Showing posts with label Rights. Show all posts

JSIS - The Article 72(3) and how it must be applied by the PMO: For R&D fairness and solidarity are not just empty words!

16/05/2024 , , ,

 

 

 

 

The Article 72(3) and how it must be applied by the PMO:
For R&D fairness and solidarity are not just empty words! 


The Article 72(3) is one of the best “hidden secrets” of the Staff Regulations, but also one of the aspects that demon¬strates the solidarity dimension of our Staff Regulations. 

A dimension that is all too often neglected in the implementation of the statutory provisions! 

Indeed, Article 72(3) provides for an additional “special reimbursement” by the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme (JSIS) when individual affiliates face very high medical expenses. In particular, Article 72(3) reads:


‘Where the total expenditure not reimbursed for any period of twelve months exceeds half the official's basic monthly salary or pension special reimbursement shall be allowed by the appointing authority, account being taken of the family circumstances of the person concerned, in manner provided in the rules referred to in paragraph 1.’

As it can be immediately understood, this is a very important article because it can provide additional financial support when a colleague has medical problems that involve very high costs, which is a major additional, sometimes dramatic, problem for the lowest paid colleagues.

On an almost daily basis, we come across colleagues who are indeed faced with large financial expenses and don’t really know that they may be entitled to apply for a special reimbursement.

And the Paymaster’s Office (PMO) is unwilling to provide affiliates with an automated system that automatically calculates the amount of money an individual is responsible for over the last twelve months.

It is left to individual colleagues to calculate their own expenses, to compare them with their basic salary and to decide whether or not to submit the “special reimbursement request”

For R&D, this is unacceptable, both because the PMO would easily have the tools to automatically calculate the “rolling 12-month expenditure not-reimbursed by JSIS” of each JSIS affiliate at any given time, and also because the colleagues with very high medical expenses are often not in a position to make such calculations.

R&D requests that PMO include in each individual's JSIS page an automated calculation of the rolling 12-month expenditure for medical expenses, as referred to in Art. 72(3)

R&D will continue to push for the introduction of a screen in each affiliate's personal space in JSIS (or PMO Mobile) that automatically calculates the sum of the personal expenses over the last twelve months. In this way, colleagues could easily check whether they are eligible or not.

How can someone apply for a “special reimbursement”?

If an individual Affiliate estimates that he/she has incurred medical expenses that exceed half of the basic salary, then the Affil¬iate can submit the dedicated application form1. 2 . The special reimbursement rate will then be as follows3

  •  a 90% reimbursement of the amount exceeding half your basic salary if you are a member and no one else is insured under your name; for example, if you are single and have no children;
  •  a 100% reimbursement of the amount exceeding half your basic salary if there is at least one other person insured in your name, such as your spouse.

When applying Article 72 (3), in order not to penalise colleagues working in the countries with low salary correction coefficients, the PMO must consider the salary actually paid, taking into account the correction coefficients

In this respect, the Court of Justice has already clarified that the basic salary to be taken into account when applying Article 72 (3) is the salary actually paid, taking into account the correction coefficient: 4
 

‘(…) 15. ’15 It follows from the foregoing that to assess correctly the extent of the financial burden placed on an official who is seeking a special reimbursement, the living conditions of the place of his employment must be taken into account and consequently the special reimbursement provided tor in Article 71 (3) of the Staff Regulations must be calculated, not solely in accordance with the salary referred to in Article 66, but on the basis of the real salary adjusted by the weighting provided for in Article 64 whose purpose is precisely to take account of the living conditions in the place of employment.” 

This is a very important aspect to consider in order to ensure fairness and solidarity!

To give an example, if a colleague works in Croatia (where the correction coefficient is 84.8%) and has a basic monthly salary of 3000 €, what this colleague actually earns each month is not 3000 € but 2544 €.
Thus, according to the abovementioned case law, Article 72(3) must be applicable to this colleague if the medical expenses for the past 12 months would be higher than 2544/2=1272 € and not if the medical expenses for the past 12 months are higher than 1500 € without applying the salary correction coefficient.

