Strasbourg, 31 October 2007

Dear Mr J.,

On 23 March 2006, you submitted a complaint to the European Ombudsman against the European Commission concerning its alleged failure properly to address the grievances you raised in your e-mails of 14 February and 6 and 9 March 2006(1).

This complaint was related to your earlier complaint 49/2006/ELB against the Commission, on which I decided not to open an inquiry because you had not completed prior administrative approaches to the Commission.

On 7 June 2006, I forwarded the complaint to the President of the Commission.

The Commission sent its opinion on 6 October 2006.

I forwarded it to you with an invitation to make observations, which you sent on 3 November 2006.

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

THE COMPLAINT

The complaint may be summarised as follows:

On 14 February 2006, the complainant contacted the European Commission with regard to its use of languages on its website. In his e-mail of 14 February 2006, the complainant noted that, although the Europa homepage (http://europa.eu/index_fr.htm) is drafted in French, the documents referred to on that page are provided only in English. The complainant also pointed out that the information contained in the sections "UE au jour le jour" and "A la une" appears only in English. In addition, the complainant drew the Commission’s attention to the fact that the pages found through the link "EU Bookshop" and the link "le.EU" appear only in English. Moreover, even though some webpages are in French, their titles are drafted in English (in this respect, the complainant referred to the site "Investing in our future"). In light of the above, the complainant concluded that the Commission considers the English language as "the language of Europe" and added that citizens who are not English speakers and, in particular, French-speaking citizens are discriminated against.

On 7 March 2006, the Commission replied, in summary, that the European citizens should have the possibility to communicate with the institutions and read about EU law in their own language and take part in European projects without any linguistic barrier because they are directly concerned by EU law. The Commission recalled that the very first European Regulation(2) stipulates that European legal documents should be drafted in all official languages and requires that the institutions should communicate with citizens in an official language chosen by the latter. The Commission stated that it ensures therefore the proper functioning of EUR-lex in all official languages. Moreover, over the last ten years the Commission has launched a number of initiatives in all European languages, such as "Dialogue with citizens". The Commission also referred to its initiative on multilingualism and it recalled that Commissioner Figel(3) was responsible for this portfolio. Finally, the Commission recalled its first communication ever concerning multilingualism in Europe(4) and that a new website on that matter was currently available in all official languages (http://europa.eu.int/languages). The Commission concluded that it would further develop the information available on-line in all languages.

The complainant was not satisfied with the Commission's above answer and, on 9 March 2006, he addressed the Commission again. He stated that, in his earlier e-mail of 14 February 2006, he referred to what he considered to be discriminatory practices by the Commission as regards French-speaking citizens. However, in its reply, the Commission did not deal with his concerns but only referred to the main points of its policy on languages. He took the view that this policy is not properly applied by the Commission. He added to his earlier remarks that the majority of the Commission’s publications and its working documents on its website are drafted in English only. Moreover, the Commission systematically requires that candidates for European posts should have a good knowledge of English while a good knowledge of French is seldom required.

On 20 March 2006, the Commission replied that its earlier e-mail contained all the information necessary as regards the issues referred to by the complainant and that it considered "this fructuous exchange of views with the complainant as closed."

The complainant remained unsatisfied with the Commission’s replies and submitted the present complaint to the Ombudsman.

The complainant alleged that the Commission failed properly to address the issue raised in his e-mails of 14 February and 9 March 2006, concerning discrimination against French-speaking European citizens on the grounds that most of the documents and information on the Commission's website are available only in English.

The complainant claimed that the Commission should not discriminate, in its website, against French-speaking European citizens.

THE INQUIRY

The Commission's opinion

The Commission’s opinion may be summarised as follows.

First, the Commission referred to the structure of the Europa website (http://europa.eu) and its editorial responsibilities in relation to that website. According to the Commission, the Europa website is an official website of the institutions, organs and agencies of the European Union. The website is composed of a number of levels.

