Strategic Inquiry: OI/5/2025/KR

Case title: How EU agencies deal with ‘revolving door’ cases

Date: Wednesday, 28 January 2026

Remote meeting

Present

EASA representatives

• Legal Advisor - Data Protection Officer
• Manager of Legal Advice Section and Acting Head of Legal Department and Chair of Joint Committee on Ethics
• Manager of the HR Employees Service and Alternate Member of the  Joint Committee on Ethics
• Legal Advisor and Member of the Secretariat of the Joint Committee on Ethics
• Office of the Executive Director and Member of Joint Committee on Ethics
• Employer Relations Manager

Ombudsman representatives

• Mr Koen ROOVERS, Inquiries Officer
• Ms Ludovica AQUINO, Inquiries Officer
• Ms Jennifer KING, Legal Expert
• Ms Tanja EHNERT, Inquiries Coordinator
• Mr Tobias FLUCK, Inquiries Trainee

Purpose of the meeting

The purpose of the meeting was for the Ombudsman inquiry team to clarify outstanding questions that had arisen in the course of the inspection of the policy documents and individual case files submitted by EASA.

This inquiry builds on previous cases of the Ombudsman related to how the EU administration, including EU Agencies, apply the rules on post-service activities of (former) staff members[1].

Introduction and procedural information

The Ombudsman inquiry team introduced themselves and thanked the EASA representatives for meeting with them. They outlined the legal framework that applies to meetings held by the Ombudsman, in particular, that the Ombudsman would not disclose any information identified by EASA as confidential, without EASA’s prior consent.^[2]

The Ombudsman inquiry team informed the EASA representatives that they would receive a draft of the inspection meeting report to verify its accuracy. The report would then be made public. No confidential information would be included in the report or otherwise provided to any third party.

Considering EASA’s interactions with the private sector, EASA representatives welcomed the Ombudsman’s work on the matter with a view to learning from and contributing to this inquiry.

Documents inspected

• Management Board Decision N° 16-2018 of 14th December 2018 on the application by analogy of the Commission Decision on outside activities and assignments and on occupational activities after leaving the service
• Commission Decision C(2018) 4048 of 29.06.2018 on outside activities and assignments and on occupational activities after leaving the service
• Ethical compliance at EASA - Guide for assessing the risk of conflict of interest for staff members leaving the Agency
• EASA intranet section on conflict-of-interest
• Joint Committee guide for assessing the risk of conflict of interest for staff members leaving the Agency
• Presentation for the Joint Committee: Ethical Compliance at EASA - Guide for Assessing Article 16 Notifications
• Ten application files for post-service activities of former senior and managerial staff members
• Four application files for staff members’ external activities while on unpaid leave
  
  

Information exchanged

The Ombudsman inquiry team had shared several questions with EASA in advance.

1) (Former) members of the Management Board - post-mandate activities

a) Policies

EASA’s Management Board is comprised of Member States and the Commission. The Agency has in place a Code of Conduct, which, in its Appendix I, extensively governs conflicts of interest of Management Board members[3]. Management Board members annually submit their declarations of interest ,which are assessed by an assessment committee including the Commission and published on the EASA website[4]. The EASA representatives said that the Agency does not have any specific policies concerning revolving door moves of its (former) Management Board members outside the scope of the above-mentioned Code of Conduct, which, in its Article 8, establishes an obligation of confidentiality which extends after the Management Board members’ duties have ceased. They explained that there is no employment relationship with the Management Board members which means that the Agency cannot take comparable measures to the ones for staff members. The Management Board members are not acting in their personal capacity but as representatives of their Member States. Management Board members are normally the Executive Directors of national aviation safety authorities and are thus bound by similar ethics rules through their employer in the Member States. Moreover, decisions in the Management Board are taken by majority of the 29 voting members. Decisions related to resources require a positive vote from the European Commission who is also a Management Board member. Therefore, according to EASA, the risks are managed by the instruments in place.

2) (Former) senior staff members - post-service activities

a) Policies

The EASA representatives provided an overview of the material available on their intranet to inform staff and managers, including those who will be leaving the Agency, about the rules in place. This material contains guidance on ethical rules and relevant documentation, with a reference to the obligations under Article 16 of the Staff Regulations. It also includes information on the need to seek authorisation for external activities while on unpaid leave. Besides the policy documents shared with the Ombudsman inquiry team during the inquiry, the EASA representatives referred to a recent information campaign launched in Q4 2025. Furthermore, EASA organises mandatory annual ethics trainings and is currently reviewing the information on its intranet. Further, by virtue of an EASA Management Board decision, the Commission Decision C(2018) 4048 applies by analogy to the Agency’s staff.

