Strasbourg, 31 October 2007

Dear Mr V.,

On 3 October 2006, you submitted a complaint to the European Ombudsman against the European Commission concerning the languages used in its publications and communications.

On 12 January 2007, in reply to my services' telephone call of the same day, you submitted additional information concerning your complaint. On 19 February 2007, you sent supporting documents.

On 22 February 2007, I forwarded the original complaint to the President of the Commission and, on 13 March 2007, I forwarded to him the additional information you had provided me with.

On 20 June 2007, the Commission sent its opinion in English, and, on 2 July 2007, its translation into French. On 27 June 2007, I forwarded to you the English version of the Commission's opinion, and, on 6 July 2007, its French version with an invitation to make observations. I also informed you of the change of the legal officer dealing with your case in my Office.

On 13 August 2007, you sent your observations.

I am writing now to let you know the results of the inquiries that have been made.

THE COMPLAINT

The complaint may be summarised as follows:

On 28 July 2005, the complainant, a member of "Team Europa"(1), wrote to Commissioner Wallström requesting that an annex to the Commission's "Action plan to improve the communication about Europe", which is s available in English, be also made available in French.

By letter of 12 September 2005, the Commissioner informed the complainant that, since this was an internal document that was not supposed to be widely published, the annex was only available in English. The Commissioner went on to add that a White paper on communication, which would target all stakeholders outside the Commission with an eye to obtaining useful contributions, was being prepared and would be available in all EU languages.

On 10 August 2006, the complainant again addressed a letter to Commissioner Wallström . He noted that the publications and different communications addressed to citizens by the Commission are, initially, and sometimes exclusively, drafted in English. The complainant recalled, in summary, that the documents of the European institutions should be drafted in the three "procedural languages" of the Communities, namely, English, French and German, except if there is an imperative and justified necessity for doing otherwise. He also recalled Council Regulation No 1/58 determining the languages to be used by the European Economic Community(2) ("Regulation 1/58"). Finally, he took the view that, when replying to requests for information that are formulated in French, Community institutions should provide that information in French. In this connection, he referred therefore to a document he had received from the institutions(3) in English, which concerned the Scientific Council of the European Research Council.

In her reply of 29 September 2006, Commissioner Wallström pointed out that, according to the Commission's White paper on European policy on communication, multilingualism constitutes a precondition to any debate with the citizens. The Commissioner assured the complainant of her determination to ensure that the existing rules in this regard should be applied and that the Commission's Europa website should be made available, as far as possible, in the 20 languages of the EU. She added that she also sought to ensure that this principle should also apply to various forums of discussion opened by the Commission.

Subsequently, the complainant noted that a number of further documents, such as the Bulletin of the European Foundation for the Improvement of the Living and Working Conditions ("Eurofound"), were exclusively published in English by the European institutions/agencies. In this regard, the complainant approached Eurofound's director who referred to the financial constraints as regards the translations. Moreover, the Commission's representation in Paris sent the complainant a questionnaire concerning a training programme in Team Europe to which the complainant could not respond because it was in English, which is the language that he does not master. The complainant also noted that the Intranet sites of "Europe Direct" and "Team Europe" are available only in English.

In his complaint to the European Ombudsman, the complainant alleged, in essence, that in its reply of 29 September 2006, the Commission failed properly to deal with the request made in his letter of 10 August 2006.

The complainant claimed that that the Commission should make available its publications and communications available in English, French and German, that is, in its three working languages.

THE INQUIRY

The Commission's opinion

The Commission’s opinion may be summarised as follows:

The use of languages in the Commission's publications and communications

The size of the financial resources allocated to translation is not determined by the Commission but by the EU Budgetary Authorities, namely, the Council and Parliament. According to the Commission, "the political decision makers have not allocated enough resources to allow it to translate all publications and communications into all languages." In managing the resources allocated to it, the Commission must take into account that (i) it is bound by Community law to provide certain translations ( "legal obligation"); (ii) it has its own needs for translation in order to be able to function as an institution ("operational necessity"); and (iii) it also needs to translate webpages and other texts intended for the public.

