The background to the complaint

1. The complaint concerns alleged discrimination in a staff selection procedure. The European Parliament, the European Commission, and the Court of Justice of the European Union each have their own interpretation services. However, they select freelance interpreters from a database managed by an Inter-institutional Test Office[1] (the 'Test Office'), which organises inter-institutional accreditation tests. At the test, candidates are asked to conduct consecutive and simultaneous interpretation from their passive languages into their active language(s). If a person passes the test, his or her name and contact details are entered into the joint EU database of accredited freelance interpreters.

2. The complainant has worked as an interpreter for 25 years. He is visually impaired (he is 92% "incapacitated"), and this condition makes it difficult for him to read and write. He participated in the inter-institutional accreditation tests organised by the Test Office, in order to become a freelance interpreter in the European institutions. He passed the simultaneous interpretation part of the test, but failed the consecutive interpretation part.

3. The Test Office refused to make an exception for the complainant and advised him to take both tests again. The complainant then turned to the Ombudsman.

The subject matter of the inquiry

4. The complainant alleged that the Test Office's failure to take his disability into consideration constitutes discrimination.

5. He claimed that the Test Office should allow him to be evaluated only on the basis of the simultaneous interpretation segment of the test, and to work as a freelance simultaneous interpreter within the EU institutions.

The inquiry

6. On 11 September 2009, the complainant addressed his concerns to the Ombudsman. On 20 October 2009, the Ombudsman opened an inquiry and forwarded the complaint to the Commission. In doing so, the Ombudsman asked the Commission to comment on how it can reconcile its position with Articles 21 and 26 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The Commission then sent its opinion to the Ombudsman, which was forwarded to the complainant with an invitation to submit observations. The complainant submitted his observations on 13 April 2010.

The Ombudsman's analysis and conclusions

A. Alleged discrimination due to the failure to consider the complainant's disability and related claims

Arguments presented to the Ombudsman

7. The complainant would like to work as an interpreter for the EU institutions. However, given his health condition, he considers that he can only work as a simultaneous interpreter. He has reading and writing difficulties and cannot do consecutive interpretation, which requires taking notes. He passed the simultaneous interpretation part of the test in Spanish and English, but failed the consecutive interpretation part. He argues that, given that 99% of the interpretation in the EU institutions is simultaneous, he should be allowed to work as a simultaneous interpreter only. The Test Office failed to take into consideration his disability when carrying out the tests for freelance interpreters. This, in his view, constitutes discrimination.

8. In its opinion to the Ombudsman, the Commission explained that conference interpretation is an activity which requires the use of different techniques, including consecutive and simultaneous interpretation. Selection panels focus on a candidate's proficiency in these techniques when assessing future interpreters. Consecutive interpretation is recognised as an essential pedagogical tool for teaching the bases of the profession and laying solid foundations for simultaneous interpretation training.

9. Consecutive interpretation tests have been used at the selection phase not only to assess a candidate's competence in the technique itself, but also to assess the candidate's overall ability to work as an interpreter. While simultaneous interpretation is more difficult to test in real time, consecutive interpretation tests break the process down, thus enabling the assessment of a series of essential aspects, such as the candidates' logical reasoning, ability to analyse and summarise, their command of linguistic nuance and their intrinsic presentation and communication skills. Note-taking is a secondary aspect. Consecutive interpretation without notes is an integral part of the learning process for all interpreters and, in most cases, noting the main elements of an argument and any figures and proper names is more than sufficient to provide candidates who have a proficient command of the interpretation techniques with a basis for their work. Notes are a personal tool. Some interpreters use longhand, while others use signs and symbols. For example, some visually-impaired candidates use Braille note-takers for the consecutive test. When assessing the overall performance of each candidate, selection panels naturally take account of all aspects in order to assess the candidate's ability to follow a logical argument and reformulate it for the listener.

10. Professional interpretation tests comprise two different but complementary elements. The simultaneous element demonstrates a candidate's reflex speed, ability to keep pace with the speaker and his/her understanding of foreign languages. However, it is the consecutive test alone which demonstrates the candidate's analytical ability, rigour and grasp of the structure of the interpretation as a whole. By limiting tests to only one of these two components, a selection panel would not be able to determine whether a candidate has the necessary skills to carry out the work required of interpreters employed by the institutions.

11. The Commission explained that there are currently six visually impaired interpreters in its Directorate-General for Interpretation's teams. All have passed either an accreditation test or a competition, including a consecutive test, using their own personal techniques. These techniques range from the use of Braille note-takers to memorising the content of a speech. Their technical proficiency enables them to cope with all situations with which interpreters are confronted, for example, unexpected bilateral discussions, inadequate infrastructure, or technical problems necessitating the use of consecutive interpretation.

12. As regards the day-to-day work in the profession, and in particular access to documentation, a computer equipped with 'JAWS' software and a Braille keyboard are available at the Visually Impaired Persons point in the Albert Borschette Conference Centre. This software programme, covering several languages, enables users to work by means of voice recognition. In addition, visually impaired staff interpreters use laptop computers equipped with the same software.

13. In all the information provided by the Commission, and in its contacts with the complainant, the Commission always stated that the selection process for conference interpretation comprises different types of tests, including consecutive interpretation. The complainant did not make any comments in this regard. He attended the tests in complete knowledge of the requirements and the content of the tests. He was aware that there was no possibility of dispensing with the part of the test which reveals the vast majority of the candidates' professional skills to the members of the selection panel. The Commission outlined that it is possible to inform visually-impaired candidates, upon their request, about the technical support available to put them in a situation which is as similar as possible to that of other candidates.