The Ombudsman inquiry team pointed out that the available documents contain different information on the possible restrictions that may be applied to post-service activities that are considered to raise a conflict with the legitimate interests of the institution. There seemed to be a variance among the possible restrictions for post-service activities that may raise a conflict of interest. In particular, certain documents do not mention the possibility to forbid a post-service activity that could lead to a conflict of interest.

The EASA representatives highlighted that the update of the intranet was a work in progress and acknowledged that, while certain information might be missing or insufficiently visible concerning the applicable mitigating measures, they would consider the remarks of the Ombudsman inquiry team to correct remaining inconsistencies in the material on the intranet.

b) Timely submission and handling of Article 16 notifications

The Ombudsman inquiry team asked whether EASA would pursue late notifications of post-service activities, notably in cases where a former staff member notifies the Agency only after having started the respective activity. Furthermore, recurring late notifications might suggest that staff is not sufficiently aware of their obligations as concerns post-service activities. Based on an inspection of the individual cases, in at least three cases, it appeared that former staff members submitted their Article 16 notifications after the intended starting date of post-service activities.

The EASA representatives explained that leaving staff members are reminded about their obligations during the off-boarding process and that there are limited possibilities to pursue late notifications. In some cases, the late notification occurred for post-service activities that would be authorised without reservations.

They added that EASA duly assesses late notifications and reminds former staff in its Article 16 decision to respect the applicable deadlines in case of future notifications. As regards potential disciplinary measures, the EASA representatives deemed that the impact on risk mitigation would be limited, but they acknowledged that information campaigns were a central element to ensure that staff members comply with their obligations under the Staff Regulations.

c) Process for handling Article 16 notifications, including the role of the Joint Committee

The EASA representatives explained how EASA handles Article 16 notifications: The application is first received by HR which conducts a prima facie assessment of potential conflicts of interest. Afterwards, it is sent to the line manager who is considered to be in the best position to evaluate potential overlaps between the staff member’s role at EASA and the envisaged activity. Depending on the prima facie assessment by HR, the file is then submitted to the Joint Committee which conducts a multifactorial analysis of potential conflicts of interest and the risk of reputational harm for the Agency. 

In terms of the role of the Joint Committee, the EASA representatives stated that the Joint Committee is consulted in nearly all cases. EASA had decided to establish a simplified procedure on the explicit request of the Joint Committee to remove the need to provide an opinion in very clear-cut cases not raising conflicts of interest, such as in case of notifications of unrelated community work of retired staff members. EASA took the view that streamlining the process is reasonable in light of the relatively high turnover of staff, and also because of the obligation to provide a decision within 30 working days.

The Ombudsman inquiry team mentioned that in one case in which a staff member joined a defence start-up, it seemed, from the submitted files, that the Joint Committee was not consulted. They asked how such a post-service activity could prima facie not raise a conflict of interest.

The EASA representatives said they would review the file in question and clarify that the Joint Committee had in fact been consulted.

For the recording of the notification and assessment process, two separate forms are used - one containing the application and final decision by the Agency, and another one containing the assessment by the former staff member’s line manager and the opinion of the Joint Committee. EASA is working towards implementing a comprehensive tool covering the entire validation process, but currently the two separate forms are stored in a single ARES file.

The Ombudsman inquiry team asked how EASA applied the 30 working-day timeline in case of incomplete or unclear applications.

The EASA representatives explained that they start the clock on the 30 working days only once all elements necessary to assess the application are available and potential outstanding questions are clarified.

The Ombudsman inquiry team asked how EASA handles notifications from staff members, who wish to provide consultancy services but who have no clients at the time of the notification.

The EASA representatives explained that the Agency can impose restrictions on a certain type of clients or activities. Furthermore, EASA reminds former staff members to submit an updated application should the scope of the requested activity change.

d) Applying the right to be heard of notifying (former) staff members in case a notification is refused or conditionally approved

The Ombudsman inquiry team recalled that (former) staff members should be heard before a decision that has an adverse impact on the staff members’ interests is adopted, such as restrictions or bans on post-service activities.

