Background to the complaint

1. In September 2017, elections were held at the European Investment Bank (the EIB) to appoint staff representatives. EIB staff representatives represent the general interests of staff vis à vis the EIB and contribute to the formulation of its personnel policy.

2. The Election Committee was responsible for organising the staff elections.

3. The complainant, an EIB staff member, raised concerns with the Election Committee about the staff elections. The Election Committee did not consider it necessary to act on these.

4. The complainant then turned to the EIB President with his concerns and about a new rule limiting the number of times staff can stand for election^[1].

5.  The President asked the Director General of the relevant department to reply to the complainant. That reply was sent on 4 December 2017.

6. The complainant was concerned about both the substance of that reply and that the Director General in question sent the reply. In his view, this raised a possible conflict of interest. He therefore turned to the European Ombudsman.

The inquiry

7. The Ombudsman opened an inquiry into the complainant’s concerns about conflicts of interest surrounding the 2017 staff elections and about a new election rule.

8. During the inquiry, the EIB clarified certain facts relating to the complaint and provided the Ombudsman’s inquiry team with copies of relevant documents^[2].

Arguments presented to the Ombudsman

Conflict of interest concerns about an election candidate

9. The complainant considered that an election candidate should not have stood because of a possible conflict of interest situation. The complainant wanted the EIB to annul the Election Committee’s decision, in so far as it found this concern to be unfounded.

10. According to the complainant, the candidate’s decision to stand as staff representative could impair his independence when performing his professional duties within the EIB. In particular, the complainant was of the view that there was a clear risk that the candidate might be required, in his professional role, to assess his own conflict of interest under the EIB’s Staff Code of Conduct^[3]. He considered that the Election Committee made a mistake “by allowing his candidacy”.

11. The Election Committee found that the candidate in question met the eligibility criteria set out in the Staff Convention.^[4] The Director General agreed with this, stating that the Committee’s decision was final^[5].

12. The EIB informed the Ombudsman during the inquiry that as soon as it was informed about the candidacy, it took all necessary measures to avoid any possible conflict of interest situation.

Concerns about new limitations on the number of times a candidate can stand for election

13. In his complaint to the Ombudsman, the complainant wanted the EIB to annul the new rule limiting the number of times staff can stand. In his view, staff should be free to choose their staff representatives.

14. The Director General pointed out that this was not a matter for the President or the Management Committee of the EIB, who are not in a position “to set aside election rules that have been validly adopted“. This was a matter for the “Administration and Staff Representatives”. In any event, the new rules continued to ensure due representation of all categories of staff.

Conflict of interest concerns about the Director General

15. The complainant considered that the Director General was in a conflict of interest situation when replying to him. This was because, according to the complainant, the Director General had an important role in the Election Committee, whose decision the complainant was challenging. 

16. The EIB clarified to the Ombudsman that the Director General was not involved in the Election Committee’s decision. Rather, the Director General had, in line with the applicable rules^[6], delegated that role to a manager in the relevant department.

The Ombudsman's assessment

17. EU institutions play a supervisory role in staff elections and have a duty of care to ensure that their staff are completely free to choose their representatives according to the rules. This requires EU institutions to prevent or to stop “manifest irregularities” in staff elections.^[7]

18. The compatibility of the professional duties of the candidate in question and his possible role as staff representative does not raise eligibility issues.^[8] Rather it relates to a possible conflict of interest situation because of professional duties - a matter separate from the question of eligibility.

19. The Ombudsman confirmed during the inquiry that the EIB took reasonable measures, in advance of the elections, to prevent any conflict of interest situations involving the candidate from arising. For example, in July 2017, the EIB instructed the candidate to abstain from dealing with certain files, changed certain reporting lines and removed his access to certain archives^[9].

20. Regarding the complainant’s concern that the Director General was in a conflict of interest situation when replying to him, the Ombudsman finds that the EIB has adequately addressed this concern in its clarifications (see paragraph 16 above).

21. Concerning the limitations on the number of times a candidate can stand in elections, the complainant has not set out convincingly in his complaint to the Ombudsman why the Director General was wrong in asserting that the President or the Management Committee are not in a position “to set aside election rules that have been validly adopted“. As such, she will not review that matter further. The Ombudsman notes, however, that limitations on candidates’ rights to stand for election are contained in the legal and constitutional frameworks of many democratic regimes around the world.

22. In light of the above, the Ombudsman finds that there was no maladministration by the EIB in this case.

Conclusion

Based on the inquiry, the Ombudsman closes this case with the following conclusion:

There was no maladministration in how the EIB dealt with the complainant’s staff election concerns.

The complainant and the EIB will be informed of this decision.

 

Emily O'Reilly

European Ombudsman

Strasbourg, 17/10/201

 

[1] According to Article 3 of Annex IV to the Convention Governing Staff Representation (the Staff Convention), available at https://www.eib.org/attachments/general/convention_staff_representation_en.pdf: “The maximum term of office as an SR shall be limited to 3 (three) mandates (9 (nine) years), no more than 2 (two) (6 (six) years) consecutive. Of these, no more than 2 (two) (6 (six) years) should be as a detachment. There should be a minimum of 3 (three) years cooling off period between the two (2) terms of office. This provision will enter into force in January 2019”.

[2] The EIB provided this information confidentially in line with Article 4.8 of the Ombudsman’s Implementing Provisions.

[3] Article 1.4, fourth bullet point, of the EIB’s Staff Code of Conduct deals with possible conflicts of interest, available at https://www.eib.org/en/publications/staff-code-of-conduct.

[4] Under Article 5(1) of Annex IV of the Staff Convention. The Election Committee informed the complainant that it did not have the power to deal with his conflict of interest concerns.

[5] Under Article 7 of Annex IV to the Staff Convention: “The Committee shall enjoy sole powers in all electoral matters and shall deliver a final decision with respect to any complaint concerning the elections.”

[6] Under Article 7(1) of Annex IV of the Staff Convention.

[7] Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 March 1990, Claude Maindiaux v European Economic and Social Committee, Case T-28/89, at paragraphs 32-32, available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:61989TJ0028. See also paragraphs 41, 42 and 45 of the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 11 December 2014, Philippe Colart and Others v European Parliament, Case F-31/14: http://curia.europa.eu/juris/celex.jsf?celex=62014FJ0031&lang1=en&type=TXT&ancre.

[8] Under Article 5(1) of Annex IV of the Staff Convention.

[9] As evidenced by the documents reviewed by the Ombudsman’s inquiry team.