Strategic Inquiry: OI/5/2025/KR

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

Date: Wednesday, 28 January 2026

Remote meeting

Present

EBA representatives

• Head of Legal and Compliance Unit
• Senior Legal Officer

Ombudsman inquiry team

• Koen ROOVERS, Inquiries Officer
• Ludovica AQUINO, Inquiries Officer
• ·Jennifer KING, Legal Expert
• 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 the European Banking Authority (EBA).

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 EBA 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 the EBA as confidential without the EBA’s prior consent.^[2]

The Ombudsman inquiry team informed the EBA 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.

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

Documents inspected

• Decision of the European Banking Authority on the EBA’s Policy on Independence and Decision Making Processes for avoiding Conflicts of Interest (Conflict of Interest Policy) for Non-Staff;
• Decision of the Executive Director on the EBA’s Policy on Independence and Decision Making Processes for avoiding Conflicts of Interest (Conflict of Interest Policy) for Staff and other Contractual Parties;
• Commission Decision C(2018) 4048 final on outside activities and assignments and on occupational activities after leaving the Service;
• Decision of the EBA concerning guidance on the assessment of post-employment restrictions and prohibitions;
• Decision of the European Banking Authority concerning access to confidential information for staff moving to another job outside the EBA;
• Decision of the Executive Director of the EBA on the Ethics Guidelines for EBA Staff
• One application file for post-mandate activities of former Board Members;
• One application file for post-service activities of former senior and managerial staff members.

Information exchanged

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

1) (Former) Members of the EBA Boards - post mandate activities

a) Policies

The Ombudsman inquiry team acknowledged that the amendment of the EBA founding regulation[3] revoked the direct applicability of Article 16 of the Staff Regulations to Board of Supervisors (Board) members. They asked how the EBA nonetheless ensured that Board members are covered by sufficiently strong ethics guidelines. In this context, they asked whether the EBA had taken inspiration from the provisions under Article 16, in particular as regards the timely notification of post-mandate activities.

The EBA representatives confirmed that the direct reference to Article 16 in earlier versions of the EBA regulation had provided a stronger ethical framework on post-mandate activities. While there is no contractual relationship between the EBA and its Board members, as they are employed by National Competent Authorities (NCAs), this reference provided a legal basis to apply Article 16 by analogy. Since the review of the European Supervisory Authorities (ESAs) founding regulations, there is no longer a possibility to implement the obligations stemming from Article 16 directly. The requirements are therefore now self-imposed voluntarily by the Board. Hence, the EBA has no powers to enforce revolving door rules on their (former) Board members and primarily relies on the application by the NCAs of their ethics rules and on the fact that NCAs would contact the EBA in the case of an identified conflict of interest to take into account its opinion (without any obligations since the EBA has no control over NCAs in this area given that it is Board members that are subject to the rules of procedure and not their NCAs, nor does EBA have any possibilities to verify if conflicts identified by the EBA are ultimately taken into account). The EBA nevertheless reminds the (former) Board members of their confidentiality obligations and requires them to submit a “Notification of intended occupational activities after leaving the EBA”, if they were to leave their NCA and decide to take up new occupational activities during the two years following their departure from the EBA Board.

b) Timely submission and handling of notifications by Board members

The Ombudsman inquiry team noted that EIOPA had adopted an annex to its policy for avoiding conflict of interest for non-staff members which specifies that (former) Board members should inform the agency about a potential activity as soon as there are serious negotiations with the future employer. They asked whether EBA considered similar guidelines.

The EBA representatives said that the EBA expects (former) Board members to submit a notification in advance of any intended post-mandate activities, as explained above. However, there is no possibility to create an enforceable legal obligation for this without a direct employment relationship. The EBA has no choice but to rely on Board members and the NCAs.

c) Process for handling notifications, including the role of the Ethics Officer

The assessment process for such notifications is inspired by the evaluation of Article 16 requests by staff members. The only notable difference is that the outcome of the assessment is not formulated as a decision but as a recommendation to the NCA, which is the body entitled to impose restrictions in view of the employment relationship they have with the Board members. The EBA can only independently impose and enforce a no-contact arrangement which staff and Board members can be informed of and which can be monitored internally.

