European Ombudsman
Dear Dr Ó.,
On 2 August 2006, you made a complaint to the European Ombudsman on behalf of STÁDAS concerning the alleged failure by the Council of the European Union to reply in Irish to your e-mail of 17 July 2006.
On 13 September 2006, I forwarded the complaint to the Secretary-General of the Council. The Council sent its opinion on 21 November 2006. I forwarded it to you with an invitation to make observations, which you sent on 24 January 2007.
I am writing now to let you know the results of the inquiries that have been made.
The relevant facts according to the complainant can be summarised as follows.
The complainant, who is a member of STÁDAS, an organisation which seeks to promote the status of the Irish language in the European Union, wrote to the Council in Irish on 17 July 2006, mainly about the degree of preparedness of the EU for Irish becoming an official EU language on 1 January 2007. He received a reply in English from the Council on 28 July 2006.
The complainant alleged that the Council's failure to reply to his e-mail of 17 July 2006 in Irish constitutes an infringement of his rights under Article 21 of the EC Treaty.
The complainant claimed that the Council should:
The Council's opinion can be summarised as follows.
On 17 July 2006, the complainant sent an e-mail to the Council's Public Information Unit with a number of questions related to the implementation of Irish as an official language, and as a working language, of the EU. The complainant's e-mail was written in Irish.
On 28 July 2006, the Council's Public Information Unit responded by e-mail in English.
In its opinion to the Ombudsman, the Council apologises to the complainant for the inconvenience and provides a translation into Irish of its response.
The Council points out that the complainant did not contact the Council before complaining to the Ombudsman. Article 2(4) of the Decision of the European Parliament of 9 March 1994 on the regulations and general conditions governing the performance of the Ombudsman's duties(1) ("the Statute") provides that:
"[a] complaint shall be made within two years of the date on which the facts on which it is based came to the attention of the person lodging the complaint and must be preceded by the appropriate administrative approaches to the institutions and bodies concerned." (The Council's underlining.)
The complainant manifestly failed to approach the Council with a view to allowing that institution to correct the error made and/or apologise. The rule in Article 2(4) of the Statute serves the aim of avoiding the unnecessary burdening of the Ombudsman and the institutions concerned with complaint procedures that could be settled amicably. While the procedure outlined in Article 2(4) of the Statute was not followed and therefore raises strong doubts as to the admissibility of the complaint, the Council will ensure that, in the future, requests for information in the Irish language are replied to in that language.
The comments made by the complainant in his observations can be summarised as follows.
The complainant notes that the Council has apologised for the inconvenience caused by it replying in English. The complainant accepts the Council's apology. He also thanks the Council for having provided a reply in Irish, in accordance with Article 21 of the Treaty.
However, the complainant had not stated that he did not contact the Council before sending the complaint to the Ombudsman. He noted that if the intention of question 5 of the Ombudsman's complaint form was to ask whether 'redress' had been asked for, he confirmed that, indeed, he did not contact the Council in order to obtain redress after having received the Council's response in English. He stated that when he received the answer which is the subject of the complaint, it was his considered opinion that the procedure for gaining redress had been exhausted and that his only option was to turn to the Ombudsman.
He went on to note that, when he received the Council's reply of 28 July 2006 in English, he knew from his personal experience of receiving replies in English from the institutions of the Union to his letters in Irish, that the e-mail sent by the Council was not an isolated case, but rather consistent with practices in place with regard to replying to correspondence written in Irish. The non-compliance with the EC Treaty was therefore of systematic nature and it would not have been enough to write to the Council seeking redress. A mere letter from him would not have corrected the poor administrative measures that were in place.
The complainant went on to argue that his complaint did not relate to the substance of the Council's response of 28 July 2006. He argued that the scope of his complaint was not "limited to the language in which the e-mail of 28 July from the Council was drafted."
