Strasbourg, 20 December 2005

Dear Mr H.,

On 10 March 2005, you made a complaint to the office of Mr Stephen Hughes, MEP, against the European Commission, concerning an offensive e-mail of 7 March 2005 allegedly sent from a Commission e-mail address to you. This complaint was transmitted to me by Mr Hughes on 16 March 2005.

On 4 May 2005, I forwarded the complaint to the President of the Commission. The Commission sent its opinion on 3 August 2005 and I forwarded it to you with an invitation to make observations before 31 October 2005, if you so wished. No observations appear to have been received from you.

I am writing now to let you know the results of the inquiries that have been made.

THE COMPLAINT

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

On 7 March 2005, the complainant received an e-mail from a European Commission e-mail address. In this e-mail, a Commission official wrote to the complainant: "youre a bunch of [f***ing](1) luddites. Metric has to win cos thats what we learnt at school. Long live England. long live metric, with 5 metric units names after Uk scientists and 2 Uk directors of the metre bureau. The imperialists are dead in the water. ps: what in hell are you actually defending? look at great countries like australia and new zealand if you cant stand europe. you luddites in england make me sick [sic]."

On 10 March 2005, the complainant turned to his MEP, Mr Stephen Hughes, to submit a complaint. On 16 March 2005, Mr Hughes transmitted the complaint to the Ombudsman. On the same day, Mr Hughes sent a letter to the President of the Commission, Mr José Manuel Barroso, to request an urgent investigation into the matter.

In his complaint, the complainant's allegation was that he received an offensive e-mail on 7 March 2005 from a Commission e-mail address.

The complainant attached to his complaint a press article, which appeared on 14 March 2005 in one of the regional newspapers in the UK, concerning the allegedly abusive e-mail from a Commission official. According to the article, the Commission was investigating whether the message had come from a member of staff. The article stated that three MEPs for the North-East region of England had pledged to investigate the incident.

THE INQUIRY

The Commission's opinion

In its opinion, the Commission made, in summary, the following comments.

The Commission first recalled the facts of the case.

On 10 March 2005, the complainant addressed an e-mail message to the Head of the English language department of the Directorate-General for Translation of the European Commission ("DG Translation") to complain about one of the translators in the department. The complaint related to the correspondence exchanged between the translator concerned and the complainant, whereby the former used offensive language. On the same day, the complainant sent an e-mail message to Mr Stephen Hughes, MEP.

On 15 March 2005, Ms Fiona Hall, MEP, addressed an e-mail to the Director-General of DG Translation, requesting to be kept informed about the investigation regarding the matter. On 16 March 2005, the Director-General replied that he had requested an inquiry and stressed that the views expressed by the official concerned were not based on any instruction from DG Translation or the Commission.

On 15 March 2005, Mr Martin Callanan, MEP, wrote a letter to Commissioner Figel', inquiring on behalf of the complainant what action the Commission would take. This letter was registered by the Cabinet of the Commissioner on 22 March 2005. Mr Figel' replied to this letter on 26 April 2005.

On 16 March 2005, Mr Hughes, MEP, wrote a letter to the President of the Commission. The Cabinet of the President registered this letter on 24 March 2005. The President of the Commission replied on 20 April 2005.

The Commission stated in its opinion that the inquiry mentioned above had been initiated and was ongoing.

On the substance of the complaint, the Commission made the following observations.

The Commission recalled that the complainant had complained about a threatening and abusive e-mail, which was allegedly sent to him by a Commission official from his work e-mail address. The Commission noted that the complaint concerned the inappropriate behaviour of a Commission official, acting on his own personal initiative and without representing the position of the institution, and not maladministration by the Commission in the exercise of its duties. Nevertheless, the Commission wished to make the following comment on its handling of this case.

According to the Commission, DG Translation reacted immediately after the complainant's complaint was sent to the Head of the English language department of DG Translation. Furthermore, the Commission provided timely replies to the three MEPs, who had addressed themselves to the Commission. Finally, the request from the Director-General of DG Translation for an inquiry was followed up by appropriate administrative action.

