Strasbourg, 19 June 2008

Dear Ms G.,

On 10 July 2006, you submitted a complaint to the European Ombudsman against the European Parliament concerning its alleged failure to re-include your name on the list of freelance interpreters accredited to work for Parliament. You also alleged that Parliament had failed to reply to your e-mails of 18 July 2005 and 21 February 2006.

On 12 September 2006, I forwarded your complaint to Parliament's President. Parliament sent its opinion on 15 November 2006.

On 27 November 2006, I forwarded it to you with an invitation to make observations by 31 December 2006.

By e-mail of 18 December 2006, you requested an extension of the deadline for your observations.

By e-mail of 20 December 2006, I informed you that I had decided to grant your request and invited you to submit your observations on Parliament's opinion by 31 January 2007. You sent your observations on 6 February 2007.

On 3 July and 6 August 2007, you sent me further e-mails concerning your complaint.

On 5 February 2008, I asked Parliament for further information in relation to your complaint. Parliament sent me its reply on 10 March 2008.

On 17 March 2008, I forwarded to you Parliament’s reply, with an invitation to make observations, which you sent on 13 May 2008.

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

THE COMPLAINT

Background: complaint 837/2006/MF

On 15 March 2006, the complainant submitted a first complaint (837/2006/MF) to the European Ombudsman against the European Parliament concerning her work relations with it.

According to the complainant, the relevant facts were, in summary, as follows:

The complainant worked for the European Commission from 1975 to 1978 as a freelance interpreter, under a contract of auxiliary agent.

From 1978 to 1995, the complainant worked for Parliament as a freelance interpreter. Then, for a certain period, the complainant ceased to work for Parliament and worked for international organisations in the United States. Afterwards, she again worked for Parliament.

In 1998, the complainant contacted Parliament's President, its Secretary-General and its Director-General of the Directorate-General for Administration in order to be informed of the reasons why the number of her working hours had been reduced consistently. She was informed that, following the accession of new Member States, the working hours of the freelance interpreters for certain languages had been reduced.

On 6 February 2004, the complainant tried to contact Parliament's Interpretation Service, by using the computer programme containing the list of all the freelance interpreters accredited to work for Parliament. The complainant was refused access to this programme. She was informed that her name had been "cancelled" from the list of freelance interpreters. In her view, this was unfair.

Subsequently, the complainant repeated her request to be included in the list of the freelance interpreters accredited to work for Parliament. Her request was rejected.

In her complaint to the Ombudsman, she argued that she had worked for more than 20 years for Parliament and the Commission and that their relevant services had always been satisfied with her work. In her complaint to the Ombudsman, the complainant alleged that she was the victim of discrimination.

Given that the complainant did not submit any documents attesting that she had made prior administrative approaches to Parliament concerning her allegation of discrimination, on 20 April 2006, the Ombudsman informed her that her complaint was inadmissible on the basis of Article 195 of the EC Treaty. The complainant was informed that she could consider renewing her complaint with the Ombudsman provided that she submitted the relevant documents attesting that she had contacted Parliament concerning her allegation.

Present complaint 2485/2006/MF

On 10 July 2006, the complainant sent a further letter to the Ombudsman. In view of the documents attached, the complainant's further letter was registered as a new complaint on 17 July 2006 under the reference number 2485/2006/MF.

In her complaint, the complainant repeated her allegation that she was the victim of discrimination because the number of her working hours had been reduced consistently since 1995. She attached a letter dated 21 June 1999 sent to the Parliament's Secretary-General, in which she complained about what she considered to be "persecutions" by the Director of the Interpretation Service and the Head of the French division. In his reply, the Parliament's Secretary-General stated that her allegation was not founded.

The complainant further attached to her complaint a 1998 letter sent by several MEPs to Parliament's President in which they pointed out that the complainant, who had worked for Parliament for more than 20 years, was no longer hired by Parliament. The relevant MEPs requested Parliament's President to remedy this unfair situation.

In her complaint to the Ombudsman, the complainant further repeated her allegation that, in December 2003, her name had been unfairly removed from the list of freelance interpreters.

She stated that, on 10 May 2005, Parliament proposed to re-include her name on the list and, in this context, invited her to fill in a form with personal information, such as her professional and personal address, and her professional and personal telephone numbers that would be useful in order to reach her if necessary.

