Dear Mr F.,
On 7 April 1999, you lodged a complaint with the European Ombudsman on behalf of Associação de Professores de Português (APP) concerning the alleged failure of the Commission services (DG.XXII) to reply to your correspondence in Portuguese, as the language you had used.
On 10 May 1999, I forwarded the complaint to the President of the European Commission, with a request for comments by the end of September 1999. The Commission sent its opinion on 22 July 1999, which I forwarded to you on 6 August 1999 with an invitation to make observations. I have received no reply from you.
I am writing now to let you know the result of the inquiries that have been made.

THE COMPLAINT

The complainant's association, APP, had worked with the Commission services (DG XXI) in the framework of the LINGUA programme, having received assistance from that programme for the development of a cultural project. The complainant explained that Portuguese was one of the languages of the project, and that the contract had also been drafted in that language. Even though the complainant had always used Portuguese for all correspondence with the institution from 1997 until now, the replies from the Commission had rarely been written in that language. Furthermore, neither the documents related to the financial requirements of the project nor the forms for the final reports were made available to the complainant in Portuguese.
The complainant also claimed that the Commission was giving priority to the use of certain languages (English, French and German), without the necessary consideration to the complainant's own language, namely Portuguese. He therefore concluded that projects drafted in these languages were being given priority over proposals drafted in the other official languages, in particular the Portuguese one.
In summary the claims of the complainant refer to: (1) the failure of the Commission to have all the documentation related to the Lingua programme in Portuguese, as well as to reply to his correspondence in that language; and (2) the preference given to certain projects on the basis of the language they had been prepared.

THE INQUIRY

The Commission's opinion
The Commission explained that the complainant had participated in the "Comenius" programme managed by the Socrates & Youth Technical Assistance Office (TAO).
Having restated the main claims made by the complainant, the Commission underlined the right of every citizen of the Union to write to the Commission in any of the eleven official languages and receive a reply in that language, as had been set out in Regulation 1/58, and confirmed by Art. 21 CE.
The institution stated that it has always done its best to fully comply with that principle, even though, in some circumstances caused mainly by budgetary restrains, not all the administrative or contractual documents can be drafted in all official languages. That had been the case in TAO as regards some of the documents for the "Comenius" programme. However, the Commission explained that all the documentation pertaining to this programme is now available through Internet (including guidelines for applicants, application forms, or financial agreements). The Commission added that it is in the process of ensuring that all other administrative or contractual documents related to this programme be available in all languages.
As regards the use of some languages, such as German, English and French, the Commission pointed out that all the projects submitted are assessed the same way regardless of the language used by the applicant. The Commission included a series of statistics which seemingly demonstrated that the percentage of Portuguese funded projects was superior to the percentage of Portuguese proposals(1).
The complainant's observations
To date no observations have been received from the complainant.

THE DECISION

On the basis of the information provided by the complainant and the observations submitted by the European Commission, the Ombudsman has reached the following conclusions:
1 Alleged failure of the Commission to use Portuguese for its correspondence as well as its administrative and financial documents
1.1 The complainant considered that potential Portuguese applicants to the Lingua programme were being discriminated against by the Commission to the extent that not all related administrative and financial documents were made available in Portuguese.
1.2 The Commission has recognised that it was unable to handle all correspondence, as well as some administrative and financial materials pertaining to the Lingua programme in the language of the applicants, for example as regards Portuguese.
1.3 As set out in Art. 21 EC, every citizen of the Union may write to any Community institution in any of the Treaty languages, and receive a reply in that language. The Ombudsman notes that respect for the general principle of non-discrimination requires that all potential participants in a Community programme enjoy equal conditions. In order to preserve this principle, it is necessary that all applicants have the possibility to obtain relevant documents in their own language.
1.4 The Ombudsman notes, however, that the Commission has recognised its failure, modified its practice, and is currently in the process of making all administrative and financial forms related to the Lingua programme available in all the official languages.
The Ombudsman therefore does not consider it necessary to continue his inquiries into this aspect of the case.
2 Potential discrimination of Portuguese applicants
2.1. The complainant alleged that English, German and French projects were being given priority in the context of the Lingua programme over other projects presented in other Community languages.
2.2. The Commission has rejected this claim, stating that all projects are being assessed on an equal footing. Furthermore it supplies some statistical figures which lead to the conclusion that, as regards the Lingua programme (Actions A and D) a high percentage of the projects finally chosen targeted Portuguese.
2.3. The Ombudsman notes that the complainant had neither supported his claim with any factual evidence, nor refuted the one submitted by the Commission. No elements have been brought to the attention of the Ombudsman to make him conclude that in the selection of projects for the Lingua programme in 1997, the use of some of the official languages could have been given any particular advantage. The Ombudsman therefore finds that there is no evidence of maladministration in relation to this aspect of the case.
3 Conclusion
On the basis of the European Ombudsman's inquiries into this complaint, there appears to have been no maladministration by the European Commission. The Ombudsman has therefore decided to close the case.
The President of the European Commission will also be informed of this decision.
Yours sincerely
Jacob SÖDERMAN

---

(1) The statistics referred to the Community actions mentioned in the complainant's letter, namely Actions A and D of the Lingua programme for 1997. Thus, the Commission stated that for the Lingua Action A 1997, 31.58 % of accepted projects targeted Portuguese, whereas Portuguese was targeted in only 22.97% of the applications. As for the Lingua Action D 1997, 26.83 % of accepted projects targeted Portuguese, whereas Portuguese was targeted in only 18.28% of the applications.