As regards point (i), the Commission recalled the relevant provision of Council Regulation 1/58. Given that the Commission has the right of initiative, legislation and all translations of legislation originate with the Commission. Moreover, the preparatory documents for the legislative process (Green and White Papers accompanied by supporting documents like explanatory memoranda and impact assessment summaries) and follow-up measures such as revisions and reporting, also need to be translated into all official languages. The obligation to translate the Official Journal into all official languages, prescribed in Article 1 of Regulation 1/58, additionally contributes to the translation workload.

As regards point (ii), the Commission referred to the principle of non-discrimination as regards the choice of languages used within the Commission. The Commission explained that the translations are done on the basis of "an actual internal need", and that, "where there is no actual internal need it would be discriminatory to translate documents into certain languages but not into others."

The Commission recalled that, according to Regulation 1/58, the institutions may stipulate in their rules of procedure which of the official languages are to be used in specific cases. The rules implementing the Commission’s Rules of Procedure provide that the documents to be discussed at the Commission's meetings shall be distributed to the Commissioners in the languages stipulated by the President of the Commission, taking into account their minimum requirements. The Commission's rules do not specify which languages are to be used. In practice however the so-called "procedural languages" are used, namely, English, French and German. Other language versions may be required mainly for the entry into force of an act or its communication to its addressees.

Other types of internal documents are translated when there is an actual need for more than one language version. According to the Commission’s Communication Translation in the Commission - Responding to the challenges in 2007 and beyond(4), administrative notices, for example, are always available in English, French and German. Some types of documents such as internal working papers in the directorates-general are not translated while other documents, such as forms for the Commission’s staff, are translated into all official languages. The Commission noted therefore that, according to Regulation 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents(5) ("1049/2001"), the public can gain access to many of the Commission's internal working documents. The objective of Regulation 1049/2001, however, is to give access to existing documents and, consequently, to the documents in their original language. The Regulation does not give rise to any obligation on the part of the institution to translate documents.

As regards point (iii), the Commission referred to publications intended for the public, such as newsletters, booklets and brochures and stated that it had no legal obligation to translate these publications. It also explained that, in order to decide about the translation of publications, it applies the "actual need" criterion. In this respect, the Commission stated that, for financial reasons, publications are often translated only into English, French and German. As regards, in particular, the newsletter referred to by the complainant, that is, Eurofund News, the Commission pointed out that it is not responsible for the translation policies of the EU agencies, and that the Member States are represented in Eurofound's Management Board and can directly influence its decisions.

The Commission also pointed out that the translation of websites constitutes a recent policy priority. The Commission explained that the Commission ensures the translation of the Europa website and of the principal inter-institutional pages, as well as increasing portions of the Commission’s websites, portals and its directorates-general's websites.

On the basis of the above-mentioned legal and operational needs, the Commission regularly updates its translation priorities in the following policy documents:

1. A strategy for the translation service outlook for 2002 and beyond(6);
2. Matching supply and demand for translation, which is a Communication from Vice-President Kinnock in agreement with President Prodi(7);
3. Translation in a multilingual community: Managing supply and demand in the Commission until the end of 2006, which is a Communication from Mr Figel(8);
4. Translation in the Commission-Responding to the Challenges in 2007 and beyond, which is a Communication from the Commission(9).

The above documents have been made available to the other institutions, including the Council, Parliament and the Court of Auditors.

The Commission concluded that, even if the Commission were to dedicate all its translation resources to translating only into German, English and French, the amount of these resources would not be sufficient to translate all existing Commission publications and communications into these three languages. Moreover, according to Community law, the Commission is not allowed to do so and a large part of the available resources must be allocated to the translation of many (legal) documents into all official languages,. The Commission took the view that it fulfils the legal obligation to translate into all languages legislation and documents intended for the Official Journal. The remaining translation resources allocated to the Commission are spent in accordance with a complex examination on the basis of transparent and regularly updated policy documents.

