- Export
- Short link
- Subscribe to the case
- Get notified by email when the case is updated
- Get notified by RSS when the case is updated
- Share this page onTwitterFacebookLinkedin
Decision of the European Ombudsman on complaint 1841/2005/BM against the European Commission
Decision
Case 1841/2005/BM - Opened on Thursday | 16 June 2005 - Decision on Wednesday | 19 April 2006
The complainant sent a job application in Spanish to the Representation of the European Commission in Barcelona ("the Representation"). The Representation sent an e-mail in Catalan informing the complainant that he had not been shortlisted.
The complainant alleged that the Commission had not complied with Article 21 of the EC Treaty by having replied to his job application in a language other than that of his initial letter and, in addition, in a language not foreseen in the EC Treaty.
The Commission explained that the Representation generally uses the two official languages of the region, as established in the Spanish Constitution. In this case, the Representation had sent an e-mail in Catalan to all the non-selected candidates. The Commission regretted the mistake, noting that a translation of the reply into Spanish, as well as an apology, had been sent to the complainant. The Commission stated that the Representation was committed to ensuring that, in the future, e-mails intended for multiple recipients would be sent in both Spanish and Catalan.
The complainant informed the Ombudsman that he considered that the matter had been settled and thanked the Ombudsman and his services for having helped to find a positive solution to his complaint.
Strasbourg, 19 April 2006
Dear Mr M.,
On 16 May 2005, you lodged a complaint with the European Ombudsman against the European Commission. The complaint concerned the language of the reply given on 2 May 2005 by the Representation of the European Commission in Barcelona to a job application.
On 2 July 2005, you submitted additional information.
On 16 June 2005, I informed the President of the Commission of your complaint and asked him to submit an opinion by 30 September 2005. On 7 October 2005, the Commission informed me that its reply would be delayed. On 20 October 2005, I replied to the Commission and suggested that it should do its utmost to send its opinion as soon as possible.
On 24 October 2005, the Commission sent its opinion in English. On 8 November 2005, the Commission sent a translation of this opinion into Spanish, which was forwarded to you on 14 November 2005, with an invitation to make observations, if you so wished. No written observations were received from you. On 15 February 2005, my services contacted you by telephone.
I am writing now to let you know the results of the inquiries that have been made.
THE COMPLAINT
According to the complainant, the facts of the case are, in summary, as follows:
The complainant sent a job application, written in Spanish, to the Representation of the European Commission in Barcelona ("the Representation"). On 2 May 2005, the Representation informed the complainant that his application had not been shortlisted for the following step of the selection procedure. The letter was written in Catalan and signed by an official, on behalf of the Head of the Administration Department of the Representation.
In his complaint to the Ombudsman, the complainant noted that Catalan was not an official language of the EU and that he never suggested that any correspondence addressed to him should be written in this language. He also pointed out that, as set out in Article 21 of the EC Treaty, every citizen of the Union is entitled to write to any of the EU institutions in one of the 21 languages mentioned in Article 314 of the EC Treaty and to receive an answer in the same language. He underlined that Catalan was not among the languages included in this article. In the complainant's view, only the official languages of the Union should be used by EU institutions in their official documents.
The complainant alleged, in summary, that the Commission did not comply with Article 21 of the EC Treaty by having replied, on 2 May 2005, to his job application in a language other than that of his initial letter, which moreover, was not a language foreseen in the EC Treaty.
THE INQUIRY
The opinion of the CommissionIn its opinion, the Commission explained that its Representation generally uses the two official languages of the region, as established in the Spanish Constitution. It pointed out that the use of Catalan was upheld by Resolution A3-169/90 of the European Parliament of 11 December 1990 on languages in the Community and the situation of Catalan(1). The Commission stated that, as a general practice, the Representation replies to correspondence in one of these two languages, depending on the citizen's choice.
As regards this particular case, the Commission explained that, on 27 February 2005, the Representation published a job advertisement for a post of a contractual agent in two regional newspapers. Candidates were required to speak Catalan as well as Spanish, and another official Community language. After having analysed the applications received, the Representation selected a group of 16 candidates, whose qualifications best matched the requirements of the position offered, and invited them for an interview. The Representation sent a letter in Spanish to all shortlisted candidates, informing them of the results of the selection.
The Commission explained that the complainant was not among the candidates selected for an interview. The approximately 500 non-selected candidates were informed of the result of the selection procedure by e-mail, which was written in Catalan.
