Background

1. In March 2023, the Ombudsman launched a strategic initiative into how the European Commission deals with work travel of its staff members that is paid (partly) by third parties.^[1] The initiative came in response to revelations that the director-general of the Commission’s Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport (DG MOVE) accepted business class flights and hospitality in luxury hotels from the Qatari government and a Qatari government-owned entity on nine occasions. Six of these trips occurred while DG MOVE was negotiating the EU-Qatar air transport agreement.[2]

2. In response to the revelations, the Commission said that it had considered and ruled out potential conflicts of interest because the director-general had not been involved in the negotiations on the EU-Qatar air transport agreement.^[3] The Commission also claimed that the work trips concerned were authorised and conducted in accordance with the then applicable rules.

3. On 7 March 2023, the Commission issued instructions in relation to work travel with third party contributions to avoid conflicts of interest in the future, effectively updating the applicable rules.[4] These instructions limit the possibility of third parties contributing to work travel to cases where there is, at first sight, no perception of conflict of interest. When closing the above strategic initiative in December 2023, the Ombudsman concluded that, if applied diligently, these rules will prevent third party contributions to work travel giving rise to conflicts of interest.

4. From the statistical information about work travel that took place in the years 2021, 2022 and 2023, which the Commission shared with the Ombudsman during her strategic initiative, it became clear that there were a number of trips, including at the highest levels of the Commission’s management, which involved contributions of third countries and private sector interests.

5. Against this background, the Ombudsman decided to open an own-initiative inquiry to assess whether and how the Commission mitigated any risks of conflicts of interest that may have arisen.

The inquiry

6. In the course of the inquiry, the Commission provided the Ombudsman with a list of work travel by senior staff members that took place between 1 January 2021 and 7 March 2023, and for which third parties (including non-EU governments or other private interests[5]) covered (parts of) the travel costs.[6]  The Commission designated this list as confidential.[7]

7. Based on the list, the Ombudsman asked to inspect 28 files related to work travel by senior staff members.[8] She also asked the Commission to provide an update on the revision of its ‘guide to missions’.

Arguments presented by the Commission

8. In the context of the Ombudsman’s previous initiative, the Commission had already set out the rules that apply to work travel paid for with third party contributions - prior to and after 7 March 2023. They include the Commission ‘guide to missions and authorised travel’^[9]; the Commission guidelines on gifts and hospitality^[10]; and the EU Staff Regulations^[11] (see annex).

9. In reply to this inquiry, the Commission recalled that, as a rule, its staff members’ work travel costs are almost always covered by the EU budget. However, under specific conditions, parts of these expenses may be covered by third parties, notably organisers of events attended by the staff member travelling for work. This is provided for in the ‘guide to missions’.

10. The Commission emphasised that acceptance of third-party contributions is mainly for diplomatic or courtesy usage and is declared as part of the ‘mission order’ and ‘cost statement’ by the staff member travelling for work. Both, the mission order and the cost statement are signed by the hierarchical superiors, and are hence subject to a ‘two pairs of eyes’ control. Both the staff member travelling for work and the hierarchical superior must confirm the absence of any conflict of interest when accepting such third-party contribution. The Commission recalled that the number of work travel with third party contributions represents an extremely small portion of all business trips undertaken by Commission staff.

11. The Commission explained that, while in the past directors-general were able to sign off on their own work travel, as they are responsible for their respective services’ budget, this rule was without prejudice to the general obligation to declare any personal interest such as to impair an official’s independence. More generally, in case of doubt, staff members are under the obligation to seek an opinion of the political level based on the horizontal rule on avoidance of conflicts of interest enshrined in the EU Staff Regulations.

12. The Commission also recalled that, on 7 March 2023, it updated its rules applicable to work travel, with immediate effect, to ensure the respect of the two pairs of eyes principle at each level, including for directors-general and heads of service, with the aim of eliminating not only any real or potential conflict of interest but also any perception thereof.

13. In this regard, the updated rules clarify that directors-general or heads of service can no longer authorise their work travel with third party contributions independently. Instead, they need the approval of the head of cabinet of the responsible commissioner.

14. The updated rules further clarify that third parties that may contribute to work travel of Commission staff members are limited to EU Member State authorities; EEA and EFTA country authorities; international organisations (UN) or fora (G7/G20); public or private universities when the mission is carried out for academic purposes.

15. As such, the Commission is of the view that, going forward, work travel where third parties cover expenses should not, in principle, give rise to risks of conflict of interest or the perception thereof. The Commission covers the costs of their staff members’ work travel that is considered necessary and that is organised by entities not included in the above list.

The Ombudsman's assessment

16. The Ombudsman’s inquiry examined a sample of 28 work travel arrangements of senior Commission staff members, to which third parties contributed. All of these work trips took place before the Commission revised its rules on 7 March 2023. None of these third-party contributions would have been allowed under the new rules, given that contributions can no longer be accepted from third parties other than EU Member State authorities, EEA and EFTA country authorities, international organisations (UN) or fora (G7/G20), as well as public or private universities when the work travel is carried out for academic purposes.

