Strasbourg, 19 December 2005

Dear Mr X.,

On 13 May 2005, you made a complaint to the European Ombudsman concerning the way in which the European Commission had handled the selection procedure for translators in which you took part in June 2004.

On 30 June 2005, I forwarded the complaint to the President of the Commission. On 11 and 12 July 2005, you sent further information related to your complaint. The Commission sent the translation of its opinion on 14 October 2005 and I forwarded it to you with an invitation to make observations by 30 November 2005 at the latest . No written observations were received from you by that date

During a telephone conversation which took place on 2 December 2005, you informed my services that you considered the matter to have been settled by the Commission.

I am writing now to let you know the results of the inquiries that have been made. Since during the telephone conversation of 2 December 2005, you also informed my services that you did not need a translation of my decision, I send it to you in English.

THE COMPLAINT

According to the complainant, the relevant facts were as follows:

In June 2004, X participated in the tests organised by the European Commission for the selection of translators into the languages of the new Member States. On 30 June 2004, the complainant received a letter signed by Mr B. from the Commission informing him that he had succeeded in the relevant tests. On 13 August 2004, the complainant had the medical examination with positive results.

On the same date, the complainant was contacted by Mrs H. who informed him that he would be contacted during the following days as regards starting his job. However, according to the complainant, he had never been contacted by the European Commission's responsible services.

After a few months, in February 2005, the complainant therefore contacted the Commission and he was informed that the decision not to offer him a job had already been taken in September 2004 and that the Commission had omitted to inform him.

In his complaint to the Ombudsman, the complainant alleged that the Commission had failed to inform him in due time regarding its decision not to recruit him and failed to state reasons for the relevant decision.

The complainant claimed that the Commission should reconsider his application and should give reasons for both the decision not to recruit him and the late communication of that decision.

THE INQUIRY

The European Commission's opinion

In its opinion, the Commission recalled the complaint's background as follows:

On 28 June 2004, the Commission had organised a selection procedure for temporary agents to work as translators for the languages of the ten new Member States. The complainant had taken part in the test for Lithuanian translators.

By letter of 30 June 2004, the complainant had been informed that he had succeeded in the relevant test and he was invited to undergo a medical examination on 13 August 2004. In the relevant letter it was indicated that the invitation to undergo the medical examination should not be considered as a contract offer.

On 13 August 2004, after the medical examination, the complainant had met the Head of the linguistic department who had announced to him that he would be contacted soon.

Between September 2004 and February 2005, the Commission had received several e-mails from the complainant asking why he had still not received any contract offer. The Commission had not replied to these e-mails. However, on 24 February 2005, its services had informed the complainant that he would not be offered a contract.

Further to this letter, the complainant had tried to learn the reasons for the refusal. He therefore contacted several persons in the Commission without, however, contacting directly the Human Resources unit of the Directorate-General for Translation. The Commission's competent service had subsequently contacted the complainant and had tried to clarify the situation. On 30 June 2005, the Commission was informed that the complainant had lodged a complaint with the European Ombudsman.

As regards the substance of the complaint, the Commission admitted that a significant delay had occurred when handling the complainant's case and that he had received contradictory messages about his possible recruitment. The Commission further stated that the complainant's file had been treated inadequately due to an unfortunate chain of developments, such as insufficient internal communication and a lack of follow-up between the different services involved.

Having identified the relevant problems, the Commission had then taken action to correct the situation. More specifically, on 8 July 2005, the Directorate-General for Translation had launched the procedure to recruit the complainant. The complainant was therefore invited for a new medical examination which took place on 9 September 2005 in Luxembourg. On condition that the complainant would pass the medical examination and after verification of his criminal record, the Commission would be ready to offer the complainant a temporary contract.

The complainant's observations

The Ombudsman invited the complainant to submit observations on the Commission's opinion by the end of November 2005. Since no observations were submitted by X, on 1 December 2005, the Ombudsman's services tried to contact X by telephone in order to ascertain whether, in light of the information given by the Commission in its opinion, the case could be considered as having been settled. Since it appeared that the telephone number given by the complainant in his complaint was not valid, the Ombudsman's services sent an e-mail to the complainant with an invitation to contact them.

The complainant contacted the Ombudsman's services on 2 December 2005 by telephone and stated that the Commission, as stated in its opinion, had in fact taken action to correct his situation and that he had already received an offer of a temporary contract as translator. The complainant further stressed that he considered the matter to have been settled by the Commission and thanked the Ombudsman and its services for having helped to find a positive solution to his complaint.

THE DECISION

1 The complainant's allegations and claims

1.1 In June 2004, the complainant took part in a selection procedure organised by the Commission for temporary agents to work as translators for the languages of the ten new Member States. On 30 June 2004, the complainant was informed that he had succeeded in the relevant test and he was invited to undergo a medical examination on 13 August 2004. On the same date, after the medical examination, the complainant met the Head of the linguistic department who announced to him that he would be contacted soon.

In his complaint to the Ombudsman, the complainant alleged that the Commission failed to inform him in due time regarding its decision not to recruit him and failed to state reasons for the relevant decision.

The complainant claimed that the Commission should reconsider his candidature and should give reasons for both the late communication and the decision not to recruit him.

1.2 In its opinion, the Commission admitted that significant delay had occurred when handling the complainant's case and that X had received contradictory messages about his possible recruitment. The Commission further stated that the complainant's file had been treated inadequately due to an unfortunate chain of developments, such as like insufficient internal communication and a lack of follow-up between the different services involved.

Having identified the relevant problems, the Commission had then taken action to correct the situation. More specifically, on 8 July 2005, the Directorate-General for Translation launched the procedure to recruit the complainant. The complainant was therefore invited for a new medical examination which took place on 9 September 2005 in Luxembourg. On condition that the complainant would pass the medical examination and after verification of his criminal record, the Commission would be ready to offer the complainant a temporary contract.

1.3 During a telephone conversation with the Ombudsman's services of 2 December 2005, the complainant stated that the Commission had in fact taken action to correct his situation and that he had already received an offer of a temporary contract as translator.

The complainant further stressed that he considered the matter of his complaint to have been settled by the Commission and thanked the Ombudsman and its services for having helped to find a positive solution to his complaint.

2 Conclusion

It appears from the Commission’s opinion and the complainant's observations that the Commission has taken steps to settle the matter and has thereby satisfied the complainant. The Ombudsman therefore closes the case.

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

Yours sincerely,

 

P. Nikiforos DIAMANDOUROS