Conclusion

Disregarding the salary actually paid when applying Article 72(3), denies the solidarity and fairness at the heart of this Article, creates a situation of unequal treatment between colleagues from different places of employment and it is detrimental to those colleagues working in Member States already penalised by a salary correction coefficient below 100%.

If you are in any doubt as to how Article 72 (3) should be applied to your case, or if you are faced with decisions by the PMO that do not seem right to you, please do not hesitate to contact us for assistance from our team of specialists and Lawyers.

R&D is always at your side!
 

Cristiano Sebastiani,
Chairman
——————————————
1.  In English: https://myintracomm.ec.europa.eu/staff/Documents/health/demande-rembspecial-en.pdf
2.  In French: https://myintracomm.ec.europa.eu/staff/Documents/health/demande-rembspecial-fr.pdf
3. https://myintracomm.ec.europa.eu/staff/EN/health/reimbursement/special-rules/Pages/special-reimbursement.aspx
4. Affaire 115/83 :  eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:61983CJ0115

Le Renard Déchaîné special " Court of Auditors EU Institutions and COVID-19 Special Report" - The Court of Auditors confirms the analyses of R&D and acknowledges the exceptional efforts made by the staff!

07/10/2022 , , , , ,

 

Le Renard Déchaîné special " Court of Auditors EU Institutions and COVID-19 Special Report" - The Court of Auditors confirms the analyses of R&D and acknowledges the exceptional efforts made by the staff!

 

Court of Auditors

EU Institutions and COVID-19

Special Report

 In its special report on the institutions' response to the Covid-19 pandemic, the Court of Auditors confirms the analyses of R&D and acknowledges the exceptional efforts made by the staff!

The Commission's staff deserves all the institution's trust and has proven that a modern and flexible man¬agement model is the best response to the challenges!


 ……READ MORE

 

 

 






Transfer “IN” of pension rights: favourable judgment!

21/05/2019 ,

Transfer “IN” of pension rights – judgment of 15 May 2019 Tuerck v Commission

TRANSFER “IN” OF PENSION RIGHTS:
Impact of the time elapsed on the calculation of the period of pensionable service. The application of the standard interest rate by the Commission may result in unlawful enrichment to the detriment of the staff
On 15 May 2019 the Court confirmed the judgment of the General Court of 5 December 2017 in the case of Tuerck v Commission (C-132/18 P) which clarified important aspects of the transfer IN of pension rights acquired before entering the service of the European Union.
R&D follows closely the developments of the case law in the field of pension rights. This case, successfully defended by our lawyers, Mr Orlandi and Mr Martin, was among the many which were discussed during the conference on pension rights R&D organised in March 2019 (link).
The facts
The applicant requested the transfer of the capital value of pension rights she had acquired prior to entering the service of the European Union. Five years later, the German authority informed the PMO that the amount of transferable capital corresponding to her acquired pension rights was EUR 141 652.07.
PMO made an offer to the applicant, assessing the additional pensionable years under the EU pension scheme at 3 years, 8 months and 29 days. She accepted.
The German authority transferred an updated capital sum of EUR 146 714.33. The PMO deducted simple interest from that capital sum, at 3.1% per year, in respect of the period between the date of the application for a transfer and the date of the actual transfer, which is to say that it deducted an amount of EUR 20 666.28 representing capital appreciation between those dates. The PMO therefore took the view that the amount representing the pension rights previously acquired by the applicant was EUR 126 048.05, and reduced the additional years to 3 years and 4 months.
The judgment
On 5 December 2017 the General Court annulled the contested decision, holding that under the Staff Regulations the PMO is not required to ‘update’ the transferred capital in all cases by applying the standard interest rate.
In particular, Article 11, paragraph 2 of Annex VIII of the Staff Regulations and Article 7(1) of the GIP do not allow the Commission to make a calculation of the additional pensionable years on the basis of an amount lower than that which was available at the time of the registration of the transfer request and which was communicated to the PMO by the national authority.
According to the Court, to permit the Commission to make a deduction, to the advantage of the Union budget, from the capital representing the pension rights acquired by the applicant as at the date of registration of the application for a transfer, would lead to an unjustified appropriation by that institution of a portion of the national pension rights converted into a cash sum for the purposes of the transfer, which rights belong to the official under the case-law, and hence, to an unlawful enrichment of the Union.
On 15 May 2019 the Court fully upheld the judgment of the General Court, holding that a situation of unjust enrichment would arise if the actual amount of the appreciation of the pension rights acquired by a given official is lower than the amount resulting from the application of the standard interest rate of 3.1% intended by the Commission.
It confirmed that it is only where the competent national or international body is unable to supply the value of the pension rights as at the date of registration of the application that simple interest at the rate of 3.1% can be deducted from the updated capital actually transferred to the Commission.