The first level, namely, the homepage and the sections "Activities", "Institutions" and "Services", is managed by the Commission's Directorate-General for Communication ("DG Communication") on behalf of all the institutions and therefore the editorial approach, including matters concerning multilingualism, is decided jointly with the institutions.

The second level is composed of the websites of particular institutions.. Each institution defines autonomously its own editorial approach including the use of languages on its website. The Commission is responsible for its own website (http://ec.europa.eu). That website homepage is managed by DG Communication and the lower levels of that website are autonomously managed by relevant directorates-general or by concerned services as regards political or administrative matters corresponding to their competences. The use of languages on the Europa website is explained on that website (http://europa.eu/abouteuropa/faq/q10b/index_fr.htm).

The Commission noted that, in his e-mails, the complainant referred to the following information which appears on the Commission’s website exclusively in English: (i) "A la une" and "UE au jour le jour" at the homepage of the Europa website; (ii) the sections of the Commission’s website: "EU Bookshop", "Working documents", "Publications", "Link. EU"; and (iii) the site "Invest in your future".

The Commission explained that its policy is to publish as soon as possible the relevant information in the language in which that information was originally drafted, and, subsequently, to publish the translations in all official languages of that information as soon as they are ready.

The section "A la une" and "UE au jour le jour" are indeed published in English on the Europa homepage, but this is only a temporary situation before the translations into other languages are produced and put on-line. The information available in the section "A la une" and "UE au jour le jour" is published as soon as it is ready and in the maximum possible number of languages. It should be noted however that it is drafted on the basis of the information published on the websites of the institutions concerned (Presidency, Parliament or Council), to which direct links from the Europa website are provided. The Commission cannot influence the choice of the languages used on the above institutions' websites.

As regards the section "EU Bookshop", which is managed by the Office of Publications, the translation into other official languages should take place over the coming months.

As regards the section "Working documents", the Commission admitted that its working documents are often available in English or in French only. The Commission explained that the length of official non-legal documents is reduced in order to facilitate their translation but sometimes these documents are accompanied by more detailed and technical ones, issued by the Commission’s services, which exist only in their original language.

As regards the section "Publications", it is divided into two categories: (i) the first contains publications drafted by DG Communication which regularly appear in all official languages, and (ii) the second contains publications of a technical character which appear frequently only in English or, for financial reasons, in a limited number of languages chosen by the directorate-general in question.

The section "Link. EU" mentioned by the complainant was indeed present on the Europa website in February 2006 but for a limited time only and it is no longer available on-line.

The site "Investing in our future" exists in French but its title originally existed only in English. This oversight was corrected immediately.

The Commission concluded that its aim is to provide citizens with information in their own language or in a language they could understand, taking into consideration the nature of that information.

In 2004 and 2005, the Commission translated, as a matter of priority, the websites of the Europa portal that were addressed to the general public ("le grand public") into nine languages of the then new Member States in order to provide the citizens of these Member States with this basic service as soon as possible. The Commission is now making efforts to apply a more consistent linguistic policy in relation to the Europa website. Therefore, the Commission endeavours to publish all the webpages intended for the general public in all official languages. However, this requires time and the Commission encounters obstacles as regards the human resources and financing.

The Commission tries to respect the balance between the different languages, notably with respect to those languages that are, currently, more widely used. In March 2006, 13% of the total number of documents published on the Europa website was in English, while 11% of the same documents appeared in French, which is the second most widely used of the official languages on the Europa website. The difference between these percentages is explained by the fact that some documents appear only in English.

Finally, even if all the pages of the Europa website were published in all official languages, some pages or information would necessarily be published temporarily in one language before the translations are ready. The Commission considers that it is "more respectful" to make information available to the citizens as soon as possible, albeit in one language and, subsequently, add other linguistic versions when they are ready, than publishing that information only when the translations into all languages are ready. If the Commission were to wait for translations into all languages, some information would be delayed for approximately ten days.

The complainant's observations

In summary, the complainant maintained his complaint.