17. Most of the inspected cases did not give rise to concerns of conflict of interest as those of the former director-general at issue in the Ombudsman’s previous initiative (see footnote 1).

18. The remaining cases related to the revelations which gave rise to the previous initiative, but indicated that the issues were wider in scope. As the European Anti-Fraud Office has investigated the matter and the European Public Prosecutor’s Office is also investigating, no further inquiries by the Ombudsman into the matter are justified.

19. The inspection of the 28 files also showed that there were shortcomings in how the Commission recorded its assessment of (potential) conflicts of interest prior to authorising work travel partly paid for by third parties.

20. In particular, the inspected files included no evidence that either the staff member concerned or the hierarchical superior had conducted a substantive assessment of the risks of (potential) conflicts of interest arising from the third-party contribution. Almost all work travel arrangements in question included a declaration that there were either no conflicts of interest, or that any potential conflicts of interest identified would not undermine the independence of the Commission.[12] However, the declarations did not include any substantive assessment, setting out the reasons why no conflicts of interest that would undermine the independence of the Commission were identified.

21. There were also a number of cases in which the documentation provided by the Commission on the declaration relating to potential conflicts of interest did not include the signature of the hierarchical superior. In several cases, no information was recorded in the mission order or in the cost statement about the nature or the value of the contribution of the third party (for example travel, accommodation, hospitality).

22. As noted above, while the types of third party contributions that the Ombudsman saw in her inspection are no longer allowed, the Ombudsman is of the view that her above observations are still relevant under the Commission’s updated rules. While less likely, it is not excluded that contributions to work travel from national authorities of EU Member States, the European Economic Area or the European Free Trade Area, and international organisations and public or private universities, may give rise to risks of conflict of interest. In such cases, the Commission should ensure the proper recording of its substantive assessment of any such risks prior to authorising the contribution in question. The Ombudsman will make two suggestions for improvement to this effect.

Conclusion

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

No further inquiries are justified.

The Commission will be informed of this decision.

Suggestions for improvement

1. To allow scrutiny of the assessments of risks of conflicts of interest in relation to work travel by its staff, the Commission should record its substantive assessment.

2. The Commission should ensure that the nature and value of third party contributions to work travel are adequately recorded in the ‘mission order’ and ‘statement of mission costs’, and that all authorisations take place at the appropriate level.

Emily O'Reilly
European Ombudsman

Strasbourg, 10/01/2025

 

Annex - rules applied to work travel paid for by third parties

Guide to missions

According to the guide, the acceptance of third party contributions to missions was mainly for diplomatic or courtesy usage. Mission expenses could be paid by third parties to staff members only if the authorising officer by delegation (for example a DG) assessed that such a payment would not raise risks of conflicts of interest. Third party contributions must be declared as part of the mission order and cost statement. Both the mission performer and the hierarchical superior must confirm the absence of any conflict of interest when accepting such third-party contributions. The assessment of conflicts of interest must be done in advance, before the mission order was validated.

In cases where a director-general or head of service was the mission performer, the assessment of conflicts of interest was based in the first place on their sound judgement, grounded on their experience and as part of their responsibilities. However, in case of doubt of a potential conflict of interest, they should have sought an opinion of the political level and/or of the Commission’s central ethics service.^[13]

Guidelines on gifts and hospitality

According to the guidelines, a gift is defined as a sum of money or any physical object, or the possibility to participate for free in events which are open to the public or are private in nature, are only accessible in return for payment and represent a certain value (such as complimentary tickets for sports events, concerts, theatre, conferences, etc.), or any other advantage with a pecuniary value such as transport costs.

Hospitality is defined as an offer of food, drink, accommodation and/or entertainment from any source outside the institution, which is considered to be a type of favour. The mission order must normally cover all predictable offers of hospitality, notably meals, accommodation and transport, based on the mission programme. When the mission is authorised, these are not considered as hospitality offers as they form part of the performance of his duties in the interest of the service. The acceptance of these offers must be declared in the mission expense statement.

Direct gifts and hospitality, which are offered to the EU staff member, and indirect gifts or hospitality, offered to a close contact of the staff member, for example a spouse) are covered. EU staff members should not accept any direct or indirect gifts or hospitality offered by third parties. This is most evident where gifts are offered by third parties that are involved in, or are seeking official action by, the Commission, especially in a sensitive area in which the staff member is, has been or will likely be active in the foreseeable future. All such gifts should be in principle refused.

Any situation where the acceptance of a gift or hospitality could lead to actual, potential or perceived conflict of interest has to be avoided. Any gifts entailing a sum of money, regardless of the amount, must be refused.

