The Recruitment of Maltese Translators at the EU - Part 4

Following the latest revelations regarding the European Commission in Part 3, Business Correspondence once again communicated:

Every person whose name was included on a reserve list (be it following an EPSO competition, Temporary Agent selection or Contract Agent selection) had the qualifications required in the announcement of the competition or selection concerned, otherwise they would not have been eligible.

 

Let me also rectify a misunderstanding: a temporary agent is not promoted to probationary official. Probationary officials are selected from an EPSO competition reserve list. From the reserve lists it has at its disposal, the Maltese department fills the recruitment possibilities it has been allocated with the people whose profile best fits the needs of the department.

If there has been any misunderstanding, this can be attributed to the lack of precise and exact communication from Business Correspondence. When questioned earlier regarding the sudden drop in temporary agents working within the Maltese Department of DGT, this was the reply:

Concerning the number of translators on a temporary contract in the Maltese department: they are now two, as I wrote to you, after a number of temporary agents were recruited as probationary officials.

This 'number' most probably is 4 previously temporary agents. Okay, maybe promoted is not the technical term which should've been used. But if a temporary agent is recruited as a probationary official doesn't that represent a promotion?

It is being excluded that 'new' temporary agents were recruited as probationary officials because; 1. there are no new names on the staff list of the Commission; and 2. that wouldn't be a reason why the number of temporary agents suddenly dropped. If there is any different way to interpret those messages, please let me know.

Questions were sent the last time before re-submitting a complaint with the European Ombudsman: 

- given that DGT communicated on 8 January 2018 that "In the Maltese language department we have currently nine translators who are contractual or temporary agents.";
- given that 3 of those nine translators subsequently left DGT;
- given that in your letter of 27/03 you informed me that the Maltese department employed 2 temporary translators;
- given that in your letter of May 2018 you notified me that "a number of temporary agents were recruited as probationary officials.";

can you confirm that those recruited as probationary officials already worked for the European Commission? This is a very simple question and I expect a yes or no answer.

Also, the point of my questions never was to imply that the translators working at DGT lacked the necessary qualifications (a university degree and knowledge of a foreign language). The reason was to verify whether successful candidates in an open competition are given priority over candidates who weren't. And it has now been proven beyond doubt that that isn't the case, and no talk about eligibility or quality of translators can justify that policy. If it were any different, the Commission shouldn't have ordered the competition in the first place.

Incidentally today Politico published another article regarding the dubious promotion of Martin Selmayr as secretary general of the Commission.

Criticism about Selmayr’s appointment is not justified, the Commission concluded, saying it would not accept that “an internal procedure, made in full compliance with the EU Staff Regulations, as interpreted by the EU jurisdictions’ case law and with the Commission’s Rules of Procedure,” can be seen as “damaging the trust in the EU.”

This stuff is jolly good. This reply could have been written in response to any of my messages to the Commission, and it is in fact very similar to many replies I have received. When in doubt mention the EU Staff Regulations. So what? Just because an appointment isn't in breach with the EU Staff Regulations doesn't mean that it's justifiable. When will the European Commission get its head out of its ass?