In her complaint to the Ombudsman, the complainant pointed out that she had submitted her personal information by e-mail, but she never received any reply. By e-mail dated 18 July 2005, the complainant informed Parliament that she had not received the form she had been invited to fill in on 10 May 2005. By e-mail of 21 February 2006, the complainant again contacted Parliament. She expressed her disappointment, first, that she had never been offered any work by Parliament, despite the fact that she had been informed that her name would be re-included on the list, and second, that she still had no access to the computer programme containing the list of all the freelance interpreters. She alleged that she never received any reply to these two e-mails.

In her complaint, the complainant submitted the following allegations:

1. She was the victim of discrimination because the number of her working hours had been reduced consistently since 1995.
2. Parliament unfairly removed her name from the list of freelance interpreters in December 2003 and did not re-include her name in the list, despite an invitation extended to her to fill in a form with personal information.
3. Parliament failed to reply to her e-mails of 18 July 2005 and 21 February 2006.

THE INQUIRY

The Ombudsman's approach

By letter of 12 September 2006, the Ombudsman informed the complainant that he had decided to open an inquiry as regards the second and third allegations raised in her complaint.

As regards the complainant's first allegation, given that the relevant facts at the origin of this allegation concerned a period from 1995 to 1999, the Ombudsman informed the complainant that he had decided to close this aspect of the case on the basis of Article 2(4) of his Statute.

Parliament's opinion

In its reply, Parliament made, in summary, the following statements:

As regards the alleged unfair removal, in December 2003, of the complainant's name from the list of freelance interpreters, that is to say, before the establishment of an inter-institutional list of interpreters accredited to work for one or several European Institutions, Parliament stated that the complainant's name had indeed been removed from the "GERI" database(1).

However, the complainant still appeared on the list of freelance interpreters, under an encrypted name preceded by the reference "ZZ" ("ZZGALBR"). Parliament stated that this list applied in cases where the recruiting service no longer had contacts with the relevant interpreter or in case the latter had expressed the wish not to be hired anymore, either on a temporary or on a permanent basis.

On 8 April 2005, the Parliament’s Head of Unit of French Interpretation (“the Head of Unit”) informed the complainant of the above-mentioned list. She further informed the complainant that she had encountered serious difficulties in contacting her over several years.

As regards its alleged failure to re-include the complainant's name in the list of interpreters included in the GERI database, Parliament stated that all the interpreters accredited to work for the European Institutions had been invited to fill in a form specifying their contact details. The complainant, who appeared to be recruited regularly by the Commission's Interpretation Service, SCIC, also filled in this form.

However, Parliament pointed out that, when setting out the list of interpreters accredited to work for the European Institutions, the relevant Heads of Unit did not give the accreditation to all the interpreters. In the complainant's case, the Head of Unit for French Interpretation did not wish to collaborate anymore with the complainant, for reasons which were mentioned to her in several e-mails, namely, her unjustified absence when she was under contract; the impossibility of contacting her during long periods of time; and her defamatory comments concerning her superiors.

Parliament further stated that, even if the complainant had been given the relevant accreditation, the fact of having one's name put on this list did not, as established by the Court of First Instance, imply an entitlement to a certain number of days of work.

As regards its alleged failure to reply to the complainant's e-mail of 18 July 2005, Parliament stated that it had indeed replied to the complainant by e-mail of the same day and attached a copy of that reply.

As regards its alleged failure to reply to the complainant's e-mail of 21 February 2006, Parliament attached a copy of the reply that was to be sent to the complainant by the Head of Unit, on 21 February 2006. Parliament stated that, in the highly unlikely event that the Head of Unit had forgotten to send this e-mail to the complainant on 21 February 2006, the Head of Unit apologised to her for that failure. In any event, the numerous replies Parliament sent in response to the complainant's e-mails, before and after 21 February 2006, demonstrated that there had been no negligence by Parliament as regards this issue.

The complainant's observations

In her observations, the complainant repeated the allegation made in her first complaint 837/2006/MF, pursuant to which she had allegedly been the victim of discrimination because, although her name had been put on the list of free lance interpreters accredited to work for Parliament, the latter never offered her any further contracts.

