The case concerned the fact that a translation of an appendix to a European Commission implementing regulation had not been made available. The appendix, which was available in English only, is part of measures that the EU has taken to ensure the interoperability of the railway systems in the Union.

The European Commission informed the Ombudsman that it had decided to translate the content of the appendix, and that similar content will be translated in the future.

The Ombudsman therefore concluded that there were no grounds for inquiring further.

The case concerned how the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) assessed the eligibility of a candidate in a selection procedure for French-language lawyer-linguists. EPSO considered that the complainant was not eligible because he did not have the required diplomas. The complainant contested EPSO’s decision, claiming that he did have the required diplomas.

In the course of the inquiry, the Ombudsman found issues with the decision of the selection board to consider the complainant ineligible. She proposed that EPSO ask the selection board to reconsider its position on the eligibility of the complainant for the selection procedure. EPSO agreed to review the candidate’s eligibility and asked the complainant for additional documents. The complainant failed to respond to EPSO’s request. On this basis, EPSO rejected the solution proposal, as it considered that, without these additional documents, it could not review the candidate’s eligibility.

Against this background, the Ombudsman took the view that no further inquiries are justified in this case. She nevertheless made a suggestion to EPSO that, in future selection procedures, selection boards ensure that decisions on the eligibility of candidates are based on a clear understanding of the information provided by candidates in their applications. In case of doubt as to the eligibility of a candidate, the selection board should request additional information from the candidate or seek clarifications from national authorities or other third parties.

The case concerned how the Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union (CdT) evaluated tenders in two procurement procedures for the provision of translation services. The complainant argued that the CdT was inconsistent in its evaluation, given that it had assessed its tenders differently in the past. It also argued that the CdT had wrongly assessed the complainant’s tenders against two criteria set out in the calls for tenders.

The Ombudsman found that the CdT correctly followed the methodology it put in place for assessing the tenders in the two procedures. She also took the view that there was no indication of a manifest error in how the CdT assessed the complainant’s tenders.

On that basis, the Ombudsman considered that there was no maladministration by the CdT and she closed the case. Nevertheless, the Ombudsman trusts that the CdT will provide more detailed information to tenderers about its assessment in future procedures, as clearer information at an early stage may reduce the risk of complaints such as the one that led to this inquiry.

The complainant was concerned that most of the information on the European Medicines Agency’s (EMA) website is available in the English language only.

In the context of the inquiry, the Ombudsman reminded EMA of her recommendations on the use of official EU languages for the EU administration when communicating with the public.

EMA informed the Ombudsman that it is working on a language policy and a multilingual interface for its website.

The Ombudsman welcomed EMA’s plans to address the matter and closed the inquiry suggesting it follows up on its commitment in good time. The Ombudsman also suggested that, in the meantime, EMA seeks to make core information in all official EU languages more prominent on its website.

The case concerned a new insurance policy that the European Commission concluded with a private insurance company to provide accident and sickness insurance for Conference Interpreting Agents (ACIs).

The complainant is a former ACI who considered that the conditions of the new insurance policy were very disadvantageous compared to the previous policy, and that it discriminated against certain ACIs.

During the inquiry, it became clear that the complainant would be less disadvantaged than he had feared. The Ombudsman found that the Commission’s explanations for the changes in the policy are convincing and reasonable. The inquiry also uncovered no evidence that would call into question the procedure leading to the new insurance contract, which included consultation with the international interpreters’ association.

The Ombudsman closed the inquiry with the conclusion that there was no maladministration by the Commission.