9 March 2018 - PENSION RIGHTS : Questions... Doubts... In need of accurate answers? Come and join us!

06/03/2018 , ,
We are glad to invite you to this Videoconference organised by R&D Bruxelles in collaboration with our lawyers, Mr Sebastien Orlandi and Mr Thomas Martin, regarding the transfer in of Pension Rights.

VC: IPR Room 11 Auditorium - Time: 12:30 – 14:30

Use of national law contracts at the JRC: follow-up

29/06/2016 , ,
In relation to the national law contract issue, we wish to inform you that this morning a technical concertation meeting with DG HR took place.

DG HR shares much of trade unions' concern about the derogation requested by the JRC to make use of a large number of national contracts (12% of staff). They stated that derogations, if any, should be strictly limited.

Concluding the discussion, DG HR confirmed that this issue will have to be discussed in September at political level with VP Georgieva.

We'll continue to defend a correct application of the Staff Regulation at the JRC and we'll keep you informed.

Use of national law contracts at the JRC

22/06/2016 , ,
You can find here a joint position of ALL Trade Unions and the Central Staff Committee expressing their total rejection of a derogation requested by the JRC to make extensive use of national law contracts (12% of JRC staff, i.e. c.350 posts).

The request is in contradiction with the agreement reached in a political concertation in 2009 with Commissioners Potočnik and Kallas, when it was decided to phase-out 'Grantholder' national law contracts in favour of statutory positions.

The European Commission, in fact, decided many years ago to move away from national law contracts wherever possible, and this derogation if granted would circumvent Commission rules and practices.

Please also find the joint statement of the "JRC Board of Governors".

PMO hesitates, R&D bridges the gap!

06/10/2014

Following our request to re-establish an individual rights sector at Ispra, we regret to inform you that we have received a negative answer from the Director of PMO.

In his reply, the Director claims that Ispra-based staff – as well as staff of other remote sites – receives a level of service comparable to that offered to staff working in Brussels and Luxembourg.

Additionally, he doesn’t share our view that the Ispra site population is sufficiently large to justify the reopening of a local individual rights settlement office; staff cuts are also mentioned as a limiting factor.

Unfortunately, we know from experience how far sometimes reality is from the idyllic picture drawn by the Director; in fact, when special cases arise, our colleagues frequently encounter major difficulties in getting adequate responses.

We still hope that the PMO Director will revise his decision in the future.

In the meantime, we invite all of you, especially newcomers, to submit to us any issues you are facing with the assessment of your individual rights.

This service will be freely available to everybody; we’ll try to fill the gap and be your local interface with PMO.1, as we have already done successfully for “Cassa Malattia” reimbursement claims(*).

We are confident our PMO colleagues in Brussels will be pleased to help us provide an efficient service to Ispra staff.