The complainant further alleged that there was a lack of transparency because interpreters were not informed of the decision of the Heads of Units to grant them the accreditation or to refuse it. She finally wondered why, in the event that Parliament no longer wished to recruit her, it delayed in informing her accordingly. In her view, this constituted a lack of information.

The complainant contested the fact that for a long period of time she was not available to respond to contacts from Parliament. She pointed out that she had never indicated that she did not wish to work for Parliament anymore. She also refuted Parliament's view that she was on leave without justification and that she had made defamatory comments concerning her superiors. In her view, Parliament did not submit proof to support its arguments.

The complainant recognised that the Head of Unit "did acknowledge receipt" of her e-mail of 18 July 2005. The complainant further observed that Parliament's reply to her e-mail of 21 February 2006 "oddly" did not contain any date.

The complainant’s further letter of 6 August 2007

On 6 August 2007, the complainant sent a further letter to the Ombudsman in which she repeated the allegation that she had been the victim of discrimination by Parliament. She stated that, even if the facts she described in this letter concerned the period of time prior to the one the Ombudsman was entitled to take into consideration, these facts were, in her view, essential.

The complainant further stated that Parliament had officially recruited her for 2 days and that she had received the corresponding salary. However, later on, she found out that, in the relevant program, she appeared as having been recruited for 4 days. When the complainant requested information on this situation, she was informed that she would be only paid for the 4 days, if she had received written confirmation of the offer of employment. In the complainant’s view, this constituted an inequality of treatment by Parliament.

Further inquiries
The request for information addressed to Parliament

After careful consideration of Parliament's opinion and the complainant's observations, the Ombudsman considered it necessary to ask Parliament for further information.

The Ombudsman therefore asked Parliament to provide him with information on the following point:

The Ombudsman noted that, in an e-mail of 18 July 2005, the Head of Unit stated that the complainant was "accredited to the SCIC". In a further e-mail of 21 February 2006 to the complainant, the Head of Unit further stated that the complainant’s name was "on the common list of the French interpreters", but that she had not been contacted because her "linguistical combination was covered by other interpreters whose services were satisfactory indeed".

In light of the above, the Ombudsman requested Parliament to comment on the apparent contradictions in the statements of the Head of Unit.

Parliament's reply

In its reply, Parliament, first, stated that a distinction should be drawn between interpreters who receive accreditation to work for all three interpretation services, that is, the Commission, Parliament and the Court of Justice, and those who were accredited to work for only one or two of the three institutions. The complainant formed part of the second category.

When the joint list was drawn up, all the interpreters who [a] worked regularly for all the institutions, [b] had not been the subject of any complaint, and [c] had an unbroken record of cooperation with the institutions, automatically received joint accreditation on the joint list. Interpreters who did not fulfil these conditions retained accreditation for the institution(s) for which they continued to work.

Since the complainant did not honour several contracts in 2001 and remained unreachable for long periods, Parliament did not choose to recommend her for wider accreditation on the joint list. She remained, however, on the list with JICS(2) accreditation. The complainant was informed accordingly by the Head of Unit in an e-mail of 18 July 2005.

In her e-mail of 21 February 2006, the Head of Unit confirmed the status of the complainant, that is, an accreditation only for the JICS. She further informed the complainant that she did not wish to recommend her for recruitment with a view to potential accreditation for Parliament because (i) there was no shortage of her combination of languages and (ii) that language combination was very well covered by other ACIs who regularly worked with Parliament to its entire satisfaction.

Parliament further stated that the lack of joint accreditation in no way prevented the other institutions from employing auxiliary interpreters (ACIs) with this status when they needed to. In the event that the services rendered by the ACIs were satisfactory, the Institution could then request an extension of the interpreter’s accreditation.

Parliament considered therefore that there was no contradiction between the two e-mails from the Head of Unit to the complainant.

Parliament concluded that, in view of the clarifications given in its previous replies with regard to the services and conduct of the complainant, the Head of Unit had no reason to recommend to the ACI recruitment service that it recruit the complainant.

The complainant's further observations

In her observations, the complainant stated that Parliament had not sustained its view that she had been the object of complaints. She further pointed out that she had always been reachable on her mobile phone and that Parliament was aware of her e-mail address in case it wished to contact her.