The Commission recalled the principle of non-discrimination regarding languages. Allocating all its resources for translation into just three languages would result in discrimination vis-à-vis all the other languages.

The Intranet sites of Europe Direct and Team Europe

The Commission also appeared to identify as a separate allegation the complainant's statement in his complaint that the Intranet sites of Europe Direct and Team Europe are available only in English. The Commission dealt with it in a separate part of its opinion.

According to the Commission, the Europe Direct Intranet website (http://ednetwork.ec.europa.eu) was set up in order to facilitate communication between the Commission and the members of the Europe Direct information network. It is not accessible to the general public because it is an internal communication tool for a restricted group of users. These users belong to three different networks: (i) the relays of Europe Direct which have contracts with the Commission and receive operational subsidies, (ii) the European Documentation Centres which also have contracts with the Commission but do not receive any financial assistance except for free publications via the Office of Publications, and (iii) the members of Team Europe who are independent conference speakers listed by the Commission's representations. There are, in total, approximately 1500 users of that Intranet service.

The Europe Direct Intranet website is designed, hosted and maintained by a service provider who signed a contract with the Commission in December 2005 (the contract can be extended annually until the end of November 2009). According to that contract, "the intranet is written in one language". Some documents on that website are, however, available in English, French and German. Illustrative examples of such documents are the Newsletter, some documents in the library section, the questions and answers service and the Information Dossiers. In particular, the PowerPoint presentations are available in 20 languages and those uploaded in 2007 are available in 23 languages. The network members can also upload their publications and inform readers about their activities in any EU official language.

The Commission considers however that the translation of all technical structures, functionalities and databases found on the Europe Direct Intranet website into more languages than are currently available on that webiste would not be a cost efficient use of resources. Moreover, this would require a new call for tender and the signing of a new contract.

The complainant's observations

The complainant's observations may be summarised as follows:

The complainant pointed out that he did not seek the translation of all (complainant's emphasis) the Commission's publications and communications into three languages but rather an undertaking that it would translate those publications that are intended for the general public, that is, for the "civic society" and "European citizens of all generations".

The complainant took the view that the Commission appears however to be far from satisfying actual external needs ("besoins externes réels"). In its opinion, the Commission failed to refer to these actual external needs and instead focused on its actual own internal needs. According to the complainant, maladministration should be found not with respect to the Commission's objectives but rather with respect to how it implements them.

The complainant considers that the Commission's recent strategic priority to develop its website is an example of maladministration. The complainant suggests that the Commission should be invited to use a part of its financial and human resources for the development of means of communication other than the Internet that are presumably more accessible to the general public in all 27 Member States (in particular, in the new Member States). In this regard, the complainant suggested making information available on the television or distributing publications on paper.

The complainant also referred to Eurofound's publications which are only accessible in English. Eurofound's Director explained this use of languages on the basis of financial constraints. The complainant suggested therefore that, in this respect, the Ombudsman could approach "the relevant European authorities via COREPER."

THE DECISION

1 Preliminary remarks

1.1 In his observations, the complainant made the point that the publications of the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions ("Eurofound") are only accessible in English. In this respect, the complainant also suggested that the Ombudsman approach "the relevant European authorities via COREPER."

1.2 As far as the above point made by the complainant could be considered as a new allegation against Eurofound, the Ombudsman points out, as was also stated by the Commission in its opinion, that the Commission is not responsible for the translation policies of European agencies such as Eurofound. For that reason the Ombudsman will not deal with that point in the decision on the present complaint against the Commission. However, the complainant is free to lodge a new complaint, after having completed the prior administrative approaches to Eurofound in this regard. At that stage, the Ombudsman could take the opportunity to consider the complainant's related suggestion.

1.3 In his observations, the complainant made also the point that the Commission's recent strategic priority to develop its website is an example of maladministration and that the Commission's publications and communications would be much more accessible to the general public if the Commission were to use a part of its translation resources to disseminate the information contained in these publications via television or on paper rather than further developing its website.

