Background to the complaint

1. The complaint concerned a former manager at the European Commission, who, in July 2024, joined a transnational [redacted] company as a senior manager responsible for competition and regulatory matters, including for Europe, based in Brussels.

2. The former staff member had served for more than 25 years at the Commission, and for more than 20 years in the Commission Directorate-General for Competition (DG COMP)[1]. After leaving the Commission in January 2022, the former staff member joined a global law firm, having previously notified the Commission of the intention to take up that role. The Commission authorised the move, while applying restrictions to mitigate the risk of a potential conflict of interest. The former staff member subsequently took a new position with the [redacted] company.

3. The complainant, a civil society organisation that promotes transparency and democracy, raised concerns with the Commission that the former staff member’s move to the [redacted] company may be in violation with applicable obligations under the EU Staff Regulations to avoid any potential conflicts of interest in post-service activities [2]. The complainant argued that the duty to avoid a conflict of interest applies indefinitely to former staff members where they accept certain roles or benefits after leaving public service. The complainant called upon the Commission to take action to address this conflict of interest, referring to related cases that fell under the responsibility of the former staff member while in service at DG COMP.

4. The Commission replied to the complainant that it was not concerned about its former staff member’s new role, and that there was no evidence that the former staff member had not complied with applicable obligations under the Staff Regulations. It added that former staff members involved in legal cases are prohibited from working directly or indirectly on cases they were involved in during their period of service in the Commission, or any related cases. Should a former staff member not comply with this obligation, the Commission can take measures to address this.

5. The complainant considered that the Commission had failed to adequately address the alleged conflict of interest and turned to the Ombudsman.

The inquiry

6. The Ombudsman opened an inquiry to examine how the Commission ensured that the post-service activity of the former staff member in question did not breach the obligations stemming from the Staff Regulations, in particular the duty to avoid conflicts of interest and not to disclose non-public information.

7. During the inquiry, the Ombudsman inquiry team inspected the Commission's file on the former staff member’s job with the transnational [redacted] company, as well as the file on the former staff member’s preceding job at a law firm, which includes restrictions that remain in force.[3]

Arguments presented to the Ombudsman

By the complainant

8. The complainant said that EU staff members are obliged to avoid conflicts of interest when taking up occupational activities after they have left the service of the Commission. In the complainant’s view, the Commission should have put in place strict measures to prevent any potential conflict of interest because, while with DG COMP, the former staff member was directly involved in files that related to the new employer.

9. The complainant was dissatisfied with how the Commission had treated its concerns related to the risks of conflicts of interest. The complainant argued there is a risk that the insider knowledge and professional experience of the former staff member could be shared with the new employer, which could violate the former staff member’s obligations under the Staff Regulations.

By the Commission

10. The Commission said that former staff members involved in legal cases (for instance in DG COMP) are prevented from working directly or indirectly on any case in which they were involved during their entire service at the Commission. This obligation applies without an end date. This also includes the prohibition to deal with other cases directly related to those mentioned above, including appeals brought before the European Courts against a decision of the Commission.

The Ombudsman's assessment

11. EU staff members must carry out their duties and conduct themselves solely with the interests of the European Union in mind.^[4] They must not, in the performance of their duties, deal with matters in which, directly or indirectly, they have any personal interest that could impair their independence.^[5]

12. EU staff members who intend to accept a job within two years of leaving the service must inform their institution. If the intended job is related to the work that they carried out during the last three years working for the EU institution, the institution has the right to forbid them from taking the job if it considers that it would conflict with the interests of the institution. It can also authorise the person to take up the job, provided the person complies with conditions designed to ensure that the interests of the institution are protected.^[6]

13. Where an institution intends to ban a move or impose restrictions, these must be necessary for the purposes of achieving a legitimate public interest and must be proportionate and not undermine the right of individuals^[7] to engage in work and choose their occupation.

14. After they leave the institution, EU staff members are bound by the duty to behave with integrity and discretion when taking up jobs (or other appointments or benefits).^[8] This obligation applies without an end date.

15.  As the Commission stated, for former staff members involved in legal cases (for instance in DG COMP and the Legal Service), the Commission prohibits those staff members from working directly or indirectly on any cases that fell under their responsibility while in service, or any cases directly related to them. This includes appeals in respect of those cases brought before the European Courts against a decision of the European Commission.

16. To help former staff members identify the cases that could raise conflict of interest issues at any time after their departure, the Commission draws up a ‘case list’ that is attached to the decision it adopts on the notified post-service activity. This list includes all cases identified as falling within the staff members’ responsibility up to the staff members’ departure, but it does not exclude other, related cases to which the prohibition may also apply. For DG COMP, a case list includes any competition case, including antitrust, merger, and State aid cases, which was dealt with by DG COMP and fell under the responsibility of the former staff members, for the entire period of their service in DG COMP.