The complainant further stated that it emerged from Parliament’s further opinion that the Head of Unit had not been satisfied with her work. In the complainant’s view, if she had been informed of this situation sooner, she could have reacted and submitted her arguments. She pointed out that this constituted a lack of transparency.

THE DECISION

1 The Ombudsman's scope of inquiry

1.1 The complainant worked as a freelance interpreter for both the European Commission and the European Parliament from 1975 to 1995. After a period during which she did not work for Parliament, the complainant attempted, without success, to work for the institution again. In the complainant's view, in December 2003, Parliament had unfairly removed her name from the list of freelance interpreters accredited to work for the European Institutions. She stated that, on 10 May 2005, Parliament proposed to re-include her name on the list. In this context, Parliament invited her to fill in a form with her contact details. Although the complainant submitted her contact details by e-mail, she stated that she never received a reply. In her complaint to the European Ombudsman, the complainant alleged that, in December 2003, Parliament had unfairly removed her name from the list of freelance interpreters and had not re-included her name in the list, despite its invitation to fill in a form with her personal data.

1.2 The Ombudsman notes that, in her observations, the complainant repeated the allegation made in her first complaint 837/2006/MF, pursuant to which she had been the victim of discrimination because, although her name had been put on the list, Parliament had never offered her any further contracts. The complainant further alleged that there was a lack of transparency because interpreters had not been informed of the decision of the relevant Heads of Units to grant them the accreditation entitling them to work for the European Institutions or, alternatively, to refuse it. She finally wondered why, in the event Parliament did not wish to recruit her anymore, it delayed in informing her accordingly. In her view, this constituted a lack of information. The Ombudsman also notes that, in her further letter of 6 August 2007, the complainant repeated her allegation that she had been the victim of discrimination by Parliament.

1.3 As regards the complainant's allegation that she had been the victim of discrimination, the Ombudsman would like to point out that, as already indicated in his letter of 12 September 2006 to the complainant, given that the relevant facts at the origin of this allegation concern a period from 1995 to 1999, this aspect of the case is inadmissible on the basis of Article 2(4) of his Statute(3).

1.4 As regards the complainant's allegations that that there was a lack of transparency and a lack of information, the Ombudsman would like to point out that these issues constitute new allegations that were not raised in the complainant's original complaint. They therefore fall outside the scope of the present inquiry. The complainant could consider renewing these allegations after having made the appropriate prior administrative approaches to Parliament, pursuant to Article 2(4) of his Statute.

2 Parliament's alleged unfair removal of the complainant's name from the list of freelance interpreters and its alleged failure to re-include her name in the list

2.1 In her complaint to the Ombudsman, the complainant alleged that, in December 2003, Parliament had unfairly removed her name from the list of freelance interpreters and had not re-included her name on the list, despite an invitation to her to fill in a form with her personal data.

2.2 In its opinion, Parliament stated that that the complainant's name had indeed been removed from the "GERI" database. However, the complainant still appeared on the list of freelance interpreters, under an encrypted name preceded by the reference "ZZ" ("ZZGALBR"). Parliament stated that this latter list applied in cases where the recruiting service had no more contacts with the relevant interpreter or when the relevant interpreter had expressed the wish not to be hired in the future, either on a temporary or on a permanent basis. On 8 April 2005, the Parliament’s Head of Unit informed the complainant of the above-mentioned list. The Head of Unit further informed the complainant that she had encountered serious difficulties in contacting her over the past few years.

As regards its alleged failure not to re-include the complainant's name in the list issuing from the GERI database, Parliament stated that, following the establishment of an inter-institutional list of interpreters accredited to work for one or several European institutions, all the interpreters concerned were invited to fill in a form specifying their contact details. The complainant, who appeared to have been recruited by the "SCIC" on a regular basis, also filled in this form. However, it has to be pointed out that, when setting out the list of interpreters accredited to work for the European Institutions, the relevant Head of Units did not give the relevant accreditation to all the interpreters. In the complainant's case, the Head of Unit did not wish to collaborate with her anymore, for reasons which were mentioned to the complainant in several e-mails, namely, her unjustified absence when she was under contract; the impossibility of contacting her during long periods of time; and the defamatory comments she had made concerning her superiors.