He went on to argue that it is not true that he failed to make appropriate administrative approaches to the Council. He pointed out that he made various attempts to solve, in a friendly manner, complaints relating to the illegal practices that were being implemented by the institutions. He had written to the EU institutions in Irish at various times after 1 May 1998, when the relevant provision of Article 21 of the EC Treaty entered into force, and received replies in English. He had made attempts to convince the institutions that the basic law of the Union was being breached. It was therefore his considered opinion that his case was not an isolated instance which had occurred by accident or mistake, but was deliberate, and reflected the practices in place.
He noted that if his complaint were not to be considered admissible, that would mean that the citizens would have to undergo further difficulties in order to establish their rights in cases where practices inconsistent with those rights were being implemented on a systematic or administrative basis.
While the complainant welcomes the reassurance that correspondence in Irish will be replied to in Irish from now on, he notes that, nevertheless, this was a case of maladministration. In this respect, he noted that it was significant that the Council's opinion did not refer to the reasons for having replied to him in English or to the measures or practices in place with regard to answering correspondence in Irish.
In his observations, the complainant also made a number of comments regarding the wording used in the Irish version of the Ombudsman's complaint form.
1.1 The Ombudsman notes that the Council has questioned whether the complaint should be deemed to be admissible insofar as, in the Council's view, the complainant failed, as required by the Ombudsman's Statute(2), to make appropriate prior administrative approaches to it. According to the Council, the complainant manifestly failed to approach the Council with a view to allowing that institution to correct the error made and/or apologise.
1.2 The Ombudsman acknowledges the right of institutions or bodies to which complaints have been communicated by the Ombudsman to put forward their views regarding the admissibility of the complaints. The Ombudsman welcomes the opportunity to explain and to clarify such matters.
1.3 Article 2(4) of the Statute stipulates that a complaint must be preceded by the appropriate administrative approaches to the institutions and bodies concerned. It is therefore indeed normally incumbent on the complainant to make administrative approaches to the institution before complaining to the Ombudsman.
1.4 However, in certain cases, there may be no administrative approaches that can be considered to be "appropriate." This is particularly the case when the complainant rightly considers that, given the circumstances, nothing of practical value could be achieved by making an administrative approach to the institution or body. It would not be in conformity with Article 2(4) of the Statute to impose an obligation to make an administrative approach before complaining to the Ombudsman in cases where there exists no "appropriate" administrative approach.
1.5 The Ombudsman recalls that it is for him to decide whether there exists appropriate administrative approaches in particular cases.
1.6 The Ombudsman notes that the present case concerns a complainant that wrote to the Council in Irish in relation to whether the Council was prepared for the fact that Irish was about to become an official language of the EU. The complainant received a reply from the Council in English. Given the context, it is reasonable to assume that the complainant was seriously antagonised by this response. Requiring the complainant to engage in further contacts with the Council would, in such circumstances, have been of no practical value to either the complainant or the Council. The Ombudsman therefore concluded that there were no administrative approaches that could be considered "appropriate" in the present case. The Ombudsman notes that his assessment as regards the non-existence of an appropriate prior administrative approach in this case is confirmed by the complainant's observations that "his only option was to turn to the Ombudsman."
1.7 The Ombudsman notes the complainant's statements that he made various attempts to solve, in a friendly manner, complaints relating to what, in his view, were illegal practices implemented by the institutions, since 1 May 1998, in relation to the use of Irish. The Ombudsman notes that the present inquiry concerns only the response of the Council to the complainant's e-mail of 17 July 2006. Thus, "approaches" made by the complainant since 1 May 1998 are, except to the extent they serve to contextualise the present complaint, not of direct concern as regards the Ombudsman's inquiry.
1.8 The Ombudsman would further like to thank the complainant for the useful comments made in his observations as regards the way in which the Irish version of the Ombudsman's complaint form is formulated. The Ombudsman has already taken steps to check the appropriateness of the wording of the Irish version of the complaint form.
2.1 The substance of the present case concerns the language used by the Council when replying to the complainant's correspondence. The complaint was made on behalf of STÁDAS and the complainant alleged that the Council's failure to reply to his e-mail of 17 July 2006 in Irish constitutes an infringement of his rights under Article 21 of the EC Treaty. The complainant claimed that the Council should provide him with a reply in Irish and apologise to him and to STÁDAS for having infringed Article 21 of the EC Treaty.