Although the Commission regretted the incident, it considered that there had been no maladministration on its part and that it had duly dealt with the complainant's complaint, as well as had responded adequately to the complainant's requests and to those of Mr Hughes, MEP.

The Commission added that if the Ombudsman so desires, the Commission would of course provide him with access to the file.

The complainant's observations

No observations were received from the complainant by the date set for this purpose.

THE DECISION

1 The allegedly offensive e-mail from a Commission e-mail address

1.1 The complainant alleged that that he had received an offensive e-mail on 7 March 2005, from a European Commission e-mail address. In this e-mail message, a Commission official wrote to the complainant: "youre a bunch of [f***ing](2) luddites. Metric has to win cos thats what we learnt at school. Long live England. long live metric, with 5 metric units names after Uk scientists and 2 Uk directors of the metre bureau. The imperialists are dead in the water. ps: what in hell are you actually defending? look at great countries like australia and new zealand if you cant stand europe. you luddites in england make me sick [sic]."

1.2 In its opinion, the Commission noted that the complaint concerned the inappropriate behaviour of a Commission official acting on his own personal initiative, without representing the position of the institution, and not maladministration by the Commission in the exercise of its duties. The Commission explained that DG Translation had reacted immediately after the complainant's complaint had been sent to the Head of the English language department of DG Translation. Furthermore, the Commission took the view that it had provided timely replies to the three MEPs who had addressed themselves to the Commission. Finally, the request of the Director-General of DG Translation for an inquiry had been followed up by appropriate administrative action. The Commission considered that there had been no maladministration on its part and that it had duly dealt with the complaint and had responded adequately to the complainant's requests and to those of Mr Hughes, MEP.

1.3 The Ombudsman notes that the present allegation concerns the offensive language used in the e-mail sent to the complainant on 7 March 2005 by an official of the European Commission. In this regard, the Ombudsman accepts the Commission's explanation that the official concerned was acting on his own personal initiative and by no means expressed the official position of the Commission. The Ombudsman considers that, although the contents of the e-mail message of 7 March 2005 were clearly unacceptable, there is indeed nothing to indicate that the official concerned was acting on behalf of the Commission or expressing its official position. The Ombudsman therefore finds no maladministration in this regard.

1.4 The Ombudsman further notes that the Commission appears to have taken appropriate action with regard to this serious incident concerning a member of its staff. It emerges from the evidence submitted to the Ombudsman that DG Translation launched, without any delay, an administrative inquiry regarding the matter. The Ombudsman further notes from the documents attached by the Commission to its opinion (the letter of 20 April 2005 from the President of the Commission to Mr Hughes, MEP, and the letter of 26 April 2005 from Commissioner Figel' to Mr Callanan, MEP, in response to their respective inquiries on behalf of the complainant), that the Commission pointed out that appropriate measures proportionate to the gravity of the act would be taken vis-à-vis the official concerned on the basis of the results of this inquiry. The Ombudsman also notes from the above two letters, that the Commission has apologised for the contents of the e-mail of 7 March 2005. In its opinion on the complaint, the Commission furthermore expressed its regret that the incident had occurred.

1.5 Considering the immediate measures taken by the Commission to inquire into the matter and the apologies referred to above, the Ombudsman considers that the Commission has reacted to the incident in an appropriate manner. Furthermore, the Ombudsman has no reason to doubt that the Commission will proceed properly and swiftly in the administrative inquiry that it has opened in this case. The Ombudsman therefore finds no maladministration in this regard.

2 Conclusion

On the basis of the Ombudsman's inquiries into this complaint, there appears to have been no maladministration by the Commission.

The Ombudsman therefore closes the case. Nevertheless, the Ombudsman would very much appreciate it if the Commission could inform him, as well as the complainant and the MEPs concerned, about the result of the administrative inquiry, once it is completed, and about the measures taken vis-à-vis the official concerned.

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

Yours sincerely,

 

P. Nikiforos DIAMANDOUROS

---

(1) The Ombudsman did not consider it appropriate to repeat the swear word that was used in the e-mail of 7 March 2005.

(2) The Ombudsman did not consider it appropriate to repeat the swear word that was used in the e-mail of 7 March 2005.