2.3 In her observations, the complainant contested Parliament's views that she was not available and that Parliament had not contacted her for a long period of time. She also refuted Parliament's view that she was absent without any justification and that she had made defamatory comments concerning her superiors.

2.4 In light of the above, the Ombudsman considered it appropriate to ask Parliament for further information. He therefore requested Parliament to comment on the apparent contradictions in the statements of the Head of Unit made in her e-mails of 18 July 2005 and 21 February 2006.

2.5 In its additional reply, Parliament explained that, since the complainant did not honour several contracts in 2001 and remained unreachable for long periods, it did not choose to recommend her for wider accreditation on the joint list. She remained, however, on the list with JICS accreditation. The complainant was informed accordingly by the Head of Unit in an e-mail of 18 July 2005. In her e-mail of 21 February 2006, the Head of Unit informed the complainant that she did not wish to recommend her for recruitment with a view to potential accreditation for Parliament because (i) there was no shortage of her language combination and (ii) that language combination was very well covered by other ACIs who regularly worked with Parliament to its entire satisfaction. Parliament considered therefore that there was no contradiction between the two e-mails from the Head of Unit to the complainant. Parliament further pointed out that the inclusion of an interpreter's name on the joint list, with joint accreditation or limited accreditation to one of the institutions, only implied that the relevant interpreter was eligible for recruitment, without giving any right to being recruited.

2.6 In her further observations, the complainant stated that Parliament had not sustained its view that she had been the object of complaints. She further pointed out that she had always been reachable on her mobile phone and that Parliament was aware of her e-mail address. The complainant further stated that it emerged from Parliament’s further opinion that the Head of Unit had not been satisfied with her work. In the complainant’s view, if she had been informed of this situation sooner, she could have reacted and submitted her arguments.

2.7 As a preliminary remark, the Ombudsman notes that it emerges from Parliament’s opinion and further reply that, in order to be eligible for recruitment as an interpreter, the relevant applicant must fulfil the following two conditions: (i) the applicant’s name has to be put on the joint list and (ii) the applicant has to either receive from the relevant Head of Unit of his/her language section joint accreditation to work in the Commission, Parliament and the Court of Justice, or limited accreditation to work only in one of these European Institutions.

2.8 According to the case-law of the Community Courts, candidates whose names are included in the list of suitable candidates have not acquired a right to be appointed to the relevant vacant post. The Court of First Instance has held that they "(…) are merely eligible, and not entitled, to be appointed"(4). This case-law should also apply, by analogy, to the reserve lists set up for the recruitment of interpreters by the Commission, Parliament and the Court of Justice.

2.9 Moreover, it clearly emerges from Parliament’s further reply that the complainant's name remained on the list with JICS accreditation but not with accreditation for Parliament's interpretation services. It follows that the complainant cannot be considered as being on a list of suitable candidates to be recruited as freelance interpreters by the European Parliament.

2.10 It is also apparent that the Head of Unit decided not to collaborate anymore with the complainant and not to recommend her for wider accreditation on the joint list for a certain number of reasons which have been explained in the course of the Ombudsman's inquiry. In this context, the Ombudsman notes that, in her letter of 8 April 2005, the Head of Unit referred to a period of four years during which the complainant did not work for the Institutions. The Head of Unit then stated that Parliament had offered the complainant two contracts, for the sessions of May and June 2001 respectively, which the complainant had explicitly accepted. However, it appears that the complainant did not honour these contracts of employment. The Head of Unit then stated that, as from June 2001, Parliament's Directorate-General for Interpretation had not been able to contact the complainant and had not been contacted by her. The complainant's name was therefore placed under the category "Interpreter not available" in GERI.

2.11 The Ombudsman observes that three reasons appear to be at the origin of Parliament’s wish not to collaborate with the complainant anymore: (i) her unjustified absence when she was under contract; (ii) the impossibility of contacting her during long periods of time; and (iii) the defamatory comments she had made concerning her superiors, which had led to complaints against her.

As regards the complainant’s unjustified absence when she was under contract, the Ombudsman observes that the Head of Unit sent the complainant a note dated 21 June 2001 to which the complainant did not react. The Ombudsman is therefore of the view that the complainant was well aware of this first reason.

As regards the second reason, the Ombudsman observes that the complainant herself stated that she had indeed worked for international organisations in the United States. It emerges from the factual background of the complaint that the complainant returned to the "European labour marked" after an absence.

