THE BACKGROUND TO THE COMPLAINT

1. The complainant worked for the European institutions for more than 35 years as a freelance interpreter translating into French from Dutch, English, German, Italian and Spanish. Since 1 May 2004, that is, one month after the complainant reached the age of 65 years, he did not receive any employment proposal from Parliament.

2. On the basis of Regulation 628/2000(1), the European Commission and Parliament decided in 2000 to stop recruiting Auxiliary Conference Interpreters ("ACIs") who are older than 65 years of age. Following this decision, certain interpreters initiated legal proceedings before the Court of First Instance against the Commission and Parliament (Joined Cases T-153/01 and T-323/01(2), Case T-275/01(3) and Case T-276/01(4)). The complainant was not a party to these court proceedings.

3. In Cases T-323/01, 275/01 and 276/01, the applicants requested the annulment of the institutions' letters stating that they could no longer recruit ACIs who are older than 65 years of age. The Court of First Instance found that, as a result of these letters, the institutions had refused to recruit the applicants because of their age, and that these decisions were not lawful. The Court of First Instance held that the institutions had wrongly considered that Article 74(1) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants(5) ("CEOS") applied to the applicants, essentially because the rules applicable to Auxiliary Session Interpreters, established in a regulation adopted by the Bureau of the European Parliament on 13 July 1999, and in a convention signed on 28 July 1999, dealt with the issue of the end of the appointment and did not provide for an age limit for the recruitment of ACIs.

4. An appeal (Case C-373/2004 P(6)) against the judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance in Joined Cases T-153/01 and T-323/01 was brought before the Court of Justice on 27 August 2004 by the Commission.

5. On 10 January 2006, the Court of Justice ruled on the appeal in Joined Cases T-153/01 and T-323/01. The Court of Justice took the view that the Court of First Instance was wrong to declare admissible the annulment action against the Commission. The Court of Justice judgment therefore annulled the ruling of the Court of First Instance without examining the substantive issues dealt with by the Court of First Instance.

THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE INQUIRY

6. The complainant alleged that Parliament failed to comply with Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights(7) and with Article 5(3) of the European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour(8). He claimed that Parliament should put an end to the discrimination to which he has been subjected since he reached the age of 65 years.

7. The complainant alleged that, when it decided not to recruit him, Parliament did not comply with Article 19 of the European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour.

8. The complainant claimed compensation for an amount of EUR 51 904 (EUR 38 820 corresponding to loss of earnings and EUR 13 084 corresponding to contributions to the "Caisse de prévoyance des interprètes de conférence") and assessed the moral damage at EUR 20 000.

9. In his observations on Parliament's detailed opinion, the complainant made a new allegation that, when he was informed that he would no longer be recruited, he was not informed of the reasons for this decision and, contrary to the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the Code of Good Administrative Behaviour, he was not heard.

The Ombudsman notes that this allegation was not included in the original complaint. Therefore, he considers that there is no reason to delay his decision on the present complaint in order to deal with these issues. The Ombudsman suggests that the complainant may, if he wishes to do so, lodge a new complaint with the Ombudsman after having made the necessary prior administrative approaches with Parliament.

THE INQUIRY

10. On 16 January 2005, the complainant submitted to the Ombudsman a complaint against Parliament concerning the application of an age limit for recruiting interpreters.

On 16 February 2005, the Ombudsman forwarded the complaint to the President of Parliament. On 19 May 2005, Parliament sent its opinion. The Ombudsman forwarded it to the complainant with an invitation to make observations, which he sent on 13 July 2005 and 9 September 2005.

On 13 December 2005, the Ombudsman requested from Parliament statistical data about (i) the number of interpreters younger than 65 years of age and older than 65 years of age who were recruited by Parliament and (ii) the length (number of working days) of these interpreters' contracts. He also requested explanations (iii) on a possible decline in the percentage of persons over 65 years of age who were offered an interpreter contract and in the number of working days for which they were offered contracts, (iv) on long term recruitments, (v) on interpreters having the same language combination as the complainant, (vi) on the electronic system used for recruiting interpreters and (vii) on the procedure used to recruit interpreters over 65 years of age. On 16 March 2006, Parliament replied to the Ombudsman's request. The Ombudsman forwarded Parliament's reply to the complainant and invited him to make observations, which he sent on 28 April 2006.

