THE PROMOTION OF CROSS-BORDER MOBILITY OF CIVIL SERVANTS BETWEEN EU MEMBER STATES PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 2nd HRWG MEETING BRUSSELS, 23th April 2008 1. Introduction The public sector is an important part of the employment market within the European Union. A fundamental step in the free movement of workers has been the adoption of Regulation 1612/68 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community which stipulates every citizen has the right to work in another Member State which is one of the most important rights under Community Law for individuals and is an essential element of EU citizenship and the adoption of Directive 2004/38 whose rules on residence rights of workers and their family members cover the residence rights of all EU citizens ( including non-actives, pensioners, students etc. ) Since 1968 the European Court of Justice has promoted free movement significantly and progressively through its judgments in particular by extending and reinforcing the rights of workers in host countries (e.g. judgment of 9.9.2003 in case C-285/01 (Burbaud) ECR (2003) I 08219 ) and fighting discriminations based on nationality. 2. Obstacles to cross-border mobility 2.1. There are still three major recognized obstacles to free movement of workers including civil servants within the Community: 1. social security; 2. taxation; 3. recognition of professional qualifications. 1
It is necessary to point out the work achieved or in progress in order to abolish them: new Directive 2005/36 consolidates and modernizes the rules currently regulating the recognition of professional qualifications and there is an ongoing reform of the Regulation 1408/71 on the coordination of social security schemes. 2.2. Several obstacles concern specifically civil servants in their freedom of movement within the Community. Although civil servants and public administration employees are considered as "workers" under EU law and the rules of free movement should be applied also to them, it is not the case due to the article 39 (4) EC which derogates the principle of free movement in the public sector with nationality condition. The European Court of Justice proved in many cases this major obstacle to the crossborder mobility should be interpreted very restrictively allowing Member States to restrict public sector posts to their nationals only if they involve the exercise of public authority and the responsibility for safeguarding the general interest of the State. One of the specific problems that migrant workers often face when acceding to the public sector is the recognition of their professional experience and seniority acquired in another Member State. Following the European Court of Justice case law, previous periods of comparable employment acquired in another Member State must be taken into account by Member States administrations for the purposes of access to their own public sector and for determining professional advantages (e.g. salary; grade) in the same way as applies to experience acquired in their own system. Recognition of professional experience is the important issue on which many Member States need to reform their rules after the judgments of the European Court of Justice in this field: in some Member States there are already ongoing reforms while other Member States still have to initiate them. Also in several Member States there are also rules being very specific to public sector employment (language requirements, particular recruitment requirements) which may cause additional problems which do not occur in the same way in the private sector. 2
3. HRWG dealing with cross-border mobility From the beginning the Human Resources Working Group deals with legal obstacles to cross-border mobility of public sector workers: -in 2000 on the basis of information provided by Members States a report was drafted on the different issues specific for mobility in the public sector and the situation in the Member State; -between 2000 and 2002 several reports and additional documents were elaborated (as for example during the Belgium presidency in the second half of 2001 Common principles relating recognition and earlier professional experience ); -in the second half of 2002 during the Danish presidency of European Union all the information and reports from previous years were regrouped into one large information package Mobility between the Public Sectors ; -the elaboration of a Glossary in English on mobility during Italian presidency in the second half of 2003 that provides Human Resources experts working in the public sector with a regularly-updated terminology tool, which helps to ease and enhance communication and mutual understanding; -the information collected by the HRWG from the EU-15 Member States was updated and complemented with information provided by the EU-10 Member States during the Austrian Presidency in the first half of 2006 in order to make a summary of the information. The study Cross-Border Mobility of Public Sector Workers deals with the main legal specificities of cross-border mobility and focuses on nationality conditions, recognition of professional experience and seniority as well as other legal aspects of cross-border mobility of public sector workers. Many Members States provide for a number of ways to enable their stuff to spend some time in the public sector of other Member States, European and International Organizations and training institutes. As possibilities there have been quoted; -short term exchange programs for European Integration Training with Member States, European Institutions and training institutes e.g. ENA and EIPA; -bilateral and multilateral exchange schemes between Member States; -twining; -special leave; -placement; -secondment; -transfer to EU Institutions, International Organizations or to the public sector of other Member States. 3