He pointed out that, on the Europa website, the links "European Commission", "Important legal notice", "What news" are available only in English. Furthermore, these links direct readers to the sections that exist only in English or to the sections in which English appears as the first language version. Moreover, there are still some sections that appear only in English and, although their translation into French could appear at a later stage, this fact alone demonstrates that the English-speaking citizens are advantaged compared to other citizens. The complainant pointed out therefore that the Commission failed to explain why the English-speaking citizens could dispose of the information available on the Europa website without delay while the same degree of urgency does not exist as regards those citizens who are not English speakers.

The complainant understood from the Commission’s opinion that the information not addressed to the general public does not need to be available in all official languages and concluded that, in the Commission’s view, more experts are English-speaking citizens than speakers of other languages or that the experts should learn English rather than the other 19 languages of the EU. He went on to say that "perhaps" the Commission considers the English language to be superior to other languages and the choice of logo made by the Commission to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome appears to confirm such a view.

The complainant claimed that the Commission should end language discrimination and act in accordance with the requirements set out in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

THE DECISION

1 Preliminary remark

1.1 In his observations, the complainant pointed out that the choice of logo made by the Commission to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome appears to confirm that the Commission considers the English language to be superior to the other languages of the EU.

1.2 As far as the above point made by the complainant could be considered as a new allegation, the Ombudsman notes that the complainant did not make prior administrative approaches to the Commission in this regard and therefore the Ombudsman will not deal with the above issue in the decision on the present complaint. However, the complainant is free to lodge a new complaint after having completed the requisite prior administrative approaches to the Commission in this regard.

1.3 The Ombudsman also notes that, in his observations, the complainant referred to a number of specific sections and references on the Commission's website, to which he did not refer in his original complaint, and stated that they are available in English only.

1.4 The Ombudsman does not consider however that these new references call for separate comments from the Commission, given that they do not differ from the original subject-matter of the complaint.

2 The quality of the Commission’s replies and the choice of languages used on its website

2.1 The complainant alleged that the Commission failed properly to address the issue raised in his e-mails of 14 February and 9 March 2006, concerning alleged discrimination against French-speaking European citizens on the grounds that most of the documents and information on the Commission's website are available only in English.

The complainant claimed that the Commission should not discriminate, in its website, against French-speaking European citizens.

2.2 In its opinion, the Commission stated in summary that its policy is to publish, as soon as possible, the relevant information in the language in which that information is originally drafted, and, subsequently, publish the translations of that information when they are ready. In 2004, after enlargement, and again in 2005, the Commission gave priority to translating the websites of the Europa portal that were addressed to the general public into the languages of the Accession States. Now, however, it endeavours to publish all the webpages intended for the public in all official languages, once those translations are ready. However, translation requires time and the financial and human resources available for that purpose .impose constraints.

As regards the Commission’s working documents, however, they are often published in the language in which they are available, that is, normally only in English or in French. Moreover, for financial reasons, the "more technical publications" are also frequently published only in English or in a limited number of languages. This explains the different percentage of documents published on the Commission’s website in French as compared to English (11% and 13% respectively). The Commission tries, however, to respect as much as possible the balance between the languages most used on its website.

2.3 First, the Ombudsman notes that, in its e-mails of 14 February and 9 March 2006, the complainant referred to specific sections of the Commission’s homepage and to specific Commission webpages and clearly indicated which information published only in English was of concern to him. However, the Commission’s reply of 20 March 2006 failed to address the elements referred to by the complainant and only focussed on the Commission’s policy on the use of languages. Therefore, that Commission's reply was not accurate or complete.

The Ombudsman notes however that, in its opinion on the complaint, the Commission replied to the complainant's concerns as expressed in his emails of 14 February and 9 March 2006 and explained the choice of the languages available on the Commission’s website.