2.2 The Council recalls that the complainant sent an e-mail to the Council's Public Information Unit on 17 July 2006 with a number of questions related to the implementation of Irish as an official language, and as a working language, of the EU. The complainant's e-mail was written in Irish. The Council acknowledges that the Public Information Unit responded to him by e-mail in English on 28 July 2006. The Council apologises to the complainant for the inconvenience and, in its opinion to the Ombudsman, provides a translation into Irish of its response. The Council stated that it will ensure that, in the future, requests for information in the Irish language are replied to in that language.
2.3 In his observations, the complainant notes that the Council has apologised for the inconvenience caused by replying in English. The complainant accepts the Council's apology. He also thanks the Council for having provided a reply in Irish, in accordance with Article 21 of the Treaty. The complainant went on to point out that his complaint was not limited to the language in which the Council's e-mail of 28 July 2006 was drafted, since the non-compliance with Article 21 of the EC Treaty as regards correspondence in Irish is systematic in nature. However, the complainant welcomes the Council's assurance that correspondence in Irish will henceforth be replied to in Irish.
2.4 The Ombudsman first of all notes that the allegation contained in the complaint submitted to him concerns the fact that the Council's e-mail of 28 July 2006 was written in English. The Ombudsman notes that complainant claimed that the Council should respond in Irish and apologise. In his observations on the Council's opinion, the complainant pointed out that his complaint was not limited to the Council's e-mail of 28 July 2006. In his view, it also concerned, as regards correspondence in Irish, the alleged systematic non-compliance by Community institutions with Article 21 of the EC Treaty.
The allegation as regards systematic non-compliance with Article 21 of the EC Treaty does not constitute part of the original complaint. Therefore, the Ombudsman will not examine, in the context of this inquiry, whether there existed a systematic policy as regards the use, or the lack thereof, of Irish. However, the complainant may consider submitting a separate complaint to the Ombudsman regarding the matter if he so wishes.
2.5 The Ombudsman notes that Article 21 of the EC Treaty recognises the unequivocal right of citizens to write to the Community institutions in any of the Treaty languages and to receive an answer in the same language. This right is further defined by Article 13 of the European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour(3), which stipulates that officials shall ensure that every citizen, 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 Ombudsman notes that it is in the interests of democracy, transparency, legitimacy and effectiveness that the fundamental right of citizens to correspond with the EU institutions in any of the Treaty languages, and to receive an answer in the same language, has been recognised(4). Further, any failure to respect this fundamental right impacts upon the dignity and individuality of the citizen. Any infringement of this fundamental right by the EU institutions constitutes an instance of maladministration.
2.6 The Ombudsman notes that, in the present case, the Council has acknowledged its incorrect behaviour, has apologised for it and has provided the complainant with an Irish translation of its reply of 28 July 2006. It has also made a commitment to ensure that, in the future, requests for information in the Irish language are replied to in that language. The complainant has accepted the apology, has thanked for the reply in Irish and has welcomed the Council's assurance that future correspondence in Irish will be replied to in Irish. This reassurance is, in the Ombudsman's view, a sufficient explanation of the measures in place with regard to answering correspondence in Irish.
2.7 In view of the above, the Ombudsman considers that the Council appears to have taken adequate steps to settle the matter and has thereby satisfied the complainant.
It appears from the Council's opinion and the complainant's observations that the Council has taken steps to settle the matter and has thereby satisfied the complainant. The Ombudsman therefore closes the case.
The Secretary-General of the Council will also be informed of this decision.
Yours sincerely,
P. Nikiforos DIAMANDOUROS
(1) OJ 1994 L 113, p. 15.
(2) See Article 2(4) of the Decision of the European Parliament of 9 March 1994 on the regulations and general conditions governing the performance of the Ombudsman's duties, OJ 1994 L 113, p. 15.
(3) The European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour is available on the Ombudsman's website (http://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/code/pdf/en/code2005_en.pdf).
(4) Article 21 of the EC Treaty and Article 41(4) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
