In the procedures for selecting the staff for the European Union institutions, differences in treatment based on language are not allowed, in principle, but they are permissible provided that they meet actual needs and are justified in advance, the European Court of Justice ruled in the judgments on Tuesday 26 March (cases C-377/16 and C-621/16 P).
Case C-377/16. Spain is asking for the annulment, on the grounds of discrimination based on language, of a call for applications launched by the European Parliament in 2016 for the establishment of a database of drivers. The registration form was available only in English, French and German. Candidates had to be fluent in one of the 24 official EU languages and have a satisfactory knowledge of English, French or German ('language 2').
The Parliament justified itself as follows: the new recruits had to be immediately operational and that the identified 'languages 2' are the most widely used within it.
Case C-621/16 P. The European Commission is seeking the annulment of the judgment of the EU’s General Court (Cases T-353/14 and T-17/15) which annulled two notices of open competition of the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) on the grounds that the limitation of the choice of 'language 2' in the competition to English, French and German is unlawful.
By today's judgments, the Court has annulled the European Parliament's call for expressions of interest and the database of drivers established under that call is void. It dismisses the Commission's appeal.
Regulation 259/68 on the Staff Regulations of European civil servants prohibits any discrimination, including discrimination based on language. Nevertheless, such differences in treatment are authorised if they are justified by the interests of the service or even the actual needs relating to the duties to be performed.
The EU institutions therefore have a margin of discretion to assess the qualifications and merits of the candidates to be taken into consideration. But they must justify any difference in treatment by clear, objective and foreseeable criteria enabling candidates to understand the grounds and EU courts to review its lawfulness.
In Case C-377/16, the Court is of the opinion that Parliament has not demonstrated that the interest of the service concerned justified the absence of any indication that it was possible to reply to the registration form, available only in French, English and German, in any of the official EU languages.
Moreover, Parliament has not justified the limitation of the choice of 'language 2' by the fact that drivers must perform their duties in French-speaking or German-speaking cities.
In Case C-621/16, the Court, relying on the reasoning of the Advocate General (see EUROPE 12070/13), considers that the General Court correctly held that the case was admissible. In their view, the General Court correctly held that a candidate's highest standards of ability, efficiency and integrity are independent of his or her language knowledge, the latter being the means of demonstrating the former.
Consequently, the General Court did not err in holding that the objective of recruiting officials of the highest standards does not justify a difference in treatment based on language.
Finally, EPSO did not justify the limitation of the choice of language of communication with candidates and EPSO, even if such a limitation is in theory possible. (Original version in French by Mathieu Bion)