1.4 As far as the above point made by the complainant could be considered as a new allegation, the Ombudsman notes that the complainant has not made the prior administrative approaches to the Commission in this regard. The Ombudsman will not therefore deal with the above issue in the decision on the present complaint. However, the complainant is free to lodge a new complaint after having completed the prior administrative approaches to the Commission in this regard.

2 The quality of the Commission’s replies and the choice of languages used in the Commission's external publications and communications (including its website and the Intranet website of Europe Direct and Team Europe)

2.1 The complainant alleged, in essence, that, in its reply of 29 September 2006, the Commission failed properly to deal with the request made in his letter of 10 August 2006.

The complainant claimed that the Commission should prepare its publications and communications in English, French and German, that is, in its three working languages.

In particular, the complainant requested that the Intranet sites of Europe Direct and Team Europe be made available in the above languages and noted that it is currently available in English only.

2.2 In summary, the Commission recalled in its opinion that it manages the resources allocated to it for translations by Parliament and Council on the basis of its relevant rules on translation policy contained in a number of documents , which have been made available to other institutions, namely, the Council, Parliament and the Court of Auditors. The Commission manages these resources in such a way that, first, it covers the translations into all official languages of legal documents and documents related to the legislative process. The Commission then spends the remainder of these resources to cover (i) the translation of documents relating to its operational needs (internal documents), and (ii) the translation of its external publications and websites. The Commission emphasised that the translation of its external publications and websites is a recent priority.

As regards point (i), the Commission explained that there are no precise rules with respect to which languages it should use for its internal work. It also explained that, in practice, its internal documents that are intended to be used in its meetings are produced in English, French and German. Furthermore, it explained that other documents are translated into more than one language if "an actual need" arises. In this respect, the Commission pointed out that Regulation 1049/2001 does not impose an obligation on the institution to translate but prescribes that access should be given to existing documents (therefore in their original language).

As regards point (ii), the Commission stated that, even if it were to spend all translation resources allocated to it in order to translate only into German, English and French, the amount of these resources would not be sufficient to translate all existing Commission publications and communications into these three languages. Moreover, in doing so, the Commission could potentially discriminate impermissibly against the other official languages. Nevertheless, the publications intended for the public (newsletters, booklets and brochures) are often published only in English, German and French because of financial reasons.

As regards the issue of the languages used on the Europe Direct Intranet website, the Commission explained that this website is an internal communication tool designed to serve for a restricted group of users (approximately 1500 users). The Commission also pointed out that, according to the contract between the Commission and the service provider for that Intranet website, the latter is available in one language. However, some specific documents on that website and the questions and answers section are available in English, German and French. Extending the number of languages used on that website would not constitute a cost efficient use of resources and would, in addition, require the organisation of a new call for tender and the signing of a new contract.

The Commission emphasised that "the political decision makers have not allocated enough resources to allow it to translate all publications and communications into all languages."

2.3 First, the Ombudsman notes that, in his letter of 10 August 2006, the complaint requested, in essence, that the Commission ensure that the Community documents are produced in the three working languages, that is, in English, French and German, except when there is an imperative and justified necessity to do otherwise. However, in its reply of 29 September 2006, the Commission referred very generally to its position with respect to multilingualism and undertook to ensure that the relevant rules are respected. It did not, however, address specifically the complainant's request. Therefore, the Commission’s reply of 29 September 2006 does not appear to be accurate or complete.

2.4 The Ombudsman notes however that, in its opinion on the complaint, which, according to the Ombudsman's normal procedure, was forwarded to the complainant, the Commission answered the complainant's above request, and explained in detail the use of languages and the translation priorities relating to its publications and communications.

2.5 The Commission explained that the choice of the languages in which its internal documents are prepared is made on the basis of the "actual internal need" criterion. In this respect the Ombudsman has consistently expressed the view that, subject to any specific legal requirements, it is a matter for the institution itself to determine in which languages it works internally, so as to perform its duties effectively and efficiently.

