The case concerned how the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) dealt with an administrative complaint concerning a selection procedure for recruiting staff in the field of financial rules applicable to the EU budget. The complainant took issue with EPSO’s decision not to place him on the reserve list and raised concerns with the language regime in the selection procedure.

The Ombudsman found that the position EPSO took in its reply to the administrative complaint was wrong in law. She proposed that EPSO reconsider the complainant’s administrative complaint, taking into account recent EU case-law regarding the use of languages in selection procedures, and invited EPSO to address the negative impact the language regime had on the complainant. EPSO rejected the solution proposal.

The Ombudsman therefore concluded that how EPSO replied to the administrative complaint constituted maladministration. She made a recommendation that EPSO reconsider the complainant’s administrative complaint and his request to re-take the tests at issue. EPSO rejected the Ombudsman’s recommendation, arguing that the complainant had failed to demonstrate a close link between the decision not to place him on the reserve list and the illegality of the language regime in the selection procedure, which it contended was required under EU case-law.

The Ombudsman considered that, contrary to EPSO’s claim, in his administrative complaint, the complainant had linked the decision not to place him on the reserve list to the language regime of the selection procedure. According to EU case law, a candidate’s knowledge of a language is inevitably and necessarily reflected in the test results. The Ombudsman therefore closed the case reiterating her finding of maladministration.

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) dealt with an administrative complaint concerning a selection procedure for recruiting staff in the field of financial rules applicable to the EU budget. The complainant took issue with EPSO’s decision not to place him on the reserve list, and raised concerns about how the selection procedure was organised, notably regarding the language regime.

The Ombudsman found that the position EPSO took in its reply to the administrative complaint was wrong in law. She proposed that EPSO reconsider the complainant’s administrative complaint, taking into account recent EU case-law regarding the use of languages in selection procedures. She also invited EPSO to take the necessary measures to address the negative impact that the language regime had on the complainant’s status as a candidate. EPSO rejected the solution proposal based on procedural arguments, stating that only the Court of Justice could annul EPSO’s decision not to reconsider the administrative complaint.

The Ombudsman took the view that how EPSO handled the administrative complaint constitutes maladministration. She drew attention to the fact that, in principle, any EU authority can itself withdraw unlawful decisions. She thus made a recommendation based on the solution proposal, namely that EPSO reconsider the complainant’s administrative complaint and that, in doing so, EPSO accepts the complainant’s request to be allowed to re-sit the tests at issue. 

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.