European Ombudsman asks the Commission regarding translations issues
Comments from the Commission concerning a request for information from the European Ombudsman - Complaint from Mr Henrion BENJAMIN, ref 3336-2004-(AU)TN regarding the lack of translation in the new 10 languages of the Commission proposal of february 2002./
The proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions (COM (2002) 92 final) was adopted by the Commission on 20 february 2002, sent to the European Parliament and the Council on the same day and published in the Official Journal in the eleven official languages (OJE 151 of 25 June 2002, p. 129. The Parliament delivered its opinion at first reading on 24 September 2003 and the Council reached political agreement on the proposal on 18 May 2004. Given the difficulties which the European Institutions face ensuring sufficient translation capacity into the new languages in the post-enlargement period, i.e. following the accession of the ten new Member States on 1 May 2004, it has been necessary to put in place transitionaal arrangements between the three Institutions involved in the codecision legislative procedure. The interinstitutional cooperation group (known as the *"Neunreither" group*) issued guidelines on 13 July 2004 which aimed to distribute the load of translating legislative proposals between the Institutions. Under these guidelines, the European Parliament and the Council would be responsible, respectively, for translating codecision proposals and consultation/assent proposals submitted by the Commission Under these guidelines, the Council would be responsible, therefore, for drawing up its common position in all the official languages, while, in principle, the European Parliament would be responsible for translating the Commission's initial proposal into the new languages when it delivered its opinion at first reading. Thus, these rules should apply to the proposal for a Directive in question, which was adopted before 1 May 2004. The common position on this proposal for Directive is, in any case, expected to be adopted on a date subsequent to the date of enlargement.
On the question of informing the Polish parliament and the parliaments of the other Member States, it should be noted that the protocol on national parliaments annexed to the Treaty of Amsterdam states that all Commission consultation documents (green and white papers and communications) are to be promptly forwarded to the national parliaments of the Member States and that the Commission legislative proposals are to be made available in good time so that the governement of each Member State may ensure that its own national parliament receives them as appropriate. Thus, while the Commission is certainly obliged to forward consultation documents to the national parliaments, it is under no such obligation in relation to legislative proposals. Indeed, under the terms of the protocol, it is a matter for the governments of the Member States, to forward these proposals in good time to the national parliaments. In consequence, citizens should first address their complaints to the national governments. Furthermore, it should be noted that the references used by Mr Henrion to support his complsint are taken from the protocol on the national parliaments annexed to the draft European Constitution, which has not yet entered into force. It should also be noted that the Commission does not intend the implement the provisions of the Constitution on the treatment of national parliaments in advance of its entry into force. Point 1 of the complaint
Point 2 of the complaint
