- EN English
Decision of the European Ombudsman closing his inquiry into complaint 260/2011/(NF)GG against the European Commission
Decision
Case 260/2011/GG - Opened on Monday | 14 February 2011 - Decision on Tuesday | 12 April 2011 - Institution concerned European Commission ( No further inquiries justified )
Since 2003, the European Commission has been responsible for the annual publishing of the Europa Diary – a school diary for secondary school students.
At the end of 2010, the Commission's attention was drawn to the fact that the Europa Diary 2010/2011 edition, while mentioning some holidays of other world religions, omitted Christian holidays such as Christmas and Easter.
The complainant was frustrated by this omission, and therefore turned to the European Ombudsman on 25 January 2011. He claimed that the Commission should recall the Europa Diary 2010/2011 edition which had already been distributed, apologise for the omission, and reprint a 2010/2011 edition including Christian holidays. Given that the Commission was clearly aware of the matter, the Ombudsman considered that it was not necessary for the complainant to make individual administrative approaches to the Commission.
The Ombudsman informed the complainant that the Commission had meanwhile published a notice on its website in which it addressed the omission, apologised for it, and announced remedial action. The complainant was invited to submit observations on the Commission's notice and the action announced therein. However, no such observations were received.
The Ombudsman noted that the Commission had indeed omitted Christian holidays from the Europa Diary 2010/2011 edition. However, the Commission subsequently acknowledged this error and apologised for it. It also sent a corrigendum to all teachers who had ordered the Europa Diary 2010/2011 edition, including a one-page addendum to the diary outlining the main public holidays in each Member State.
With regard to the complainant's claim, the Ombudsman noted that the relevant diary covers the school year 2010/2011 and not the calendar year 2011. It would therefore only be used for a few more months. Also taking into account that, according to the Commission, the diary had been sent to several million students, the Ombudsman was not convinced that the solution requested by the complainant would be proportionate. In addition, the remedial action taken by the Commission did not appear to be unreasonable.
In view of the above, and the fact that the complainant did not submit any observations contesting the adequacy of the Commission's remedial action, the Ombudsman concluded that there were no grounds for further inquiries into the case.
The background to the complaint
1. Since 2003, the European Commission has been responsible for the annual publishing of the Europa Diary. The Europa Diary is a school diary, which is intended as a tool for homework and other school-related notes for students in secondary school.
2. The 2010/2011 edition of this diary, while mentioning some holidays of other world religions, omitted Christian holidays, such as Christmas and Easter. According to the Commission, it was distributed in May and June 2010 to 21,029 secondary schools and reached more than 3.2 million students.
3. At the end of the year 2010, the Commission's attention was drawn to this omission, which was discussed in national and European media.
4. Being troubled by the omission of Christian holidays, the complainant, an Irish priest, turned to the European Ombudsman on 25 January 2011.
The subject matter of the inquiry
5. The Ombudsman considers that, in the present case, it was not necessary for the complainant to make individual administrative approaches to the Commission, given that the latter was clearly aware of the matter. The following allegation and the following claim were thus taken up for inquiry by the Ombudsman:
Allegation:
The Commission failed to include Christian holidays in its Europa Diary 2010/2011 edition.
Claim:
The Commission should (i) recall the already distributed Europa Diary 2010/2011 edition,(ii) apologise for the omission of Christian holidays, and (iii) reprint a 2010/2011 edition including Christian holidays.
The inquiry
6. On 14 February 2011, the Ombudsman informed the complainant that the Commission had meanwhile published a notice on the website of its Directorate-General for Health and Consumers ("DG SANCO"). Therein, the Commission apologised for what it called a regrettable error, clarified that there had never been an intention to discriminate against the Christian religion, and announced that the omission would be addressed by a Corrigendum. Moreover, the Commission promised that the Europa Diary 2011/2012 edition would include the main public holidays celebrated in each of the EU Member States.
7. In order to assess whether it was still necessary to ask the Commission for an opinion in this case, the Ombudsman invited the complainant to submit observations on the notice published by the Commission and the remedial action announced in it.
8. On 16 February 2011, the Commission sent a Corrigendum to all teachers who had ordered the Europa Diary 2010/2011 edition. The essential parts of the Corrigendum read as follows:
"(...) It has been drawn to the Commission’s attention that important religious holidays that are part of European heritage, such as Christmas, are missing in the current edition.
As you know, the diary covers the school year 2010/2011, not the calendar year 2011. It includes an agenda, which does not systematically list holidays, neither religious nor national ones. It lists, in footnotes, for each week an interesting fact that not all teenagers might know and these are meant to be adapted to the different national contexts. Among the facts mentioned are some celebrations related to less practiced religions in the European Union. However, the incoherence of omitting similar facts in relation to Christian celebrations, such as Christmas and Easter, the knowledge of which had been taken for granted, has caused offence.
The Commission very much regrets and apologises for this incoherence. The Commission would now like to rectify the situation, and asks your help.
For that purpose we have produced a one-page addendum to the diary, which sets out the main public holidays in your country. We have made this directly available for use with your pupils. It is attached to this letter and is also available on the Europa Diary website at the following address: www.europadiary.eu > Download
In response to concerns expressed, future editions will include the main public holidays in your country.(...)."
9. The Commission subsequently made each Member State's version of the Corrigendum available on DG SANCO's website and published a new notice, declaring that remedial action had been taken to rectify the omission of certain Christian holidays from the Europa Diary 2010/2011 edition.
10. The complainant did not provide any observations.
The Ombudsman's analysis and conclusions
A. Alleged failure to include Christian holidays in the Europa Diary 2010/2011 edition and the related claim
The Ombudsman's assessment
11. The Ombudsman notes that the Commission did indeed omit Christian holidays in the Europa Diary 2010/2011 edition, whereas holidays of other religions were included.
12. He notes, however, that the Commission has in the meantime acknowledged that this omission was an error, apologised for the error and sent a Corrigendum to remedy the omission.
13. It is true that the complainant claimed that the Commission should also recall the 2010/2011 edition of the Europa Diary and reprint a 2010/2011 edition including Christian holidays. It should be noted, however, that the relevant diary covers the school year 2010/2011, not the calendar year 2011. It would thus seem clear that this diary will only be used for a few more months by students. It should further be noted that, according to the Commission, this diary was distributed to several million students. In these circumstances, the Ombudsman is not convinced that the solution requested by the complainant would be proportionate. In addition to that, the remedial action taken by the Commission does not appear to be unreasonable.
14. In view of the above and the fact that the complainant did not submit any observations contesting the adequacy of the Commission’s remedial action, the Ombudsman concludes that there are no grounds for further inquiries into this case.
C. Conclusions
On the basis of his inquiry into this complaint, the Ombudsman closes it with the following conclusion:
There are no grounds for further inquiries.
The complainant and the Commission will be informed of this decision.
P. Nikiforos Diamandouros
Done in Strasbourg on 12 April 2011