2.4 The Ombudsman also notes, however, that the Commission, not ??only??failed to address in its replies of 7 and 20 March 2006 the complainant’s specific concerns raised in his e-mails sent to the Commission on 14 February and 9 March 2006, but also, surprisingly, stated, in its further reply to the complainant dated 20 March 2006, that it considered "this fructuous exchange of views with the complainant as closed." This statement, which may be regarded as ironical, is not appropriate. Article 12(1) of the European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour(5) clearly states that officials should act with courtesy in their relations with citizens. The inappropriate ironical tone used in this communication constituted an instance of maladministration and a critical remark will be made below.

2.5 As for the substance of the Commission's explanations, given in the course of this inquiry, the Ombudsman notes that, according to the Commission, the percentage of documents available in its website in English and in French differ only by two percentage points (13% and 11% respectively). The Commission's above statement has not been contradicted by the complainant in his observations. Therefore it does not appear that the use of English is predominant on the Commission’s website as compared to the use of French.

2.6 Moreover, the Commission explains that some information first appears on-line in English, due to the fact that translations into all official languages are not yet ready. In such circumstances, it is only temporarily that the original (English) version remains the only version available on the Commission’s website. However, the Commission’s internal documents are published only in their original language (English or French), and the documents of a technical character (the "more technical publications") are published only in English or in a limited number of languages.

2.7 As regards the Commission’s policy of first publishing certain documents in their original English version before the translations into the remaining languages are ready, the Ombudsman points out that it is not arguable that English tends to be the foreign language most used in Europe. Therefore, it appears that a larger number of citizens could be in fact informed without delay if the relevant information is made available, at first, in English. In this respect, the Ombudsman considers reasonable the Commission’s view that it is more "respectful" to communicate information to citizens at once (in just one language) and make available the other linguistic versions as they are translated, rather than withholding the information from citizens until the moment all linguistic versions become available.

2.8 As regards the Commission's internal documents, the Ombudsman points out that he has consistently expressed the view that, subject to any specific legal requirements, it is for the institution itself to determine in which languages it works internally, so as to carry out its duties effectively and efficiently.

The Ombudsman recalls therefore that, according to Regulation 1/58, the institutions may stipulate in their rules of procedure which of the official languages are to be used in specific cases. As explained by the Commission in other similar complaint(6), it appears that its Rules of Procedure do not establish any specific linguistic internal policy. The Ombudsman considers it therefore reasonable that, given their nature, internal documents (detailed and extended documents), should, in general not necessarily be translated into all official languages but could be published, as such, in their drafting language.

2.9 The Ombudsman considers that, where the institution's general external communication with the citizens is involved, it would be indeed ideal that the material intended for such purposes be published in all the official languages. In order for that external communication to be effective, it is necessary that the citizens understand the information provided to them by the institutions.

The Ombudsman recalls that Articles 21, 314 and 290 of the EC Treaty as well as Regulation 1/58(7) set out the legal basis for multilingualism in the EU. The principle of respect for linguistic diversity has also been expressly enshrined in Article 22 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which provides that "[t]he Union shall respect cultural religious and linguistic diversity."

In this respect the Ombudsman also points out that the Court of Justice held in Case C-361/01 Kik v OHIM(8) that Article 314 of the EC Treaty does not enshrine the equality of languages as an absolute principle of Community law. Furthermore, the Court held in the same case(9) that the language regime of a Community institution or body will often be the result of a complex examination which seeks to achieve the necessary balance between conflicting interests but also an appropriate linguistic solution to practical difficulties. The Court went on to find that the Council's choice to treat some of the official languages differently from others that are more widely used can be appropriate and proportionate(10).

Moreover, in his Special Report to the European Parliament following the draft recommendation to the Council in complaint 1487/2005/GG, the Ombudsman considered that, if the number of languages for the presentation of the institutional websites were to be limited, the choice of official languages to be used would have to be based on objective and reasonable considerations(11).

2.10 As regards the "more technical publications", which the Commission admits are not published on its website in all official languages, the Ombudsman notes that the Commission did not state expressly, as suggested by the complainant, that these "more technical publications" are those intended for the technical experts, but just made the distinction between this category of publications and those edited by DG Communication which are translated into all official languages. With respect to these general publications from DG Communication, the Ombudsman understands that the Commission is referring to newsletters, booklets and brochures.