(*) We are happy that an official helpdesk service for Cassa Malattia has recently been made available. R&D requested this service many times in the past, and we thank PMO for putting it in place. We  will continue to offer supplementary Cassa Malattia assistance to our members.

Assessment of individual rights at Ispra

10/09/2014 ,
Many among you - especially newcomers - are ever more frequently asking us for help in obtaining timely and satisfactory assessments of their individual rights.
Our impression is that the situation has severely worsened after the closure of the PMO sector dealing with individual rights at the Ispra site.
We are convinced that the 3rd largest site of the Commission has the critical mass to require the presence of a local “assessment of individual rights” service available to its staff – as is already the case, for instance, at Luxembourg.
For this reason R&D has written to Mr Lemaître, Director of PMO, requesting the re-establishment of an individual rights sector at Ispra.

At the same time, we have invited our Director General, Mr Šucha, to support our initiative.

Harmonised application of Flexitime rules: follow-up

06/06/2014 ,
On the occasion of the entry into force of the new Commission decision on working time, we wrote a message to theDirector of JRC Human Resources in order to make him aware of the incoherent application of flexitime rules at JRC Ispra.
Our request aimed at obtaining a clear definition of what the new rules permit and what they exclude, so as to avoid misinterpretation and misunderstanding from both staff and the hierarchy. In particular, we gave the example of AST9/AD9 or higher grade officials wishing to take a full day of leave (composed of a half-day of normal holidays plus a half-day of flexitime recuperation), who apparently can do so - or not - depending on the Unit they are working for.
From the answer we received, we can confirm that a half-day of recuperation can in fact be combined with a half-day of holidays, taking into account service needs.
We also obtained the undertaking that the issue will be discussed during the next Directoire, in order to harmonise the application of rules across the whole JRC.

Don't hesitate to contact us in case you feel that the rules are not correctly applied in your case.

Promotions: many doubts...

03/06/2014 ,
Why DGs with officials having more than 10 years seniority in their grade receive 0 possibilities for promotion in that grade ?
Why DG ** , with 42 officials having reached the expected seniority in their grade, receives only 23 possibilities for promotion for that grade ?
Why, in that same grade, DG ## receives 9 more possibilities for promotion than officials having reached the expected seniority ? Why DG ## can reward with fast promotions officials with high merits, while DG ** cannot even propose for a normal promotion almost 20 good officials, in that same grade ?
Why, in another grade, DG %%, receives 3 times more possibilities for promotion than officials having reached the expected seniority (ie almost as many as the number of eligible officials in the grade) ? Why, in that same another grade, DG ++ receives less promotions than officials having reached the expected seniority ?
Why all AD12 and AD13 from the Cabinets, included those that are not head (or deputy head) of Cabinet, are eligible for promotion ?
Why DG HR delays, delays, and delays again the launch of the exercise for AST9, AD12 and AD13 excluded from the current promotion exercise ?
Why DG HR did not answer the note sent by the Central Staff Committee, more than a month ago, asking for clear answers on those points and many others ?
Why …..  so many questions and …. 0 answer from DG HR ?
You, we, all of us, deserve explanations. R&D kindly asks all Directors General to add this point to the agenda of the next meeting they will have with DG HR, hoping they will get the answers R&D and the CSC could not get so far.

Harmonised application of Flexitime rules

27/05/2014 ,
On Monday 26th May we wrote a message to the Director of the JRC Human Resources about the application of flexitime rules. Hereafter you can find our message.
We'll keep you informed on the issue. Stay tuned!

