The complaint to the Court of Justice of the European Union

1. The complainant is a Hungarian citizen with language knowledge of English, German and Hungarian (his main language).

2. In May 2022, the complainant wrote to the Court of the Justice of the EU (CJEU) to complain about the language requirements in one of its recent recruitment procedures, in particular the requirement of a ‘good knowledge of French’, which the complainant did not have. The position to be filled was at the Research and Documentation Directorate (DRD) of the CJEU.

3. In his letter to the CJEU, the complainant claimed that this requirement unreasonably excluded potential candidates without French from applying for the position.

The Court of Justice of the European Union’s response to the complainant

4. In its reply, the CJEU argued that the requirement was justified by the ‘interests of the service’. It stated DRD provides assistance in the judicial work of the Court of Justice and of the General Court, which, in principle, use French as ‘common language’ for deliberations. This implies the need to swiftly draft texts in a language understood by all judges and their private offices (‘cabinets’). In addition, under the supervision of ‘judge rapporteurs’, the DRD provides summaries and analysis of judicial decisions in French to be approved by the members of the Court. These documents, initially drafted in French, are then translated into the other official languages of the EU by the language services of the CJEU.

5. The CJEU concluded that it considered that the requirement to have a good level of knowledge of French was limited to what was strictly necessary and proportionate to the actual needs of the service.

6. Dissatisfied with the CJEU’s response, the complainant turned to the Ombudsman, arguing that the requirement was against the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, in particular, the provisions concerning the freedom to seek employment and the prohibition of discrimination.[1] He also referred to Regulation 1/1958 on the languages of the EU institutions and argued that, as the CJEU does not have binding rules establishing French as a working language or stipulating when it should be used, he believed it should not stipulate that applicants must have such language skills.[2]

The European Ombudsman's finding

7. The complainant argues that the CJEU’s practice is in breach of Regulation 1/1958, which establishes a principle that all 24 official languages be treated equally.

8. It is correct to state that the CJEU has not, pursuant to Article 7 of Regulation 1/1958, made any distinction between its use of the official languages: all 24 official languages can thus be used in proceedings before the CJEU.[3]

9. However, deliberations between judges presiding on a case are, by law, secret.[4] One consequence of this legal requirement is that no interpretation services are permitted to be present for such deliberations. As a result, the judges must use, in any given deliberations, a ’common language‘. As the present time, most judges choose to use French as the ’common language‘ for deliberations.

10. It is thus objectively necessary, given the current practice of judges, that the documents provided to the judges by the DRD, to facilitate their deliberations, be drafted in French.

11. While the use of French for deliberations is a custom, and not a legal obligation, it is nonetheless a factual situation which must be taken into account when evaluating the needs of the service at the DRD. Specifically, this factual situation justifies the need for the DRD to have available to it, at the present time, lawyers who can draft complex high quality documents in French. The CJEU pointed out that the level of knowledge of French required was ‘good’, and that this requirement was necessary and proportionate to the needs of the service.

12. The provisions in the Charter of Fundamental Rights on the freedom to seek employment do not constitute an absolute right and can thus be subject to limitations.[5] According to case-law, such limitations may be justified on condition that the substance of these rights is left untouched.[6]

13. While both the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the EU Staff Regulations[7] prohibit discrimination on any grounds, including language, limitations to that prohibition are possible if “justified on objective and reasonable grounds” and corresponding to “legitimate objectives in the general interest in the framework of staff policy”.[8] According to EU case-law, the ’interest of the service’ may constitute a legitimate objective that can be taken into consideration in recruitment,[9] and the interest of the service may also cover language requirements. The fact that institutions may not have formally chosen ’working languages’ under either Article 6 or Article 7 of Regulation 1/1958 does not prevent them from evaluating the needs of the service for any given vacancy and from deciding, in that context, that knowledge of specific languages be required for that vacancy.

14. The Ombudsman notes that that the explanations given by the CJEU are factually accurate – French is the language used by the DRD to assist judges, who, in the main, use French for their deliberations. The DRD’s need to recruit lawyers with a good command of French is thus objectively justified and proportionate and therefore in line with the requirements of the Charter, the Staff Regulations and the applicable case-law.

15. Based on the information provided by the complainant, the Ombudsman finds no maladministration in this case.[10]

 

Tina Nilsson
Head of the Case-handling Unit
Strasbourg, 31/03/2023

 

[1] Article 15(2) on the freedom to seek employment and Article 21(1) on the prohibition of discrimination (including on the basis of language): https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A12012P%2FTXT.

[2] The complainant referred to Articles 7 and 6 of Regulation 1/1958 determining the languages to be used by the European Economic Community: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/1958/1(1)/oj.

[3] See Chapter 8 of the Rules of Procures of the Court of Justice.

[4] See Article 35 of the Statute of the Court of Justice.

[5] Also in line with Article 52(1) and (2) of the Charter.

[6] Judgment of the Court of 14 May 1974 in case 4-73, Nold, Kohlen- und Baustoffgroßhandlung v Commission, paragraph 14: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A61973CJ0004.

[7] Article 1(d) of Regulation No 31 (EEC), 11 (EAEC), laying down the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Economic Community and the European Atomic Energy Community, available at : https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A01962R0031-20140501.

[8] Article 1d(6) of the Staff Regulations

[9] Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 March 2019 in case C-621/16 P, Commission v Italy, paragraph 89;

Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2020 in case T-437/16, Italy and Spain v Commission, paragraph 60.

[10] This complaint has been dealt with under delegated case handling, in accordance with the Decision of the European Ombudsman adopting Implementing Provisions.