Ms Ursula von der Leyen President European Commission

 

 

Dear President,

Thank you for the Commission’s reply of 8 September 2023 to my questions in the above case.

Based on your reply and the complainant’s comments on that reply (attached), I have decided that a meeting between my inquiry team and relevant representatives of the Commission would be useful to clarify certain matters related to this inquiry.  

Please find points for discussion that the inquiry team proposes for the meeting in annex. In relation to discussion points 3, 5, and 6, I request the Commission to make available any additional relevant documentation for inspection by 29 February 2024, if possible.

I would be grateful if your office could contact Mr Koen Roovers, who is in charge of this inquiry, to agree the arrangements for the meeting to take place before 15 March 2024.

Information or documents that your institution considers to be confidential will not be disclosed to the complainant or any other person without the Commission’s prior agreement. [1]

Yours sincerely,

 

Emily O'Reilly
European Ombudsman

Strasbourg, 31/01/2024

 

Annex - Points for discussion during the meeting

A. Declarations of interests

The Commission identified six signed declarations of interests as falling within the scope of the Ombudsman’s inspection request.

In relation to the declaration of interests that has 2020 in its file name:

1. Did the Commission assess the personal interests that were declared in this case that could lead to any actual or potential conflict of interest relevant to the position offered?
If so, how?

2. Did the Commission assess the proposed mitigating measures put forward by the member? If so, how?

3. The declaration of interests form sets out that, in case potential conflicts of interest are identified, copies of the declaration must be transmitted to the responsible team in the Commission’s department for Human Resources and to the Business Correspondent of the Secretary-General. Was this procedure followed in this case? If so, what was the reply of the relevant services of the Commission?

Please submit related documents for inspection.

4. Did the Commission monitor compliance with the proposed mitigation measures in this case? If so, how?

In five out of six signed declarations of interests, the candidate RSB candidate member declared no potential or actual conflicts of interest. The form used for the declaration of interests provides that, where no interests are declared by the candidate member, the Commission is still obliged to confirm the absence of conflicting interests based on the declaration and the updated CV of the candidate. 

5. Did the Commission conduct its own assessment in these cases to confirm the candidates’ self-declared absence of conflicting personal interests and, if so, how?
Please submit any related documents for inspection.

B. Meetings of the RSB with interest representatives

The complainant said that a meeting that took place in 2020 between the RSB and an interest representative for French businesses was listed by the RSB as having concerned an individual file.

6. Could the Commission please submit for inspection the documents it holds in relation to the meeting in November 2020 between the then RSB Chair and the French corporate lobby referred to above, including minutes if available?

In its comments, the complainant pointed to a recent request for public access to documents which included correspondence from 2023 between the RSB Chair and a Brussels-based think tank interested in regulation and innovation.^[2]

In its reply of 8 September 2023, the Commission informed the Ombudsman that the RSB Secretariat has sent standardised replies on behalf of the RSB since December 2021.

7. Could the Commission please comment on the above-mentioned correspondence between the RSB Chair and the think-tank?

8. Have there been any other cases in which the RSB Chair or members corresponded directly with interest representatives after December 2021?

C. Extensions of RSB members’ periods of appointment

RSB members serve a three year-period that is non-renewable, save for an extension of one year in exceptional circumstances.[3]  

In its reply to the Ombudsman of 8 September 2023, the Commission indicated that one RSB member served for more than six years, albeit on different contracts. 

9. What is the purpose of the non-renewable three year appointment of RSB members (which may exceptionally be extended by up to one year)?

10. Does the Commission consider the case of the RSB member who served for more than six years contradictory to its rules that include a limit of four years?

D. Expertise of RSB members

According to the Commission’s Better Regulation guidelines, impact assessments are required for Commission initiatives that are likely to have significant economic, environmental or social impacts or which entail significant spending, and where the Commission has a choice of policy options. The Commission replied to the Ombudsman that RSB members are “recruited specifically for their knowledge of Better Regulation and their analytical skills and abilities”.

11. The standards under the Better Regulation guidelines include matters of macroeconomics, microeconomics, social policy and environment policy. The complainant implies that there is a risk of bias when (most) RSB members have a background in economics, and not in social or environmental policy. Could the Commission please comment on this concern?

 

[1] Please clearly mark such material ‘Confidential’. Encrypted emails can be sent to our dedicated mailbox .Information and documents of this kind will be deleted from the European Ombudsman’s files shortly after the inquiry has ended.

[2] See: https://www.asktheeu.org/en/request/13552/response/49354/attach/html/7/12.Reply%20declining%20Invitation.pdf.html.

[3] The Commission’s Decision on an independent Regulatory Scrutiny Board of 23 January 2020, see Article 3(4): https://commission.europa.eu/system/files/2020-01/rsb_decision_23_01_2020_en.pdf.