The EASA representatives explained that the Agency considers comments by the staff member concerned during the procedure and before a final decision is adopted. However, the right to be heard is not provided for systematically. This is also because of the ambitious 30 working-day deadline within which a decision must be adopted to avoid an implicit authorisation. Nonetheless, going forward, EASA could envisage, for cases in which restrictions are imposed, to ask the staff member for comments before the Appointing Authority adopts a decision.

e) Informing former staff members of the means of redress in case they are not satisfied with the Article 16 decision

The EASA representatives considered that its staff is generally aware of the applicable means of redress and that the case law does not require EASA to include such information in a decision. However, they could envisage including a clause on the means of redress as a matter of good administration.

f) Publication of decisions (or information) on post-employment activities of former staff members[5]

In its reply to the Ombudsman’s opening letter, EASA provided a list of assessed occupational activities after leaving the Agency. The reference document for the publication of such list is an EASA Management Board decision providing that Commission Decision C(2018) 4048 applies by analogy to EASA. The Ombudsman inquiry team highlighted that Article 21(7) of this Commission Decision states that: "The Commission shall publish information annually on how the provisions regarding former senior officials are implemented, including a list of the cases assessed having due regard to the rules on the protection of personal data as contained in Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of 18 December 2000."

The EASA representatives said that Article 16(4) of the Staff Regulations refers to senior officials, which, according to Article 2 of EASA Management Board Decision 8/2019, covers only the Executive Director of the Agency. The EASA representatives agreed to share EASA Management Board Decision 8/2019 after the meeting.

In view of this, EASA only makes public Article 16 decisions relating to (former) Executive Directors (where relevant) in EASA’s consolidated annual activity report, which is publicly available. This means that such information may only be made public one year after the decision had been taken.

g) Monitoring compliance of former staff members with obligations stemming from Article 16

The EASA representatives stated that they do not systemically monitor the activities of former staff members but provide extensive information about the staff members’ post-service obligations in the off-boarding process. Furthermore, other staff members tend to follow moves of their former colleagues and can notify EASA if the suspicion of a conflict of interest arises, so that the necessary actions can be taken.

The Ombudsman inquiry team asked whether EASA circulates restrictions of leaving staff members within the Agency in general or on a need-to-know basis.

The EASA representatives explained that information about colleagues joining or leaving the Agency is limited to their names, in order to protect the former staff members’ personal data. Only the line managers of the former staff member receive full information about the restrictions imposed. However, thanks to the extensive ethics training, EASA staff is aware of their obligations and contributes effectively to monitoring potential conflicts of interest in relation to former staff members.

h) Communication of conditional authorisations (including mitigating measures) to the future employer of a former staff member

The EASA representatives said that they do not proactively communicate such information to the future employer since, in their view, this could raise data protection issues. It is for the staff members to inform their future employer about applicable restrictions. Furthermore, EASA cannot oblige staff members to communicate mitigating measures to their future employer, but it does issue a recommendation to do so.

3) (Former) senior staff members - external activities while on unpaid leave

a) Policies

See part 2(a) above.

b) Process for handling requests for authorisation

The Ombudsman inquiry team pointed out that the files related to staff members, who were authorised to engage in external activities while on unpaid leave, contained limited reasoning on the assessment of risks of conflicts of interest or in relation to representing third party interests before EASA.

The EASA representatives stated that the submitted files were complete and that conflicts of interest are always assessed implicitly via the line manager. However, they acknowledged that no committee or other body was consulted for an assessment by default.

Conclusion of the meeting

The inquiry team thanked the EASA representatives for their time and for the information provided and the meeting ended.

Following the meeting, the EASA representatives shared with the European Ombudsman the following documents:

• Several documents to complete the inspection file, and
• further documentation on EASA’s awareness raising campaign, which was launched in the last quarter of 2025.

Brussels, 20/04/2026

Koen ROOVERS                                                                                                   Jennifer KING

Inquiries Officer                                                                                                      Legal Expert

 

 

[1] For reference, How the European Commission manages ‘revolving doors’ moves of its staff members (case OI/1/2021/KR); How the European Banking Authority (EBA) handled the move of its former executive director to become CEO of a financial industry lobby group (case 2168/2019/KR) and How the European Defence Agency (EDA) handled the application by its former Chief Executive to take on senior positions at Airbus (case OI/3/2021/KR)

[2] Article 4.8 of the European Ombudsman’s Implementing Provisions.

[3] See: https://www.easa.europa.eu/en/the-agency/management-board/decisions/easa-mb-decision-04-2021-adopting-easa-management-board-code.

[4] See: https://www.easa.europa.eu/en/the-agency/management-board/decisions/easa-mb-decision-04-2021-adopting-easa-management-board-code.

[5] This concerns decisions based on Article 16 of the Staff Regulations, see https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A01962R0031-20260101