The Ombudsman also recalls that, according to Regulation 1/58, the institutions may stipulate in their rules of procedure which of the official languages are to be used in specific cases. It appears, as explained by the Commission, that its Rules of Procedure do not establish any specific internal linguistic policy. The Ombudsman considers it reasonable, however, that, in general, internal documents, given their nature (detailed, extended documents), should not necessarily be translated into all official languages. Because they exist only in the language they were drafted, they could be published, as such.

The Ombudsman also notes, in this respect, the Commission's remark concerning requests for access to its internal documents (in their existing linguistic version) made on the basis of Regulation 1049/2001. The Ombudsman acknowledges that there is no legal obligation to draw up a new document containing information that an applicant requests. However, the Ombudsman has consistently expressed the view that it is good administrative practice to provide information when requested to do so, unless the institution or body concerned can show that there is a good reason for not doing so. The Ombudsman trusts therefore that the Commission will be able to provide, as far as possible, information in a language that the interested person requests, even when this information refers to internal documents that are drafted in and are only available in a different language. As pointed out by the complainant in his letter of 10 August 2006 to the Commission, in reply to the requests for information sent to the Community institutions and made in French, that information should have been provided in French. In this respect, the Ombudsman will make a further remark below.

2.6 As regards the Commission's publications and communications intended for the public, the Ombudsman points out that, in general, where the institution's external communication with the citizens is involved, the choice of the language used in that communication is determined by citizens themselves, on the basis of Article 2 of Regulation 1/58(10). In order for that external communication to be effective, it is necessary that citizens understand the information provided to them by the institutions. Therefore ideally, the material intended for citizens should be published in all the official languages. In this respect, the Ombudsman recalls that Articles 21, 314 and 290 of the EC Treaty as well as Regulation 1/58(11) set out the legal basis for multilingualism in the EU. The principle of respect for linguistic diversity has also been expressly enshrined in Article 22 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which provides that "[t]he Union shall respect cultural religious and linguistic diversity."

The Ombudsman understands that the Commission is committed to multilingualism and that it aims to prepare its publications and communications intended for the public in all official languages(12), but that "often" its publications are available only in English, French and German. Therefore, the question arises as to whether the Commission is justified in not publishing all its external publications in all the official languages.

2.7 In this respect, the Ombudsman points out that, in Case C-361/01 Kik v OHIM(13), the Court of Justice held that Article 314 of the EC Treaty does not enshrine the equality of languages an absolute principle of Community law. Furthermore, the Court held in the same case(14) that the language policy of a Community institution or body will often be the result of a complex examination which seeks to achieve the necessary balance between conflicting interests but also provides an appropriate linguistic solution to practical difficulties. The Court went on to find that the Council's choice of treating some of the official languages differently from others, on the grounds that certain languages are more widely used, can be appropriate and proportionate(15).

Moreover, in his Special Report to the European Parliament following the draft recommendation to the Council in complaint 1487/2005/GG, the Ombudsman considered that, if the number of languages used in the presentation of institutional websites were to be limited, the choice of official languages to be used would have to be based on objective and reasonable considerations(16).

2.8 The Ombudsman notes that the Commission put forward two main arguments to justify its limited choice of languages to be used for its publications.

2.9 First, the Commission argued that, when choosing the languages to be used for its publications, it applies the "actual need" criterion.

In this regard, the Ombudsman points out that the principle of good administration requires the institutions to be citizen friendly. In the Ombudsman's view, this principle implies that, when establishing whether there is an " actual need", the institutions should give paramount weight to the interests of the citizens rather than merely consider their own interests.

2.10 Second, the Commission invoked financial reasons to explain why its external publications are not translated into all languages and are only published in a limited number of languages (namely, English, French and German). In particular, the Ombudsman notes the Commission's statements in its opinion that "[t]he size of the financial resources allocated to translation is established not by the Commission (....)", and, that "the political decision makers have not allocated enough resources to allow it to translate all publications and communications into all languages." Finally, the Ombudsman notes that the Commission stated that, when managing the resources allocated to it for translations, it has first to fulfil its legal obligation to translate legislation and documents intended for the Official Journal into all languages and, then spend remaining resources ("what is left") according to criteria contained in "transparent and regularly updated policy documents."