The acceptance of gifts or hospitality can exceptionally be authorised when it is clear that it does not compromise the staff member's objectivity and independence, or that it does not reasonably appear to do so, and that it will not damage the Commission's reputation. This evaluation is based in the first place on sound judgement from the staff member, and is then confirmed by their hierarchy in the Commission.

Certain factors may indicate the likelihood that an authorisation could be granted, for instance when the offer of a gift or hospitality has a low value or is addressed to a large number of persons. However those same factors are also indicative of when an authorisation could be refused for instance when the offer of a gift or hospitality has a high value or, is addressed to a single staff member.

Other factors that should guide the case-by-case analysis to determine whether a gift or hospitality can be granted include, but are not necessarily limited to, the:

• nature of the source offering the gift or hospitality (private or public);
• apparent motive behind the offer of the gift or hospitality;
• link between the entity offering the gift or hospitality and the Commission (e.g. procurement procedures, cases under investigation, financial interests);
• nature and estimated value of the gift or hospitality, including whether there have been one or several offers from the same source;
• individual or collective destination of the offer;
• functions of the staff member;
• benefits for the service expected from the participation of the staff member at the event in question.

Permission should also be sought for gifts with a value from 50 to 150 Euros. Authorisation for gifts of a value of more than 150 Euros is refused. A staff member who is offered such a gift should inform their hierarchical superior, preferably in writing, that the gift was refused. The value of gifts must be estimated in good faith.

In case of doubt as to whether the refusal of a gift would be contrary to social, courtesy or diplomatic usage or might otherwise cause reputational risk, the matter should be brought to the attention of the Commission, which will then decide on a possible refusal.

Staff regulations

The Staff Regulations^[14] include general obligations that apply to all EU staff members. In relation to this inquiry, Article 11 is of particular relevance, which provides that “[a]n official shall not without the permission of the appointing authority accept from any government or from any other source outside the institution to which he belongs any honour, decoration, favour, gift or payment of any kind whatever, except for services rendered either before his appointment or during special leave for military or other national service and in respect of such service.”

Where an EU staff member acts contrary to Article 11, they may be subject to disciplinary action^[15].

 

[1] See: https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/case/en/63485.

[2] The negotiations started in 2016 and were concluded in 2019. Due to the dispute between Spain and the UK over the airport of Gibraltar, it was not possible for the EU to sign the agreement before 18 October 2021. See: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/it/qanda_21_5345.

[3] See the minutes of the 2452nd meeting of the Commission (Brussels, 29 March 2023), which are available here: https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/documents-register/detail?ref=PV(2023)2452&lang=en.

[4] See pages 19 and 20 of the reply by the European Commission to strategic initiative SI/2/2023/KR, available here: https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/doc/correspondence/en/176934.

[5] Private interests include, but are not necessarily limited to, companies, organisations and associations.

[6] See: https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/doc/correspondence/en/187444.

[7] The public access request through which details on the missions referred to in the ‘Background’ section became public, covered the period 2015-2021. See: https://www.politico.eu/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/24/2023-02-15_EASE-2023-0098-ANNEX-I83.pdf. There is only one mission that overlaps with the files that the Commission submitted to the Ombudsman for inspection.

[8] See: https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/doc/correspondence/en/187337. The inspection request was clarified by the Commission, and was agreed to include “all relevant documents to understand the Commission’s process for having approved the mission requests in question [..], including the Commission’s assessment of risks of conflicts of interest and approval.”

[9] C(2017)5323 Commission Decision of 27.9.2017 on the general provisions for implementing Articles 11, 12 and 13 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of Officials (mission expenses) and on authorised travel Guide to missions and authorised travel, which is were annexed to the reply of the Commission to the Ombudsman in the context of the earlier strategic initiative: https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/doc/correspondence/en/176934.(see annexes 3 and 4). A ‘mission’ is work travel away from the place of employment solely in the interests of the EU institution, on the instructions of a line manager. It is normally paid for out of the EU budget. ‘Authorised travel’ is on a voluntary basis, away from the place of employment, primarily in the staff member’s interests, but which also involves some benefit for the EU institution.

[10] Communication from Vice-President Šefčovič to the Commission on Guidelines on Gifts and Hospitality for the staff members - SEC(2012)167: https://commission.europa.eu/system/files/2017-01/communication-to-the-commission-guidelines-on-gifts-and-hospitality_2012_en.pdf

[11] See: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A01962R0031-20140501.

[12] The declaration says: “By signing this mission the authorising officer declares to have been made aware of the fact that this mission with expenses paid by the organiser does not represent a potential conflict of interest, or in the event that this is the case, that this does not cause prejudice to the independence of the Commission”. This declaration was included in all inspected files, except one.

[13] Based on the general rule on conflicts of interest, as described in the 2019 Ethics Guide on pages 5, 31 and 48.

[14] See: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A01962R0031-20140501.

[15] In accordance with Article 86 and Annex IX of the Staff Regulations, see footnote 25.