On 22 February 2007, the Ombudsman requested further information from Parliament on (i) the meaning of "comparable language combination", (ii) the number of interpreters having the same language combination as the complainant, (iii) the working days of French interpreters, (iv) the birth dates of some interpreters and (v) the date as of which Parliament decided to provide ACIs over 65 years of age, in particular the complainant, with access to the relevant on-line recruitment system. On 30 May 2007, Parliament replied to the Ombudsman's request. The Ombudsman forwarded Parliament's reply to the complainant and invited him to make observations, which he sent on 6 July 2007.

11. On 31 March 2008, the Ombudsman addressed a draft recommendation to Parliament. On 2 June 2008, Parliament sent its detailed opinion concerning this draft recommendation. On 12 June 2008, a copy of this detailed opinion was forwarded to the complainant and he was invited to make observations, which he sent on 3 July 2008.

THE OMBUDSMAN'S ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS

Preliminary remarks

12. The complainant worked for the European institutions, including Parliament, for more than 35 years as a freelance interpreter translating into French from Dutch, English, German, Italian and Spanish. However, since 1 May 2004 (one month after he turned 65 years of age) and in accordance with what the complainant considers to be Parliament's "general discriminatory policy" against interpreters over 65 years of age, Parliament has no longer offered him contracts. The Ombudsman will therefore examine first the alleged general policy of discrimination against ACIs over 65 years of age (allegation A) and then the alleged discrimination against the complainant because of his age (allegation B). Finally, he will examine the complainant's allegation of failure to comply with Article 19 of the Code of Good Administrative Behaviour (allegation C).

A. Allegation of a general policy of discrimination against ACIs over 65 years of age

Arguments presented to the Ombudsman

13. In its opinions, Parliament stated that the available statistical data show that (i) some interpreters who are younger than 65 years of age have been recruited for fewer days than their colleagues who are older than 65 years of age; (ii) that the number of days interpreters who are older than 65 years of age worked for Parliament did not always decrease, and; (iii) that there was also a decrease in the number of days offered to interpreters who are younger than 65 years of age.

14. Parliament explained the following as regards the recruitment of interpreters who are older than 65 years of age:

1. After the Court of First Instance judgments of 2004 in Joined Cases T-153/01 and T-323/01(9), Case T-275/01(10) and Case T-276/01(11), interpreters who are older than 65 years of age continued to be recruited on the basis of the three criteria used for all interpreters, irrespective of their age. It is true, however, that Parliament has to prepare for the "changing of the guard" by facilitating access to the profession for new interpreters, who are likely to pass a competition and add new languages to their combination. The Court of Justice judgment of 10 January 2006 in Case C-373/2004 P(12) annulling the Court of First Instance judgments of 2004 cleared the way for a return to the situation prevailing prior to the 2004 judgments, that is, no further recruitment of ACIs who are older than 65 years of age. Parliament stated that this is an option which it is not currently considering.
2. When the Recruitment Unit was set up, in February 2005, the Language Unit Heads were asked to forward to the Head of Recruitment assessments of the quality of the work of the ACIs whom they recruited, dividing them, if appropriate, into priority groups. The order of priority indicated by a Language Unit Head does not necessarily correspond to the final order of priority established by the Directorate, which takes account of factors for which the Language Unit Heads are not responsible, that is, residence and language combination of interpreters.
3. Parliament's electronic system for recruiting interpreters allows the recruitment for meetings of interpreters who are older than 65 years of age and is the same as the one used for interpreters who are younger than 65 years of age. The system indicates only for statistical purposes that a given ACI is older than 65 years of age.
4. Parliament added that the Interpretation Directorate recruited interpreters older than 65 years of age on the basis of the same criteria as applied to any other interpreter and that a prior authorisation system had been introduced with a view to keeping track of the volume of such recruitments, in the event that a detailed report to the relevant authorities should be required, and pending the Court of Justice judgment on the Commission's appeal.

15. In his observations, the complainant maintained that Parliament's electronic system forbids the recruitment for meetings of interpreters who are older than 65 years of age. Recruitment of interpreters who are older than 65 years of age is not possible without special authorisation from the Directorate.