4. Questionnaire on cross-border mobility between the Public Administration Institutions of EU Member States in the period 2002-2007 4.1. In order to see what has been really going on in Member States in this field since 2002, a special questionnaire was sent to Members States aiming at being the survey of crossborder mobility in EU of workers employed in governmental administrative authorities (ministries and government offices) in the period 2002-2007. The objective was to define: 1. the nature of tasks they have been performing in other EU Member States ministries and government offices; 2. their education level, sex and age; 3. legal basis for their work abroad; 4. the general evaluation of interest among workers in ministries and government offices in working in other EU Member States public administration bodies and possible measures to be adopted for promoting it. The first part of questionnaire was focused on workers coming from other EU Member States to perform determined tasks in host Member State ministry and government office in the period 2002-2007 while the second part was focused exclusively on workers going from one EU Member State to another EU Member State ministry and government office to perform determined tasks in the same period. Both parts of the questionnaire were conceived as pure statistics. The third part of questionnaire was different being entirely descriptive. NCP or HRWG members were supposed to give their point of view on the interest of civil servants in their country to work in other EU Member State ministry or government office, the way they are informed about possibility to work there, the general satisfaction with cross-border mobility between EU Member States and finally to propose changes, if necessary. 4.2. Results concerning all EU Member States: 4.2.1. Until 31.12.2007 only 10 replies to questionnaire, most of them not fully complete, were received from the following Member States: Austria, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, Malta, The Netherlands, Portugal and Sweden while 4 countries (Denmark, Ireland, Luxembourg and United Kingdom) replied briefly without fulfilling the questionnaire. Italy sent almost completely fulfilled questionnaire on 22.1.2008 4
4.2.2. Conclusions arising out of Part I of the questionnaire related to workers coming from other EU Member States public administration to the host Member State to perform determined tasks in ministries and government offices: - all Member States which fulfilled the questionnaire (Estonia and The Netherlands confirmed it without numbers) except Bulgaria and Luxembourg had civil servants from abroad in the period 2002-2007; - the number of civil servants willing to spend some time working in Member States public administration is increasing; - legal basis for working according to the information provided are bilateral agreements (predominantly in Austria, Czech Republic and Finland or exclusively in Italy, Malta, The Netherlands, Portugal and Sweden ) and exchange programs (for instance Finland which has special Nordic civil servant program and Ireland having exchange programs with United Kingdom and Sweden). - certain predilection for civil servants from neighbour Member States with the same or at least similar language (to Cyprus most civil servants have come from Greece and to Czech Republic from Poland and Slovakia ); - length of stay: mostly short stays up to 3 months; - university or higher professional education is by far predominant while secondary education is an exception (Finland ); - civil servants coming from other Member States are predominantly female; - not surprisingly there is a lack of data for their age (only Czech Republic and Finland provided this information and according to them all ages are covered from less than 30 years to more than 50 years); - civil servants have come either for special task (traineeship in Austria, support to the presidency in Slovenia; legal agenda and financial administration in Czech Republic ) or with no special task getting to know actual every day work ( Finland ), working with the same assignments as they do in their home administration ( Sweden ) or having consonant functions as they have in their home public service ( Malta ). 5
4.2.3 Conclusions arising out of Part II of the questionnaire related to workers going from Member State public administration to other EU Member States to perform determined tasks in ministries and government offices: - all Member States which fulfilled the questionnaire have had civil servants going to work in another Member State ministry or government office except Bulgaria, Luxembourg and Portugal; - legal basis is not only bilateral agreements ( Austria, Ireland, Slovenia and Sweden ) and exchange programs ( Finland, Malta, The Netherlands ) but also secondment ( Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia ) or legislative decree ( Italy ). - length of stay were from up to 3 months to more than 1 year - they are almost all university graduates; - they are mostly younger people of both sexes having 30 40 years of age. 4.2.4 Conclusions arising out of Part III of the questionnaire according to the information provided by Member States: there is 100% interest in cross-border mobility which has been, however, up to now considered mostly unsatisfactory (75% of replies while there were only 25% of replies considering it satisfactory ). Changes are therefore necessary in order to promote it (91% of replies). According to the information quoted above only in four Member States ( Austria, Finland, Malta and Sweden ) cross-border mobility is promoted on the initiative of special body (Federal Chancellery in Austria, Center for International Mobility CIMO in Finland, Staff Development Organization in Malta, Swedish Administrative Development Agency VERVA in Sweden) which are responsible for informing civil servants about possibilities of working in other Member States Public Administration. In all other countries civil servants have to get all the necessary information by themselves which is certainly less stimulating for further development of cross-border mobility. 5. NCP Network: restructuring or extinction? During the Portuguese Presidency it was revealed low activity and low visibility of the Network of National Contact Points. The NCP Network being mostly inactive, a restructuring was considered necessary. There were clearly pointed out two approaches: the first one stressing only organizational and methodological changes in order to improve the NCP Network performance and the second one proposing the extinction of NCP Network by merging it with the HRWG. The final decision on the future of the NCP Network was postponed to the end of Slovenian Presidency. 6
