Annual report 2002 - EOI

38 ANNUAL REPORT | 2002
applied the Terms of reference correctly when it rejected the complainant and that the
complainant did not fulfil the requirements in the Terms of reference.
1.5 In these circumstances, there appears to be no maladministration by the Commission
as regards this aspect of the complaint.
2 The complainant’s claims
2.1 The complainant claims that the Commission should declare its decision void, accept
her application and grant her a translations services contract. The Ombudsman notes that
the Commission’s award criteria in the present case appear not to be the same as the ones
in the European Parliament/CdTOU call for tender where only a university degree, not a
university degree leading to a doctoral degree, was required. These award criteria would
only be relevant in so far as they fix the same ones, which appears not to be the case.
2.2 In view of the findings of no maladministration in sections 1.1 to 1.5 above, the
Ombudsman does not consider it necessary to inquire further into the complainant’s
claims.
3 Conclusion
On the basis of the Ombudsman’s inquiries into this complaint, there appears to have been
no maladministration by the Commission. The Ombudsman therefore closes the case.
3.1.2 The Court of
Justice of the
European
Communities
AVAILABILITY OF
LANGUAGE
VERSIONS OF
JUDGEMENTS ON
THE COURT’S
WEBSITE
Decision on complaint
624/2002/ME against
the Court of Justice of
the European
Communities
THE COMPLAINT
The complainant lodged a complaint with the European Ombudsman in April 2002. The
complainant put forward that on the Court of Justice’s Website (http://www.curia.eu.int),
judgements are published in full in the languages available on the date of publication.
When a proper translation is available on a later date, that version is not added to the
Website. This is in particular a problem as regards judgements of the Court of First
Instance and the opinions of the Advocates General. As far as the opinions of the
Advocates General are concerned, they are only published in the language of the Advocate
General and in French. Anyone not able to read French and the other language has to wait
until the information is published in the printed document (Reports of Cases before the
Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance). The complainant stated that according to
the Court’s Information Department there are no plans to add more language versions to
the Website.
In summary, the complainant alleged that despite the fact that the Court of Justice has
several language versions of its judgements at its disposal, only the ones available on the
date of publication are added to its Website. The complainant claimed that the Court
should introduce a routine in which all language versions available to it are added to its
Website.
THE INQUIRY
The Court of Justice’s opinion
In its opinion, the Court of Justice referred to Article 31 of its Rules of Procedures, which
states that the texts of judgements are authentic in the language of the case, which is also
the version notified to the parties. It is also made available to the public once the judgement
has been delivered. According to Article 68 of the Rules of Procedures, a report of
cases shall be published before the Court. For that purpose, the Court translates the judgements
into the other official languages of the Communities. The Court Reports contain the