The Ombudsman's preliminary assessment leading to a draft recommendation

16. The Ombudsman recalled that, according to the European Court of Justice, the principle of non-discrimination on grounds of age, embodied in Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, constitutes a general principle of Community law(13). Pursuant to this principle, when Parliament recruits ACIs, it may not treat them differently on the basis of their age, unless it shows that such treatment is objectively justified(14). The Ombudsman also noted that, as regards compulsory retirement age leading to the automatic termination of an employment contract, the European Court of Justice has also stated that:

"[t]he legitimacy of (…) an aim of public interest [the interests of promoting employment] cannot reasonably be called into question (...). Furthermore, the (…) encouragement of recruitment undoubtedly constitutes a legitimate aim of social policy (...) Therefore, [such] an objective (…) must, in principle, be regarded as objectively and reasonably justifying (...) a difference in treatment on grounds of age (...). It remains to be determined whether (...) the means employed to achieve such a legitimate aim are appropriate and necessary"(15).

17. The Ombudsman took the view that the analysis of the data provided by Parliament does not appear to support a view that Parliament systematically discriminates against interpreters who are older than 65 years of age. It appeared that, on average, ACIs who are older than 65 years of age work, per person, more days than ACIs who are younger than 65 years of age. Moreover, if one considers the evolution of the number of days worked by each ACI, it seemed that, in the same booth, some ACIs who are older than 65 years of age work more than ACIs who are younger than 65 years of age. However, the Ombudsman noted that the data provided by Parliament show a wide variety of situations and any conclusions from the analysis thereof must be provisional.

18. Notwithstanding the fact that the data did not show a general policy of discrimination against ACIs over 65 years of age, the Ombudsman noted that there were important differences in the procedures used to select ACIs older than 65 years of age. First, he noted that the electronic recruitment system indicated when a given ACI was older than 65 years of age. He further noted that, in order to select an ACI older than 65 years of age, a Language Unit Head or the Head of the Recruitment Unit must submit a special request to the Directorate. An ACI older than 65 years of age could only be selected in the event that the Directorate gave its prior authorisation. Therefore, there was a difference in terms of the procedures applied to ACIs over 65 years of age.

19. As the Ombudsman noted in point 16 above, any difference in treatment on grounds of age could only be justified if it was shown to be both "appropriate and necessary" in order to achieve a legitimate aim of public interest. It would thus be necessary, in the case of more onerous selection procedures applied to ACIs over 65 years of age, to demonstrate, specifically,

1. what that "legitimate aim of public interest" is; and
2. that the "means employed" (that is, the more onerous selection procedures) are "appropriate and necessary" to achieve that legitimate aim of public interest.

20. The Ombudsman noted that Parliament explained that the procedure whereby the age of ACIs was recorded reflects the need to gather statistical information on the recruitment of interpreters over 65 years of age. In sum, the purported "legitimate aim of public interest" was, according to Parliament, the need to gather statistical data concerning the age of interpreters. The Ombudsman did not necessarily question whether the interest invoked by Parliament, that is, gathering statistics on the age of interpreters, was a "legitimate aim". The Ombudsman took the view, however, that the measure could only be "appropriate and necessary" to achieve such an aim if it was applied to interpreters of all ages, and not only to those over 65 years of age.

21. The Ombudsman noted that Parliament had also argued that the procedure whereby a Language Unit Head or the Head of the Recruitment Unit submitted a special request to the Directorate, for its prior authorisation, before selecting an ACI older than 65 years of age reflected the need to gather statistical information on the recruitment of ACIs over 65 years of age. The Ombudsman did not agree that such prior authorisation was necessary to gather statistical data.

22. Therefore, the Ombudsman concluded that the general procedure whereby a Language Unit Head or the Head of the Recruitment Unit must submit a special request to the Directorate, for its prior authorisation, before selecting an ACI older than 65 years of age, constituted an instance of maladministration and made the following draft recommendation:

"Parliament should consider adopting identical procedures to recruit ACIs over and under 65 years of age."