2.11 The Ombudsman also notes that, in its opinion on the present complaint, the Commission invoked, in general terms, financial reasons to explain why these "more technical documents" are not translated into all languages and not the fact that they constituted publications of a technical character.

In this regard, the Ombudsman notes the Commission's particular statements contained in its opinion on another complaint concerning the same issue(12) to the effect that "[t]he size of the financial resources allocated to translation is established not by the Commission (....)", and, that "the political decision makers have not allocated enough resources to allow translating all publications and communications into all languages." In addition, the Ombudsman notes that the Commission stated that, when managing the resources allocated to it for translations, it fulfils first its legal obligation to translate legislation and documents intended for the Official Journal into all languages. The Commission also explained that it spends the remainder of these resources ("what is left") in accordance with "transparent and regularly updated policy documents."

2.12 In light of the above, the Ombudsman does not find that further inquiries are justified as regards the Commission's explanation concerning the choice of the languages on the Commission's website. Moreover, the Ombudsman notes and applauds the Commission's intention, as declared in its opinion on the present complaint, progressively to develop its website to cover all official languages.

3 Conclusions

On the basis of his inquiry into the present case and taking into consideration the Commission's recent opinion on a similar case (3191/2006/(SAB)MHZ)(13), the Ombudsman considers that, as regards the Commission’s explanation concerning the choice of languages on its website, no further inquiries are justified. Moreover, the Ombudsman notes and applauds the Commission's intention, as declared in its opinion on the present complaint, progressively to develop its website in all official languages.

As regards the quality of the Commission’s replies of 7 and 20 March 2006 to the complainant's e-mails of 14 February and 9 March 2006, the Ombudsman makes the following critical remark below:

The officials of the institutions shall be service-minded, correct, courteous and accessible in relations with the public. In its further reply to the complainant dated 20 March 2006, the Commission ironically stated that it considered " this fructuous exchange of views with the complainant as closed." The inappropriate ironical tone used in the mentioned correspondence constituted an instance of maladministration.

The Ombudsman therefore closes the case.

The President of the Commission will also be informed of this decision.

Yours sincerely,

 

P. Nikiforos DIAMANDOUROS

---

(1) The complainant also submitted allegations against the European Central Bank concerning the languages used by the bank on its website, in relation to which the Ombudsman opened a separate inquiry (complaint reference 1025/2006/(BB)MHZ).

(2) The Ombudsman understands the Commission to refer to Regulation No1/58, OJ 1958 B 17, p. 385.

(3) The Ombudsman points out that Mr Orban is currently the Commissioner for multilingualism but Mr Figel was the responsible Commissioner at the time the complaint was submitted.

(4) The Ombudsman understands that the Commission intended to refer to its Communication on Multilingualism of 22 November 2005 entitled "A new Framework Strategy for Multilingualism" COM (2005)596.

(5) Article 12.1: "The official shall be service-minded, correct, courteous and accessible in relations with the public. When answering correspondence, telephone calls and e-mails, the official shall try to be as helpful as possible and shall reply as completely and accurately as possible to questions which are asked."

(6) Case 3191/2006/(SAB)MHZ.

(7) OJ 1958 B 17, p. 385.

(8) C-361/01 Kik v OHIM [2003] ECR I-8283, paragraph 87. This case concerned the languages to be used in proceedings before the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market.

(9) C-361/01 Kik v OHIM, cited above, paragraphs 92-94.

(10) C-361/01 Kik v OHIM, cited above, paragraphs 93-94.

(11) The Ombudsman made reference in his Special Report to Case C-361/01 P Kik v OHIM, cited above, paragraph 94.

(12) Case 3191/2006/(SAB)MHZ.

(13) The Ombudsman's decision on case 3191/2006/(SAB)MHZ is available on the Ombudsman's website (http://www.ombudsman.europa.eu).