2.11 In light of the explanation in point 2.10 above and of his finding in point 2.4 above, the Ombudsman considers that no further inquiries are justified as regards the complainant's allegation.

The Ombudsman also considers that it would be useful and appropriate to send a copy of the present decision to the President of Parliament for his information.

2.12 As regards the complainant's claim concerning the Commission's publications and communications, the Ombudsman notes the complainant's observation that he does not request that all the Commission's publications and communications be translated into English, French and German but only those that are intended for the general public. In this respect the Ombudsman notes that, on the basis of the Commission's opinion, it appears that, in principle, its publications intended for the general public (newsletters, booklets and brochures) are available in all official languages but "often the translation is (...) limited to English, French and German." Therefore, the Ombudsman does not consider that further inquiries are necessary as regards the complainant's claim.

The Ombudsman applauds the Commission's intention, as declared in its opinion on a similar complaint(17), progressively to develop its website in all official languages.

2.13 Finally, as regards the part of the complainant's claim which concerns the Europe Direct Intranet website, the Ombudsman takes note of the Commission's explanations concerning this internal communication tool, its limited number of users, the fact that specific documents are available in English, German and French, and the fact that, as of 2007, the PowerPoint presentations are available in all 23 official languages. Therefore it appears that the Commission's view that translations of the Intranet site in question into more languages is not cost efficient does not appear unreasonable. Moreover, the Ombudsman understands that the Commission's explanation in 2.10 above, which regards its limited resources for translations, also concerns its choice of the languages on the Europe Direct Intranet website. Accordingly, he does not consider that further inquiries are justified into this aspect of the complaint.

3 Conclusion

On the basis of his inquiry into the present case and taking into consideration the Commission's recent opinion in a similar case against the Commission (871/2006/(BB)MHZ), the Ombudsman considers that no further inquiries are justified.

The Ombudsman therefore closes the case.

The President of the Commission will also be informed of this decision.

For the reasons stated in point 2.10 and 2.11 above, the Ombudsman will also send a copy of the decision to the President of Parliament.

FURTHER REMARK

The Ombudsman trusts that, as far as possible, the Commission will consider providing citizens with the information they request in a language that they understand, even when that information concerns internal documents, publications or communications (including those published on the Europe Direct Intranet website), which exist in a language different from the language of the applicant.

Yours sincerely,

 

P. Nikiforos DIAMANDOUROS

---

(1) The complainant emphasised that his opinions are personal and do not bind "Team Europa".

(2) Regulation No 1/58, OJ 1958 B 17, p. 385.

(3) It appears that the sender could be the Office of Publications.

(4) Communication, SEC (2006)1489, final, p. 20 at 4.3.1.

(5) Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents, OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43.

(6) SEC(2002) 382.

(7) SEC(2004) 638.

(8) SEC(2005) 984.

(9) SEC(2006)1489.

(10) Article 2: "Documents which a Member State or a person subject to the jurisdiction of a Member State sends to institutions of the Community may be drafted in any one of the official languages selected by the sender. The reply shall be drafted in the same language."

(11) OJ 1958 B 17, p. 385.

(12) The Ombudsman points out in this regard that in its opinion on another complaint concerning the same issue (871/2006/(BB)MHZ), the Commission stated that "les publications de communication (...) paraissent systematiquement dans toutes les langues officielles."

(13) C-361/01 Kik v OHIM [2003] ECR I-8283, paragraph 87. This case concerned the languages to be used in proceedings before the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market.

(14) C-361/01 Kik v OHIM, cited above, paragraphs 92-94.

(15) C-361/01 Kik v OHIM, cited above, paragraphs 93-94.

(16) The Ombudsman made reference in his Special Report to Case C-361/01 P Kik v OHIM, cited above, paragraph 94.

(17) Decision on complaint 871/2006/(BB)MHZ is available on the Ombudsman's website (http://www.ombudsman.europa.eu).