The arguments presented to the Ombudsman after his draft recommendation

23. In its detailed opinion, Parliament explained that the procedure whereby a Language Unit Head or the Head of the Recruitment Unit submitted a special request to the Directorate, for its prior authorisation, before selecting an ACI older than 65 years of age was the means technically available to it for producing statistics. Parliament stressed that the age of the interpreters does not appear on screen and that at the time of the introduction of the new computerised system the only means of keeping track of such data for statistical purposes was the indication that a given interpreter was over the age of 65 years. As regards the operation of the prior authorisation procedure, there has not been a single instance in which the Director of Interpretation refused authorisation, given that the purpose of the procedure was simply to permit tracking for statistical purposes, if required, and not to put any limit on recruitment of ACIs aged over 65 years.

24. When the Recruitment Unit was set up on 15 February 2005, only the Head of that Unit (and no longer the Language Unit Heads) was authorised to request prior authorisation from the Director of Interpretation. From 2006, the prior authorisation request was replaced by a simple e-mail from the Head of the Recruitment Unit notifying the Director of Interpretation of the recruitment of an ACI aged over 65 years and not asking for prior authorisation to recruit such a person. From September 2006, this practice of simple notification was also discontinued, and only the IT mechanism remained in place in order to remind the Head of the Recruitment Unit that a particular ACI was over 65 years of age, thus allowing a dossier to be kept with a view to answering request for information. On 6 March 2008, the Head of Recruitment asked the IT team in DG Interpretation and Conferences to examine whether the latest developments in the electronic recruitment system ("Pericles") would not allow the statistical data needed to be gathered without using the IT mechanism. On 25 March 2008, these statistics were indeed supplied and, with the agreement of the Director-General of Interpretation, the IT team received the instruction to delete the old mechanism.

25. Parliament concluded that the procedure and the IT mechanism applying to ACIs aged over 65 years were simply an arrangement for statistical purposes during a transitional period, before a statistical tool enabling data to be gathered on all ACIs became available. Therefore, Parliament had applied, in advance, the Ombudsman's recommendation.

26. In his observations on Parliament's detailed opinion, the complainant noted that, contrary to what Parliament stated in 2006(16), it now admitted that a system of prior authorisation existed. He doubted that its purpose was to collect statistical data. He also considered that the Director had refused, on at least one occasion, to give an authorisation. In this respect, he pointed out that the Head of the French Unit recommended the complainant's recruitment in an e-mail dated 26 April 2005. This recommendation was not adopted. According to him, he was being discriminated against and Parliament was taking retaliatory measures against him.

The Ombudsman's assessment after his draft recommendation

27. The Ombudsman notes that, since September 2006, the prior authorisation system, and the e-mail notification system which replaced it, were discontinued. He further notes that, since 25 March 2008, Parliament has also removed the IT mechanism which indicated which interpreters were over 65 years of age.

The Ombudsman thus takes the view that Parliament has taken steps to eliminate the problematic features in the procedures used to select ACIs.

On the basis of his inquiries, the Ombudsman concludes that Parliament has accepted the Ombudsman's draft recommendation and that the measures taken by Parliament to implement it are satisfactory.

B. Allegation of discrimination against the complainant because of his age and related claims

Arguments presented to the Ombudsman

28. The complainant argued that, after he reached the age of 65 years, Parliament no longer offered him ACI contracts because of his age. He claimed that Parliament should put an end to the discrimination to which he has been subjected since he reached the age of 65 years. He also claimed compensation in accordance with Article 41(3) of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights for an amount of EUR 51 904 and assessed the moral damage at EUR 20 000.

29. In its opinions, Parliament explained the following:

1. There was a very large number of non-permanent interpreters based in Brussels in the French Unit to which the complainant belongs.
2. Before the Court of Justice judgment of 2006, the Directorate for Interpretation had recruited on a long-term basis a large number of interpreters speaking the same languages as the complainant.
3. After the 2004 enlargement of the EU, priorities changed. It is now more important to include in each team two relay interpreters for the languages of the new Member States, and even sometimes for certain languages of the old Member States. The English, French and German booths in particular almost always act as relays for the interpreters in the new booths, so that the need for these booths to provide consistently high-quality, reliable interpretation is vital.

Parliament found it surprising that the complainant should reject the substance of the letter of 4 January 2006 from his Head of Unit, which set out clearly the reasons why the complainant's name was not among the list of freelance interpreters forwarded to the relevant Unit and earmarked for recruitment to the French booth as a matter of priority. The answer based on the criterion of quality, which the complainant is refusing to consider but which is clearly set out in the letter from the Head of the French Unit, offers the only logical explanation for the fact that he has not been recruited again(17).

