsletter, we informed you about the changes to the annual travel payment following a recent judgement by the Court in case C‑567/22 P. Before the judgement and following the 2014 reform of the staff regulations, colleagues with a place of origin outside the EU had their place of origin moved fictionally to the capital city of the Member State of their EU nationality.
The Court of Justice considered this to be an unjustified discrimination based on nationality.
Implementation of the judgement
In a meeting on 12 June 2024, DG HR informed us about the implementation of the judgement so far and the questions that are still open. In total, about 2000 colleagues are affected by this change, of which 300 negatively – they will receive less money after this judgement than they did before since their real place of origin is closer than their fictional place of origin.
We acknowledge the hard work done by PMO from April to be able to implement the judgement already for the June 2024 payment and this seems to have worked out well so far.
While the judgement formally does not target colleagues without the nationality of an EU member state (Brexit, anyone?), the legal teams of the different institutions have concluded that the legal situation is comparable, so that they will treat these colleagues in a similar manner. Formally, this means that both phrases of the second indent of Annex VII, Article 8(2) will no longer be applied and colleagues without an EU nationality will be treated the same as colleagues with an EU nationality. Which means that they should receive the flat-rate payment in the future (provided that they fulfil all other criteria).
To be applied retrospectively?
Speaking about the years 2014-2024, several colleagues have approached Generation 2004 and asked whether the judgment would be applied back to 2014, with a corresponding retrospective payment. The answer to this is negative: only the colleagues who went to the Court will have the payments backdated to 2014; for all other colleagues, the changes will only happen as of the judgement. Formally, a judgement is not considered a new fact that would oblige the administration to reopen past decisions; therefore, there is no margin for maneuver here.
Are these changes enough to trigger exceptions?
The one point that is still open, and on which we have pushed and are pushing the administration still, is a possible change of the place of origin after the judgement. In the Commission, a newly recruited official can change the place of origin relatively easily in the first year after taking up duties. Later, it is possible only in exceptional circumstances, as explained in articles 2 and 3 of Commission Decision C(2013) 8992 final. Are these exceptional circumnstances?
With the recent changes introduced by the Administration “ex officio”, some colleagues find themselves in a situation where the one year to change the place of origin has long passed, so they can no longer ask “easily” for a change. But the new place of origin as “imposed” by the administration is not a good one for them, either. We have asked the administration to consider this imposed change of place of origin in the same vein as the situation of a newly recruited colleague – meaning, these colleagues would have one year to ask for a change in the place of origin, under the same rules as for newly recruited colleagues. DG HR has assured us that they are looking into the situation and that they will come back to us, once a decision has been taken – such a decision would need to be applied by all institutions.
As always, please get in touch with us if you have questions.
If you appreciate our work, please consider becoming a member of Generation 2004.