6. At the end of 1 st HRWG meeting under Slovenian Presidency in January 2008 some proposals for the future of cross-border mobility and the Network of NCP were given to be meditated and discussed during 2nd HRWG meeting in Brussels: 1. bilateral agreements and exchange programs proved to be efficient and should be promoted in all EU Member States; 2. each EU Member State should have a central website where it will be gathered all updated information concerning mobility being clearly accessible also to all other EU Member States; 3. in each EU Member State a HRWG member should be responsible for updating information related to mobility; 4. the competencies of the NCP should be jointed up with the HRWG representatives and the NCP sub-group should merge with the HRWG group. The same proposals were sent to HRWG members in the middle of March in the form of so called position paper. Up to 15 th April we got opinions from 15 EU Member States, namely: Austria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden. 6.1. Bilateral agreements and exchange programs already exist in many countries. They have their limits ( for instance, they forsee employments of limited duration and they sometimes cover only central administration level ). Nevertheless bearing in mind some still existing problems to cross-border mobility ( such as the recognition of professional experience achieved in other EU Member States public administration or employability and job security after returning to the home country etc. ), it is to be considered that at least the near future of cross-border mobility is actually in the promotion of exchange programs and bilateral agreements where civil servant performs different working tasks for the host authority being still employed and paid by the sending authority. The cross-border mobility must not be the reason for itself. It has to give to civil servants the possibility of sharing knowledges, exchanging ideas and good practices, acquiring new experiences and entering into contact with different cultures and traditions. Bilateral agreements and exchange programs are an excellent tool to realize it. According to the collected opinions all 15 EU Member States having replied to the»position paper«declared themselves in favour of bilateral agreements and exchange programs. European Commission is supposed to be active in that field some EU Member States ( France ) expect advice or assistance of the European Commission while some EU Member States ( Sweden ) consider it would certainly help if the European Commission could give substantial financial support to short time exchange of staff between EU Member States. 7
6.2. According to the information provided by EU Member States replying to our questionnaire about cross-border mobility in the period 2002-2007, there are very few EU Member States where the cross-border mobility is promoted on the initiative of special body responsible for keeping civil servants informed about possibilities of working in other EU Member States public administration. This was the main reason for the idea of central website accessible to all EU Member States. It turned out the similar idea was already adopted several years ago as a project which was never finished and shall be revived. According to the»position paper«all 15 EU Member States declared themselves in favour of an updated and accessible website related to cross-border mobility. However several EU Member States were not enthousiastic about the idea of creating a national website ( France pointed out the difficulty of putting it into practice due to the independency of each ministry in managing its own HR management and exchange programs; Czech Republic found it a problematic issue because of the differencies among systems of public administration in EU Member States; Spain could not give any opinion about it being faced with position paper while waiting the formation of new government ). Several EU Member States ( Austria, Denmark, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, Poland and Portugal ) as well as European Commission specially drew attention to the existence of YourEurope website http://ec.europa.eu/youreurope with useful information in relation to mobility. Thus the slightly open question was whether to insist on the national website or to promote the idea of upgrading the existing website YourEurope that already provides general information on Community Law about: - nationality condition; - recognition of qualifications and diplomas; - other aspects of access to a post in the public sector; - recognition of professional experience and seniority. The same website should provide also more information about Civil Service in each respective EU Member State. EU Member States were supposed to provide information related to the following questions: 8
1. What is considered public administration and public sector in Member State? 2. How does the public administration work in Member State? 3. Which application procedures apply in the public sector/public administration in Member State? 4. What are the working conditions in the public sector/public administration in Member State? 5. Which job opportunities are there for workers in the public sector/public administration in Member State? 6. Which secondments are possible in the public sector/public administration in Member State? 7. Which exchange schemes apply in the public sector/public administration in Member State? 8. Are there stage opportunities in the public sector/public administration in Member State? 9. Current vacancies in the Civil Service of Member State 10. Additional informations on employments in the Civil Service available on sites Not all EUMember States have updated the information about Civil Service: Member State information updated information not updated Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta The Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom 9