30. In his observations, the complainant considered that Parliament doubted the quality of his services. He recalled that the quality of his services had been recognised, notably by the Secretary-General and the Head of the French Unit. He repeated that it did not make sense to recruit him systematically and repeatedly over the years and to stop doing so because of the composition of a booth for certain meetings. The complainant regretted the lack of explanations provided by Parliament as regards why he became a "bad interpreter" when he turned 65 years of age.

The Ombudsman's assessment made in his draft recommendation

31. The Ombudsman noted that Parliament had stated that it recruited ACIs on the basis of three objective criteria, namely, language combination, residence and quality of work. He noted that Parliament placed particular emphasis on the criterion of the quality of the complainant's work. In this respect, it referred to a letter dated 4 January 2006 from the Head of the French Unit who stated the following:

"The French unit was therefore in the fortunate situation of being able quickly to fill in the shortage due to the forced departure of some colleagues who were over 65 years of age with new colleagues of equal quality [of work], or in some cases higher quality than that of the former [colleagues], including yours"(18).

32. The Ombudsman underlined that Parliament had not called into question the quality of the complainant's work. Rather, Parliament stated that other interpreters were of equal, and in some cases, of higher quality. The Ombudsman thus understood that the complainant was not offered further contracts on the basis of a comparative assessment of the quality of the work of various potential ACIs. The Ombudsman considered that Parliament had therefore provided an objective justification for not offering the complainant further assignments. As a consequence, there was no maladministration by Parliament as regards this specific aspect of the complaint. As a further consequence, the Ombudsman considered that the complainant's claims could not be sustained.

The arguments presented to the Ombudsman after his draft recommendation

33. In his observations on Parliament's detailed opinion, the complainant pointed out that, on 26 April 2005, the Head of the French Unit recommended his recruitment and, on 4 January 2006, she stated that the French Unit quickly recruited new interpreters whose services were equal to or were even better than the work of the complainant. He stated that the assessment carried out by the Head of the French Unit of the quality of his work was subjective and individual and was not supported by any document, the quality control of interpreters having been introduced only in 2006(19). He concluded that no comparative assessment of the quality of the work of ACIs had been carried out and that Parliament had not provided an objective justification for not offering the complainant further assignments.

Additional assessment made by the Ombudsman

34. The Ombudsman understands that there exists a mechanism allowing its services to control the quality of the work of interpreters at Parliament, which has been put in place in 2006. He further understands that this control is carried out mainly when a problem is reported.

However, he notes that the procedure of comparative assessments on the basis of which Parliament concluded that other interpreters were of equal, and in some cases, of higher quality, than the complainant, is not fully documented. The Ombudsman takes the view that, in cases of comparative assessments, Parliament should clearly establish the criteria for assessment a priori and accordingly document the comparative assessment of ACIs. He therefore makes a further remark below.

C. Allegation of failure to comply with Article 19 of the European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour

Arguments presented to the Ombudsman

35. The complainant stated that the Ombudsman should examine whether, when it decided not to recruit him, Parliament complied with Article 19 of the European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour, which states the following:

"A decision of the Institution which may adversely affect the rights or interests of a private person shall contain an indication of the appeal possibilities available for challenging the decision. It shall in particular indicate the nature of the remedies, the bodies before which they can be exercised, as well as the time-limits for exercising them.

Decisions shall in particular refer to the possibility of judicial proceedings and complaints to the Ombudsman under the conditions specified in, respectively, Articles 230 and 195 of the Treaty establishing the European Community."

36. In its opinion, Parliament explained that the contracts sent to auxiliary interpreters when they are recruited state explicitly that "the recruitment is governed by (...) the agreement on working conditions and financial terms for session auxiliary conference interpreters (...). Title VI of this convention provides for the "Settlement of individual disputes - Article 23, appeals"". Parliament therefore does not accept the complainant's allegation as regards Article 19 of the European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour.

37. In his further observations, the complainant stated that, as he no longer had a contractual link with Parliament, the relevant provisions of the agreement do not apply to him. Consequently, according to him, when it became aware of the complainant's grievances, Parliament should have informed him of the possibilities of appeal. As it did not, it did not comply with Article 19 of the European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour.