 ________________
Dear Mr Michel,
Following the broadcast message sent to all staff about the entry into force of the new Commission Decision on Working time, we take the opportunity to bring to your attention a non-harmonised application of the rule on Flexitime and recuperation at Ispra.
In particular it seems that some Unit Heads, contrary to any formal or legal hindrance deriving from our new Staff Regulations or GIPs, are refusing that Flexitime recuperation may be joined (immediately before or after) to normal holidays.
It means that, for instance, an AST9/AD9 or higher grade official willing to take a full day off (half day normal holidays plus half day Flexitime recuperation), can do so - or not - depending on the Unit he is working for.
While we recognise that Flexitime recuperation is allowed only when not affecting service needs,  we cannot accept that such possibility is denied by putting forward fake arguments of incompatibility within the current framework of rules.
Therefore we kindly invite you to send a clear message to our middle management, asking for a consistent and harmonised application of rules across the whole JRC as indicated by Art. 7.3 of the Commission Decision (C(2014)2502):
Upon an individual request for recuperation from a staff member, the hierarchical
superior, having due regard to the basic principles as laid down in Article 3, may
approve it if:
-          excess hours are justified by the staff member's work; and
-          the interest of the service is upheld.
Real examples explaining what can be or cannot be done would be really welcome by JRC staff  and will leave little space to misinterpretation.
Kind regards,
Gianfranco Selvagio


Art.90 complaints: don't miss the deadline!

31/03/2014 , ,
Don't miss the deadline!
You can lodge from www.recours2014.eu a series of art. 90 complaints against the most controversial provisions contained in the new Staff Regulations.

We wish to remind you that today 31 March it is the last day to lodge the following art. 90 complaints:

·        Conversion of AST to AST/SC posts (template available in EN)

·        Travel Days and Expenses (templates available in FR)

·        AST and AD Career Blockage (templates available in EN and FR)

We would also like to remind that an art. 90 complaint against the reintroduction of the 6% Solidarity Levy is available here. Deadline: 10 April.

According to art. 90, "Any person to whom the Staff Regulations apply may submit to the appointing authority a complaint against an act affecting him adversely, either where the said authority has taken a decision or where it has failed to adopt a measure prescribed by the Staff Regulations. (...)"

Therefore lodging a complaint is a statutory right, which cannot affect your career or your personal working condition.

Our R&D experts are available to answer all your questions and doubts, and to help you introducing your complaint.

Feel free to contact us in case of need.

Latest news on salary adjustment 2011 and 2012

11/03/2014 , ,
Today the European Parliament has adopted the two reports on salary adjustments for 2011 and 2012.  If the Council approves the proposal, the situation for Ispra should be the following:
Salary 2012: 0,8% x 22 months = 17,6% of our payslip
Correction Coefficient 2012: 1,2% x 12 months = 14,4% of our payslip
For 2011, it is not clear yet if the Correction Coefficient will be applied as well, or if it will be a "frozen" year like 2013 and 2014.
In case the 2011 Correction Coefficient will be applied, we'll suffer a reduction of 0,4% x 12 months = -4,8%
So, in the best case scenario, we can expect 17,6% + 14,4% = 32% of our payslip ("one shot" arrears).
In the worst case scenario, we can expect 27,2% of our payslip (again, "one shot" arrears).
In all cases, we'll receive 0,8% salary increase for the future.

20% ritention tax suspended!

20/02/2014 ,
We are pleased to inform you that the Italian Finance Minister has decided to immediately suspend the recently introduced 20% retention tax on monetary transfers from abroad.
In addition to the immediate suspension of the effects of this law, a request for its abrogation has been submitted for the evaluation of the new government.
In light of this welcome development, no further action is required.

New Italian law: 20% retention tax on bank transfers from abroad

17/02/2014 ,
As you may already know, a recently approved Italian law requires Italian banks to apply a 20% retention tax on income received from abroad. This law is applicable from the 1st February.
We have made a quick enquiry and it appears that our salaries are paid from an Italian bank account, therefore it seems that they are not affected.
However, we are investigating further to make sure there will be no future impact and are waiting for more official information from some Italian banks.
In case you have received any specific information from your bank or you have a specific question, please contact us!
We will be back with some more information as soon as we have it.
Subscribe to: Posts ( Atom )