TOTAL: Information updated: 14 EU Member States ( 52 % ) Information not updated: 13 EU Member States ( 48 % ) EU Member States which have updated information about Civil Service provided information to most of the questions: EU Member 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. State Austria Belgium O O O O O O O O O O Bulgaria O O O O O O O O O O Cyprus O O Czech O O O O O O O O O O Republic Denmark O Estonia Finland O O O O O O O O O O France O Germany Greece O O O O O O O O O O Hungary O O O O O O O O O O Ireland O Italy O Latvia O O O O O O O O O O Lithuania O O O O O O O O O O Luxembourg Malta O O O O O O O O O O The Netherlands* Poland O Portugal O O O Romania O O O O O O O O O O Slovakia O O O O O O O O O O Slovenia O Spain O O O O O O O O O O Sweden O O O O O O O O O O United Kingdom O 10
* The Netherlands answered to slightly different questions: 1. What is understand by the public sector in the Netherlands? 2. How does public administration operate in the Netherlands? How does one apply for a job in the public sector in the Netherlands? What terms of employment are offered in the public sector? What options are there for applying for a different job within the public sector? Are there opportunities for international exchanges? Is it possible to do a placement in the public sector? Recent vacancies in the public sector? The option of upgrading the already existing website YourEurope is considered better solution being easily accessible and well structured providing general information about cross-mobility and also encourageing each EU Member State to focuse on specifities typical of its Civil Service. 6.3. If EU Member States proved to be unanimously for further promotion of bilateral agreements and exchange programs and for an updated central website related to mobility there were considerable differencies about who had to be responsible for updating the website. The proposal was in each EU Member State HRWG member should be responsible for updating central website related to mobility. 8 EU Member States agreed with the proposal, 4 EU Member States didn t agree, 1 EU Member State only partly agreed while 2 EU Member States left the question open: AGREE/ DON T AGREE AGREE PARTLY AGREE DON T AGREE NO ANSWER EU MEMBER STATES Austria, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Italy, Luxembourg, Portugal, Slovenia Poland Cyprus, Czech Republic, Finland, Spain France, Sweden In EU Member States opinions there were two remarks to be underlined: Germany for instance considered updating of website, if taken seriously, a workload too big for HRWG member while Denmark, Finland, Italy, Poland, Portugal and Slovenia pointed out it should be up to each Member States to determine who would be responsible for updating the national information, therefore HRWG member could be only a possible, but not compulsory, choice. 11
In order to assure the continuity of updating the website each EU Member State should have somebody responsible for it and whose e-mail adress shall be put on the YourEurope website. Each EU Member State shall also make a report to DG at the end of the presidency about what has been done in the field of mobility. This task shall be included in the EUPAN handbook. 6.4. Regarding the feed-back to the questionnaire related to NCP Network during Portuguese Presidency some suggestions were clearly stressed: the need of existence of NCP is to be reconsidered; it should be discussed if the NCP could be open to the public and provide information to it; NCP sub-group should merge with the HRWG group in order to have the same contact point for both groups; the competencies of the NCP and HRWG should be jointed up, as it already happens in several EU Member States, justified by the low work load and by the low involvement and interaction of NCP with the group. The Resolution on HRWG adopted during 49th Meeting of the Directors-General responsible for Public Administration in Lisbon, December 2007 postponed the final decision regarding the future of the NCP Network to the end of the Slovenian Presidency. EU Member States declared themselves almost unanimously in favour of merging NCP Network with HRWG, except Germany and partly Poland. Germany considered NCP had no substantial tasks in the last years and responsibility for updating the YourEurope website could be better attached to NCP in close cooperation with HRWG representative than only to HRWG members. Denmark and Poland pointed out HRWG had very broad agenda with mobility being only one part of it which had also to be taken into account while merging NCP with HRWG. European Comission s position is»the names of NCP have to be made public in order to make the NCP Network work, no matter if it is merged with HRWG or it remains separate«. Otherwise EU Member States stressed the fact the majority of HRWG representatives already assumed also NCP functions, therefore»it is not necessary to have two structures if we can have only one.«taking into account : the results of evaluation questionnaire about NCP under Portuguese Presidency ( NCP Network was recognized mostly inactive namely because of its lack of visibility and the lack of communication); the fact there were already suggestions under Irish Presidency in 2004 to improve the Network which were never implemented; the general opinion in EU Member States that the NCP Network exists only on paper with no practical relevance; the fact in several EU Member States HRWG members already assume also NCP functions; 12
Slovenia is ready to propose the extinction of NCP Network by merging it with the HRWG which does not mean the extinction of NCP functions. People having accepted to perform NCP functions may very well keep performing their tasks whenever is necessary»under the label of HRWG«. By merging NCP Network with HRWG the latter one will officially assume the NCP functions and it will be up to each EU Member State to decide how it will organize the work for HRWG. 7. Next steps The conclusions of the second HRWG meeting will be presented during 50th meeting of Directors-General responsible for public administration in the European Union in May at Brdo pri Kranju. 13