The EBA representatives said that provisions on post-employment activities in NCAs historically differ among national jurisdictions and that these differences cannot be remedied through the adoption of rules by the EBA given that the problem of the lack of a direct employment relationship in order to enforce any rules remains.

The Ombudsman inquiry team asked whether NCAs contact the EBA for guidance on the evaluation of an application by a Board member.

The EBA representatives replied that the Board members had rather contacted the EBA directly in past cases. However, the risk of conflicts of interest for Board members is different from staff members since the Board only meets every other month and provides advice on certain proposed policies which will be adopted or otherwise available in the public domain shortly afterwards. Board members normally do not have access to any supervisory data. They would, for instance, convene to draw lessons from crises. In such meetings, no information that may give rise to a conflict of interest is exchanged.

As regards the transfer of a notification to the Management Board for assessment, this does not change the non-binding nature of the recommendation to the NCA. However, such a transfer may be considered if is deemed appropriate, for example because the case is particularly sensitive.

d) Applying the right to be heard to (former) Board members where the Authority identifies a conflict of interest

The EBA representatives stated that there is no right-to-be-heard procedure in relation to (former) Board members, because the EBA merely issues a recommendation on restrictions to the NCA without any legally binding effect. As such, the EBA does not systematically hear Board members. However, the EBA representatives stated that the EBA would expect to contact the Board member concerned if they considered recommending the restriction/prohibition of a post-mandate activity.

e) Informing former Board members of the means of redress in case they are not satisfied with Authority’s position

Informing former Board members of the means of redress regarding mitigating measures is the duty of NCAs when they issue mitigating measures on post-employment activities as the EBA does not have an employment relationship with the Board members and does not issue mitigating measures directly other than possibly the observance of a no-contact period. The EBA would only contact the Board member concerned when it considers recommending a restriction/prohibition of a post-mandate activity.

f) Publication of decisions (or information) on post-employment activities of Board members

The EBA has dealt with only one case since 2023 where measures were recommended. The EBA representatives did not recall whether this recommendation was published. If this was not the case, then it was due to an oversight. This is because, in principle, the EBA is in favour of making such information public and affirmed that the EBA informs all relevant persons internally of a post-mandate/service activity and applicable mitigating measures.

g) Monitoring compliance of former Board members with their obligations

The EBA relies on NCAs to monitor former Board members in view of their previous contractual relationship and obligations stemming from it. However, as mentioned above, the EBA proactively informs leaving Board members of their obligations to notify the EBA about any post-mandate activities during a period of two years after leaving the Board. However, the EBA does not systematically track post-mandate activities of former Board members but remains vigilant to information available through informal channels.

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

It is the responsibility of the NCAs to communicate any conditional authorisation (including mitigating measures) they impose to the future employer of a former Board Member.

2) (Former) Senior Staff Members - post service activities

a) Policies

The EBA representatives said that the Authority applies:

• Commission Decision C(2018)4048 on outside activities and assignments and on occupational activities after leaving the Service by analogy;
• Decision of the Executive Director on the EBA’s Policy on Independence and Decision Making Processes for avoiding Conflicts of Interest (Conflict of Interest Policy) for Staff and other Contractual Parties;
• Decision of the Executive Director of the EBA on the Ethics Guidelines for EBA Staff;
• the Decision of the EBA concerning guidance on the assessment of post-employment restrictions and prohibitions;
• the Decision of the European Banking Authority concerning access to confidential information for staff moving to another job outside the EBA.

 The EBA provided the Ombudsman inquiry team with all relevant policy documents.

b) Timely submission and handling of Article 16 notifications

The EBA representatives confirmed that there have been no instances where a conflict of interest was mitigated too late due to the lack of a prior notification by the former staff member. The EBA representatives added that, should such an instance materialise, disciplinary proceedings could be an option, depending on the merits of the case.

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

The Ombudsman inquiry team asked whether the EBA consulted the Joint Committee in all Article 16 cases.

The EBA representatives confirmed that the Joint Committee was always consulted and that this can be done at a short notice, except in cases where a consultation is not necessary because the staff member moves to another EU body.