As regards the third reason, the Ombudsman notes that the complaint’s enclosures contain an exchange of correspondence between the complainant and Parliament also as regards this issue.

The Ombudsman concludes therefore that the complainant was aware of Parliament’s position as regards all these three issues and had the opportunity to challenge Parliament’s decision to refuse her certification or to challenge the reasons invoked therefore.

2.12 In light of the explanations given by Parliament in its further reply, the Ombudsman considers that the complainant has not substantiated her allegation that Parliament had unfairly removed her name from the list of freelance interpreters and had not re-included her name on the list. The reasons provided by Parliament to justify the removal of the complainant from the list in 2005 and for not re-including her afterwards do not appear unreasonable. Moreover, in light of paragraphs 2.8 and 2.9, the complainant cannot claim to have a specific right to be included in the list in question or to be subsequently offered contracts by Parliament.

2.13 In light of the above, the Ombudsman considers that there appears to have been no maladministration by Parliament as regards the complainant’s allegation.

3 Parliament's alleged failure to reply to the complainant's e-mails of 18 July 2005 and 21 February 2006

3.1 In her complaint, the complainant alleged that Parliament failed to reply to her e-mails of 18 July 2005 and 21 February 2006.

3.2 In its opinion, Parliament stated that, as regards the complainant's e-mail of 18 July 2005, it indeed replied to the complainant by e-mail of the same day and attached a copy of this reply.

As regards its alleged failure to reply to the complainant's e-mail of 21 February 2006, Parliament attached a copy of the reply which was intended to be sent to the complainant by the Head of Unit on 21 February 2006. Parliament stated that, in the highly unlikely event that the Head of Unit for French Interpretation had forgotten to send this e-mail to the complainant, the Head of Unit for French Interpretation apologised to her for this. In any event, the numerous replies sent in response to the complainant's e-mails, before and after 21 February 2006, demonstrated that Parliament had not been negligent as regards this issue.

3.3 In her observations, the complainant recognised that the Head of Unit "did acknowledge receipt" of her e-mail of 18 July 2005. The complainant further observed that Parliament's e-mails sent in reply to her e-mail of 21 February 2006, "oddly" did not contain any date.

3.4 As regards Parliament's alleged failure to reply to the complainant's e-mail of 18 July 2005, the Ombudsman notes that Parliament attached to its opinion the reply sent to the complainant on the same day. The Ombudsman therefore considers that there appear to be no grounds for further inquiries into this aspect of the complainant's allegation.

3.5 As regards Parliament's alleged failure to reply to the complainant's e-mail of 21 February 2006, the Ombudsman notes that, in its opinion, Parliament attached the e-mail which was supposed to have been sent to the complainant in reply. The Ombudsman considers that the fact that this e-mail does not contain any indication of a relevant date cannot establish that it was never sent to the complainant. The Ombudsman takes note, however, of the apologies of the Head of Unit for French Interpretation concerned in the event that this email was, inadvertently, not sent.

3.6 In light of the above, the Ombudsman considers that there appear to be no grounds for further inquiries into this aspect of the complainant's allegation.

4 Conclusion

On the basis of the Ombudsman's inquiries into this complaint, there appears to be no maladministration by Parliament as regards the complainant’s first allegation.

As regards the complainant’s second allegation, there appear to be no grounds for further inquiries. The Ombudsman therefore closes the case.

Parliament's President will also be informed of this decision.

Yours sincerely,

 

P. Nikiforos DIAMANDOUROS

---

(1) The Ombudsman understands that GERI stands for the "Gestion des Réunions et des Interprètes" database, which, at the relevant time, was used by Parliament to manage its translation needs.

(2) The Ombudsman understands that "JICS" stands for "Joint Interpreting and Conference Service".

(3) According to Article 2(4) of the Ombudsman's Statute "A complaint shall be made within two years of the date on which the facts on which it is based came to the attention of the person lodging the complaint (…)".

(4) See Case T-1/90 Pérez-Mínguez Casariego v Commission [1991] ECR II-143. See also Article 30, paragraph 2, of the Staff Regulations which states that "[t]he appointing authority shall decide which of these [suitable] candidates to appoint to the vacant posts."