17. The Ombudsman also reviewed the Commission’s assessment of the former staff member’s request for post-mandate authorisation when leaving the Commission for a law firm. Whilst the two-year notification period had expired at the time when the former staff member joined the transnational [redacted] company, several of the restrictions imposed in relation to that first post-service activity still apply to the former staff member and are thus relevant.

18. The former staff member notified the Commission of the intention to take up the role with the law firm in August 2021, with the role expected to start in January 2022 (within the two-year period covered by the Staff Regulations). The role was intended to include tasks related to antitrust and merger issues. On 1 October 2021, the Commission adopted a conditional decision to authorise the move (the ‘conditional authorisation decision’).

19. In July 2021, prior to notifying the Commission of the intention to move to the law firm, the former staff member had declared a risk of conflict of interest to the hierarchy in DG COMP in relation to the law firm. Based on that declaration, DG COMP recused the former staff member from ongoing cases that would give rise to a potential conflict of interest or the perception thereof. These cases included those where the law firm in question was a target or potential target of competition investigations or where it represented businesses that were.

20. The Ombudsman inspected the Commission’s conditional authorisation decision, which included several restrictions. Based on this inspection, the Ombudsman can confirm that the procedure followed by the Commission was consistent with the practice that the Ombudsman had assessed in a wide-ranging own initiative inquiry into how the Commission manages revolving door moves concerning its staff members in 2021.[9] The inspection also included an initial version of the list of cases that the former staff member would be prohibited to work on in its conditional authorisation decision of 1 October 2021. In February 2022, the Commission sent to the former staff member an updated case list that covered the period until the staff member’s departure on 14 January 2022. Further, in its conditional authorisation decision, the Commission stated that the former staff member could contact it if the staff member needed to clarify what cases would be considered to be ‘related’ to those set out in the case list.

21. In November 2024, the former staff member sought guidance from the Commission in relation to a specific DG COMP case that did not appear in the case list of February 2022. The former staff member asked whether, in the context of the job at the transnational [redacted] company, they were permitted to work on the case in question. In December 2024, the Commission replied that it had assessed whether the case in question was related to the former staff member’s work when in the service of the Commission. The Commission determined that the former staff member’s potential direct or indirect involvement in the case in question would lead to the risk of real, potential, or perceived conflict of interests, and would not be compatible with the applicable obligations under the Staff Regulations.

22. The Ombudsman takes the view that the Commission adopted a robust approach to the request. It diligently assessed whether working on the case for the transnational [redacted] company could give rise to real, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest. It continued to consider that the former staff member was prohibited from working on all cases that the former staff member was involved in during the entire period of service with the Commission, including any following up litigation. The Commission also took into account cases ‘related’ to those listed in its conditional authorisation decision.

Conclusion

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

There was no maladministration in how the Commission dealt with the former staff member’s post-service activity in question.

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

Teresa Anjinho
European Ombudsman

Strasbourg, 05/11/2025

 

[1] The Directorate-General for Competition develops and implements EU policy on competition and enforces EU competition rules.

[2] According to Articles 16 of the EU Staff Regulations, after leaving service, former staff members should not take up occupational activity that may give rise to a conflict of interest or the perception of undue influence. The Commission may ban or place restrictions on activities giving rise to such risks. According to Article 17, staff members must refrain from any unauthorised disclosure of information received while in service, unless that information has already been made public or is accessible to the public. Staff members continue to be bound by this obligation after leaving the service. The EU Staff Regulations can be found at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/1962/31(1)/2014-05-01/eng

[3] See the inspection report here: https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/doc/inspection-report/en/204222, and the report on the additional inspection here: https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/doc/inspection-report/213796. The documents as such are confidential. The Ombudsman inquiry team drafted the reports in general terms.

[4] See Article 11(1) of Regulation No 31 (EEC), 11 (EAEC), laying down the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Economic Community and the European Atomic Energy Community, available here: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/1962/31(1)/2014-05-01/eng.

[5] Article 11a(1) of the Staff Regulations.

[6] Article 16(2) of the Staff Regulations.

[7] See Article 15 Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:12012P/TXT.

[8] Article 16(1) of the Staff Regulations.

[9] The Commission authorisation decision that is subject to this inquiry pre-dated the Ombudsman’s Decision in her own initiative inquiry OI/1/2021/KR, which is available here: https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/decision/en/155953.