The Recruitment of Maltese Translators at the EU - Part 2

As we have already seen in Part 1, after Malta's accession to the EU the institutions weren't able to recruit the necessary number of translators. This issue had also received extensive media coverage. Following the conclusion of two EPSO competitions in 2017 questions were sent to the respective institutions regarding the recruitment of successful candidates placed on the reserve list. This edition will deal with the European Parliament.

Firstly, questions were sent to the Veronique Rosenkranz (in her capacity as acting director of the directorate) regarding the non-publication of the full staff lists of its departments. After failing to receive a reply, questions were sent regarding 3 individuals how worked or are working with the Maltese-language unit. This was her scolding reply:

It is not the first time you have requested information concerning DG TRAD staff and in particular the MT translation unit. Now you ask questions about specific persons. You certainly know that personal data can only be transferred under very strict conditions. Therefore, may I ask you the reason for these requests? I will then check the issue with our Data Protection Service.

Marie Antoinette, erhmm, Veronique Rosenkranz felt that peasants don't have the right to ask questions about persons working in the public sector and who are paid far more than the average European wage by the taxes of said peasants. My friendly reply included:

The reason I ask is because I would like to know more about the current situation in the Maltese language department given that a competition for translators of the Maltese language was concluded in 2017. Another competition was concluded for linguistic assistants but, unfortunately, the Publications Office does not, yet, publish all the staff working at the European Parliament (unlike the European Commission).

Her last reply was:

Unfortunately, the reasons you provided in your email of 7 January do not justify the communication of personal data at all. Therefore, I will not reply to any further emails in that matter.

My last reply included this:

I did not ask for any home addresses or personal telephone numbers of the employees in question. Rather, I only asked about the nature of their employment, which is a matter of public concern.

Unsurprisingly she kept her word and didn't reply to the last email. A complaint was submitted to the European Ombudsman regarding the issue, and 3 months! after the last correspondence with Ms Rosenkranz, Louis XVI himself, erhmm Mr Valter Mavric replied to the complaint.

  

My very reasonable reply was as follows, inter alia:

Finally I would like to make some remarks regarding the issue of personal and private data. I would like to invite you to have a look at the guidelines provided by the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) regarding this matter. The Supervisor clearly states that unless an individual has been harassed or exposed to threats, the individuals right to privacy is not undermined by simple data concerning his or her employment or recruitment. Therefore there is no valid reason why the EP shouldn't publish it's full staff lists. When it comes to the translation departments, there isn't anything which distinguishes the Commission and the Parliament. By your own argument, the Commission is not reaching the right balance between transparency and the protection of personal data of its employees.

If you believe that my request is not reasonable, then please let me know in the comments section. However, Valter would have none of it and, after a reminder, he replied, arrogantly:

  

This was replied among others as follows:

Please note that your letter from April only was a very delayed reply after you were invited to respond to my emails from January by the EU Ombudsman. If I sent any email repeatedly it was due to the lack of cooperation from Veronique Rosenkranz. [...] It was also just in my last email to you a couple of weeks ago that I specifically asked for the whole staff list of the Maltese translation unit. In your last email you refused to mention one good reason why the staff list of the European Parliament shouldn't be published, while those of the Commission are published. You mention that you aren't "allowed", when in reality you just don't want to.

The issue is now, once again, being handled by the European Ombudsman. You couldn't make this stuff up, even if you wanted to. Maybe I'm illogical, but to me it makes no sense that a public institution treats the citizens which fund it in such a way.