The Ombudsman's assessment

38. The Ombudsman notes that, in its opinion, Parliament provided general information on the appeals procedure regarding individual disputes, which is the relevant information for the present dispute. Therefore, the Ombudsman accepts Parliament's reasoning and considers that appropriate information has been given to the complainant as regards appeals.

D. Conclusions

As regards the allegation that Parliament has a general policy of discrimination against ACIs over 65 years of age, the Ombudsman concludes on the basis of his inquiries into this complaint that Parliament has accepted the Ombudsman's draft recommendation in relation to that allegation. The Ombudsman concludes that the measures taken by Parliament to implement that draft recommendation are satisfactory.

As regards the allegation of discrimination against, specifically, the complainant because of his age, and the related claims, the Ombudsman finds no maladministration by Parliament. The Ombudsman, however, makes the following further remark:

The Ombudsman understands that the procedure of comparative assessments, on the basis of which Parliament concluded that other interpreters were of equal, and in some cases, of higher quality, than the complainant, is not fully documented. The Ombudsman takes the view that, in cases of comparative assessments, Parliament should clearly establish the criteria for assessment a priori and accordingly document the comparative assessment of ACIs.

As regards the allegation of failure to comply with Article 19 of the European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour, the Ombudsman finds no maladministration by Parliament.

The complainant and Parliament will be informed of this decision.

 

P. Nikiforos DIAMANDOUROS

Done in Strasbourg on 19 November 2008

---

(1) Article 1 of Council Regulation No 628/2000 of 20 March 2000, amending Regulation No 259/68 laying down the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the Communities (OJ 2000 L 76), states the following: "(...) (2) All conference interpreters should consequently be engaged as auxiliary staff covered by Title III of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities (...).

(...) The following paragraph shall be added to Article 78 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities:

The same conditions of recruitment and remuneration applied to conference interpreters engaged by the European Parliament shall apply to auxiliary staff engaged by the Commission as conference interpreters on behalf of the Community institutions and bodies".

(2) Joined Cases T-153/01 and T-323/01 Alvarez Moreno v Commission [2004] ECR-SC I-A-161 and II-719.

(3) Case T-275/01 Alvarez Moreno v Parliament [2004] ECR-SC I-A-171 and II-765.

(4) Case T-276/01 Garroni v Parliament [2004] ECR-SC I-A-177 and II-795.

(5) Article 74 of the Conditions of employment of other servants states the following: "Apart from cessation on death, the employment of auxiliary staff shall cease:

1. where the contract is for a fixed period:

(a) on the date stated in the contract;

(b) at the end of the month in which the servant reaches the age of 65 years (...)".

(6) Case C-373/04 P Commission v Alvarez Moreno [2006] ECR I-1.

(7) Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights states that: "Any discrimination based on any ground such as sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation shall be prohibited".

(8) Article 5(3) of the European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour states the following: "The official shall in particular avoid any unjustified discrimination between members of the public based on nationality, sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age, or sexual orientation."

(9) See footnote 2.

(10) See footnote 3.

(11) See footnote 4.

(12) See footnote 6.

(13) See Case C-144/04 Mangold [2005] ECR I-9981, paragraph 75.

(14) Case C-344/04 International Air Transport and others [2006] ECR I-403, paragraph 95.

(15) Case C-411/05 Palacios de la Villa [2007] ECR I-8531, paragraphs 64-67.

(16) The complainant refers to a letter he received from Parliament, dated 30 March 2006, in which the following is stated: "Les recrutements ne se font (et ne se sont faits) ni sur base d'autorisation spéciale accordée par la Direction de l'Interprétation, ni sur base de recommandations du chef d'unité, et donc aucun chef des dix unités concernées jusqu'à présent (...) n'a eu à recommander le recrutement d'interprètes de plus de 65 ans. La recommandation n'est pas la procédure appliquée et annoncée sur le site de la Direction, accessible à tous les AIC".

(17) See quotation in point 31.

(18) The text reads in French as follows: "La division française a donc été dans l'heureuse situation de pouvoir rapidement combler la pénurie créée par le départ forcé de ses collaborateurs ayant atteint soixante-cinq ans, avec de nouveaux interprètes de qualité égale, voire, dans certains cas, supérieure à celle des anciens, y compris la vôtre".

(19) The complainant attached to his observations a copy of the Quality Control Form.