The Ombudsman inquiry team asked the EBA to explain the procedure to establish restrictions to access to confidential information before leaving EBA.

The EBA representatives explained that staff members should contact the Ethics department when they have a first interview with a future employer, if the intended occupational activity presents a conflict of interest with the staff member’s current EBA duties or if the staff member has any doubt as to the existence of such a conflict of interest. The Ethics Officer would then help the staff member assess the possible mitigating measures that could be imposed so that they could be taken into account by the staff member when discussing with the potential employer during the interview process.

This is also particularly useful for the staff member to make a conscious decision as to the timing of the submission of their “Notification of Intended Activity after Leaving the EBA”. Indeed, if the staff member has access to confidential information, their access to confidential information will be suspended during the assessment of the notification and this period could be taken into account if a cooling off period is to be imposed, resulting in a shorter period of time for the staff member during which they cannot take up their planned future position.

The Ombudsman inquiry team asked how the EBA handled applications in which the staff member misrepresents the tasks of their post-service activity or does not provide sufficient details.

The EBA representatives specified that the EBA asked the staff member to provide further clarification if necessary or that the EBA would search for publicly available information about the employment. When substantial information is missing in the application, the EBA suspends the 30-working-day time limit to provide a decision.

The Ombudsman inquiry team asked if a lobbying ban could also be applied to non-senior staff members.

The EBA representatives replied that the EBA has already applied lobbying bans to non-senior staff and that the duration would vary. In this regard, they referred to the main guidelines which provide a general assessment framework.

The Ombudsman inquiry team noted that, in this policy, it is stated that restrictions may apply for between six months and two years prohibiting the staff member from dealing with files, cases or matters related to the work carried out by him or her during up to their last three years of service, including related or subsequent cases and/or court proceedings. Thus, the EBA representatives were asked to clarify why the EBA has limited the duration of the limitation in the case of litigation which may continue beyond even two years.

The EBA representatives explained that this is mainly a question of proportionality, reasonableness and equality with staff who take up a position after two years and are not required to notify the EBA at that point, and therefore cannot be subject to a restriction or prohibition.

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

The EBA representatives confirmed that the EBA systematically hears the staff member concerned before adopting a decision.

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

Staff members are informed of the possibility to ask for redress at the moment they receive the Article 16 decision.

f) Publication of decisions (or information) on post-employment activities of former staff members^[4]

All information on post-employment activities is published on the EBA website’s dedicated section[5].

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

The EBA representatives described that the EBA repeatedly informs staff members about their Article 16 obligations via mandatory annual trainings and when staff members leave the EBA. The EBA also sends a reminder about these obligations to former staff members one year after they have left the Agency. Moreover, the EBA relies on information from the staff members’ former line managers who generally know about the post-service activities of their staff.

There have been cases where line managers subsequently informed the Legal and Compliance Unit about potential conflicts of interest. In such a case, the EBA would contact the staff member concerned and proactively request a renewed notification of their post-service activity.

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

The Ombudsman inquiry team asked whether the EBA would consider communicating an Article 16 decision to the staff member’s future employer.

The EBA representatives explained that the EBA always asks for the future employer’s contact details to inform them about the restrictions, requesting an acknowledgement of receipt and a confirmation of the compliance from the future employer.

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

Staff members that are on unpaid leave have to submit an “Application for outside activity and assignments” either through the Ethics workflow if they retained access or by sending it by email to the Risk and Compliance team.

The Ethics Officer reviews the notification in accordance with Commission Decision C(2018)4048 applied by analogy and provides an opinion to the Appointing Authority who subsequently decides whether the activity should be authorised.

Conclusion of the meeting

The inquiry team thanked the EBA representatives for their time and for the explanations provided, and the meeting ended.

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] Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 establishing a European Supervisory Authority (European Banking Authority), amending Decision No 716/2009/EC and repealing Commission Decision 2009/78/EC, available here: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A02010R1093-20251110

[4] 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

[5] See: https://www.eba.europa.eu/about-us/organisation-and-governance/accountability/ethics-eba/occupational-activities-after-leaving-eba.