14. The Commission welcomes all disabled candidates and is prepared to provide them with or authorise the use of appropriate technical support which is compatible with the objective of the test. In light of this support, consecutive interpretation tests are in no way incompatible with visual impairment.

15. The Commission stated that it is willing to test the complainant when a test is organised for his target language and if he wishes to take all the tests provided for under the selection procedure. The Commission is also willing to inform and advise the complainant, at his request, about the technical support available to help him take a test in conditions which are comparable to those of other candidates. With regard to the accreditation, which is the objective of the tests organised by the EU institutions, it is important to emphasise that it is not possible to qualify as a "simultaneous interpreter only", either in the institutions themselves or within the International Association of Conference Interpreters.

16. In his observations, the complainant stated that he is an established interpreter and has therefore undergone the learning process. He has also passed the simultaneous interpretation tests for two languages, which means that he has a good grasp of a speaker's reasoning and is able to analyse and summarise. Since he is not completely blind, he does not use Braille note-takers. However, his impairment is sufficient to present him with difficulties in reading and writing. The Commission never informed him that he could use the available technical support.

The Ombudsman's assessment

17. The principle of non-discrimination on grounds of disability is embodied in Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights[2] and supplemented by Article 26 of the Charter[3], which deals with the integration of persons with disabilities.

18. The Ombudsman notes that the accreditation test to work as a freelance interpreter for the EU institutions is composed of two parts, simultaneous interpretation and consecutive interpretation. The complainant was aware of these two parts. According to the Commission, consecutive interpretation is an essential pedagogical tool, recognised by universities and training institutes. It is also an essential element in selection procedures for interpreters in the EU institutions and in other international and national organisations. It enables the testing of logical reasoning, of a candidate's ability to analyse and summarise, of the command of linguistic nuances and of his or her presentation and communication skills. The Commission further explained that qualifying as a simultaneous interpreter is not possible.

19. The Ombudsman considers that it is for the Test Office to determine what skills are necessary to work as a freelance interpreter in the EU institutions. He may only question the Test Office's decision if it were based on a manifest error of assessment.

20. The complainant argued that, because he passed the simultaneous interpretation test, which, according to him, is a more difficult exercise, he does not need to pass the consecutive interpretation test. He also argued that 99% of the work of an interpreter in the EU institutions consists of simultaneous interpretation. The Ombudsman is not, however, convinced that for an institution to consider it necessary to test consecutive interpretation skills constitutes a manifest error. He notes, in this regard, that there may be circumstances in which such skills are vital. The fact that such circumstances may be relatively rare does not imply that interpreters should not be able to deal with them adequately. Further, it cannot be presumed that a good simultaneous interpreter is necessarily a good consecutive interpreter. In light of the above explanations provided by the Commission, it seems legitimate to test future interpreters in the EU institutions on both simultaneous and consecutive interpretation.

21. Referring to an exchange of correspondence from 16 March 2009 until 24 April 2009, the Commission stated that the complainant never informed it that he had a visual impairment problem which might prevent him from taking part in the consecutive part of the test. The Ombudsman disagrees with the Commission, since the complainant informed it of his disability in his e-mail of 5 November 2008. The Commission's reply dated 16 March 2009 shows that it was aware of the complainant's disability, but refused to allow him to take only the simultaneous interpretation test.

22. The Ombudsman notes that interpreters do not necessarily take notes when carrying out consecutive interpretation. Visually-impaired candidates use techniques ranging from Braille note-takers to memorising the content of the speech. He further notes that the six visually impaired interpreters who work in DG Interpretation all passed a consecutive interpretation test. He agrees with the Commission that consecutive interpretation is not incompatible with visual impairment and that no exception should therefore have been made for the complainant.

23. The Ombudsman notes with approval that the Commission is of the view that it should put visually impaired candidates in the same situation as other candidates, and thus allow them to use all necessary technical tools during the tests. He therefore does not understand why, in its reply to the complainant of 16 March 2009, the Commission did not consult with the complainant as regards the possibility of using such technical tools, even though it was aware at that time that he was visually impaired. The Ombudsman further notes that the Commission is now prepared to test the complainant again and to inform and advise him on the technical support available to him. Therefore, the Ombudsman considers that the Commission has already taken steps to resolve this oversight. As such, he considers that this issue has already been resolved by the Commission.

24. The Ombudsman would like to draw the Commission's attention to the good practice of the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) as regards candidates with special needs. When EPSO organises open competitions or selection procedures, a special procedure applies to persons with special needs. When registering online, candidates are asked whether they have special needs. This procedure enables EPSO to make special arrangements for these candidates. The Ombudsman suggests that a similar question be included in the Commission's online registration form concerning accreditation tests for freelance interpreters. He will make a further remark below.

B. Conclusions

On the basis of his inquiry into this complaint, the Ombudsman closes it with the following conclusion:

The Commission has taken steps to settle the issue by informing the complainant of the technical support available if he decides to take the test again.

The complainant and the Commission will be informed of this decision.

Further remark

The Ombudsman suggests that a question about candidates' special needs be included in the Commission's online registration form concerning accreditation tests for freelance interpreters.

 

P. Nikiforos Diamandouros

Done in Strasbourg on 26 November 2010

---

[1] The Commission is responsible for the Inter-institutional Test Office for the European Parliament, the European Commission and the European Court of Justice. Therefore, the inquiry was opened against the Commission.

[2] Article 21 of the Charter states the following: "Any discrimination based on any ground such as sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation shall be prohibited".

[3] Article 26 of the Charter states the following: "The Union recognises and respects the right of persons with disabilities to benefit from measures designed to ensure their independence, social and occupational integration and participation in the life of the community".