The Commission acknowledged that the Representation had not taken into account that some of the non-selected candidates might not have been able to understand the language of the reply. Having realised this error, the Representation sent another reply in Spanish with an apology.
The Commission noted that no other candidate had complained about receiving the reply to the job application in Catalan and that the complainant should have been able to understand Catalan, since he stated so in the curriculum vitae enclosed with his application. The Commission recalled that one of the requirements of the position was the ability to speak Catalan together with Spanish and another official Community language.
The Commission nevertheless regretted the mistake made by the Representation and noted that a translation of the reply in Spanish as well as an apology had already been sent to the complainant. The Commission also stated that the Representation was committed to ensuring that, in the future, e-mails intended for multiple recipients would be sent both in Spanish and Catalan.
The complainant's observationsOn 15 February 2005, the Ombudsman's services contacted the complainant by telephone in order to ascertain whether he was satisfied with the reply given by the Commission in its opinion.
The complainant informed the Ombudsman's services that he considered that the matter had been settled by the Commission, and thanked the Ombudsman and its services for finding a positive solution to his complaint.
THE DECISION
1 Reply in Catalan to application written in Spanish1.1 The complainant sent a job application, written in Spanish, to the Representation of the European Commission in Barcelona ("the Representation"). The Representation informed him by e-mail that he had not been shortlisted for the following step of the selection procedure. The e-mail was written in Catalan.
The complainant alleges that the Commission did not comply with Article 21 of the EC Treaty by having replied, on 2 May 2005, to his job application in a language other than that of his initial letter, which in addition, was not a language foreseen in the EC Treaty.
1.2 The Commission stated that the Representation sent an e-mail in Catalan to all non-selected candidates, including the complainant. The Commission acknowledged that the Representation had not taken into account that some of the non-selected candidates might not have been able to understand the reply, and that this was an error. The Commission regretted the mistake made by the Representation and noted that a translation of the reply into Spanish, as well as an apology, had been already sent to the complainant. The Commission stated that the Representation is committed to ensuring that, in the future, e-mails intended for multiple recipients wil l be sent in both Spanish and Catalan.
1.3 The Ombudsman notes that the Treaty languages, which EU institutions must employ in their correspondence with citizens, are set out in Article 21 of the EC Treaty. This Article states that:
"Every citizen of the Union may write to any of the EU institutions or bodies in one of the languages mentioned in Article 314 of the EC Treaty and receive an answer in the same language."
In addition, Article 314 of the EC Treaty states that:
"This Treaty, drawn up in a single original in the Dutch, French, German, and Italian languages, all four texts being equally authentic, shall be deposited in the archives of the Government of the Italian Republic, which shall transmit a certified copy to each of the Governments of the other signatory States."
"Pursuant to the Accession Treaties, the Danish, English, Finnish, Greek, Irish, Portuguese, Spanish and Swedish versions of this Treaty shall also be authentic."
The Ombudsman notes that, since the accession of the ten new Member States to the European Community on 1 May 2004, and pursuant to Article 61 of the Act concerning their conditions of accession, the Czech, Estonian, Hungarian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Maltese, Polish, Slovak and Slovenian languages are also Treaty languages.
The Ombudsman recalls that Article 13 of the European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour sets out that:
"The official shall ensure that every citizen of the Union or any member of the public who writes to the Institution in one of the Treaty languages receives an answer in the same language. The same shall apply as far as possible to legal persons such as associations (NGOs) and companies."
1.4 The Ombudsman notes that, in this instance, having received a letter from a citizen written in one of the languages referred to in the EC Treaty, the Commission replied in a different language. It appears, however, that having realised its error, the Commission took the necessary steps and sent an additional reply to the complainant written in the language of the complainant's letter, to which it added an apology. In view of the initiative taken by the Commission, the Ombudsman contacted the complainant on 15 February 2005. The latter considered that the matter had been settled by the Commission to his satisfaction, and thanked the Ombudsman and his services for having helped to find a positive solution to his complaint.
ConclusionIt appears from the Commission's opinion and the complainant's observations that the Commission has taken adequate steps to settle the matter. The Ombudsman therefore closes the case.
The President of the Commission will also be informed of this decision.
Yours sincerely,
P. Nikiforos DIAMANDOUROS
(1) OJ 1991 C 19, p.42.
- Export
- Short link
- Subscribe to the case
- Get notified by email when the case is updated
- Get notified by RSS when the case is updated
- Share this page onTwitterFacebookLinkedin