Strategic Inquiry: OI/5/2025/KR

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

Date: Friday, 30 January 2026

Remote meeting

Present

EIOPA representatives

• Head of Legal Unit
• Ethics Officer
• Senior Legal Expert
• Legal Expert

Ombudsman representatives

• Mr Koen ROOVERS, Inquiries Officer
• Ms Ludovica AQUINO, Inquiries Officer
• Ms Jennifer KING, Legal Expert
• 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 EIOPA for the years 2023--2025 (until the end of July).

This own-initiative 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 EIOPA 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 EIOPA as confidential, without EIOPA’s prior consent.^[2]

The Ombudsman inquiry team informed the EIOPA 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 EIOPA’s interactions with the private sector, EIOPA 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 Management Board of EIOPA Adopting Ethics Rules for the staff members of EIOPA
• Templates for request authorisation – outside activities & prospective employment
• Decision of the Management Board adopting by analogy the Commission Decision of 29.6.2018 on outside activities and assignments and on occupational activities after leaving the Service
• Mandatory ethics induction session for all newcomers
• Blueprint of possible mitigating measures and plan of action
• Decision of the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority Adopting a Policy on Independence and Decision-Making Processes for Avoiding Conflicts of Interest (Conflict-of-Interest Policy) for Non-Staff
• Six application files for post-mandate activities of former Board Members (of which three after the inspection meeting)
• Six application files for post-service activities of former senior and managerial staff members
• Three application files for staff members’ external activities while on unpaid leave
  
  

Information exchanged

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

1) (Former) Board members – post-mandate activities

a) Policies

The Ombudsman inquiry team had been informed that in an amendment to the Regulation establishing EIOPA in 2020, the reference to Article 16 of the Staff Regulations being applicable for members of the Board of Supervisors was removed.

The EIOPA representatives explained that the reference to Article 16 of the Staff Regulations was removed from the founding regulations of the three European Supervisory Authorities. EIOPA and the European Court of Auditors had requested such an amendment because Board members are not staff of the Authority. However, EIOPA maintained the application of the principles of Article 16 (paragraph 1) of the Staff Regulations regarding notifying intended post-employment activities, to these members via its policy for avoiding conflicts of interest for non-staff[3], which EIOPA has had in place since 2013.

The EIOPA representatives stated that EIOPA had handled its first case of a post-mandate activity in 2024.

Board members are primarily bound to conflict-of-interest rules in the jurisdictions of their National Competent Authorities (NCAs) in the Member States. EIOPA can consult with NCAs and adopt decisions on mitigating measures, including restrictions on post-mandate activities to ensure that the interests of EIOPA are sufficiently protected. The rules that apply at the national level may differ per jurisdiction.

With the entry into force of the DORA Regulation[4], EIOPA’s policy for avoiding conflicts of interest for non-staff had to be amended. In that context, EIOPA took the opportunity to include Annex II to further specify the notification obligations and the assessment process for post-mandate activities of non-staff.

The Ombudsman inquiry team asked whether the draft for the amendment was discussed with the Board members before its adoption.

The EIOPA representatives confirmed that any amendment to the conflict-of-interest policy is discussed within the Board of Supervisors before adoption by the Board.

b) Timely submission and handling of notifications by Board members

The Ombudsman inquiry team asked whether the provisions of Annex II have changed how Board members notify post-mandate activities. They noted that, according to the Annex, the notification should be made from the beginning of serious negotiations about a potential activity.

The EIOPA representatives said that former Board members already informed EIOPA about post-employment activities under the previous rules. The reason for adopting Annex II was not only to provide information on potential mitigating measures but also to specify the timelines for notifications, in particular considering the high number of changes in the membership of the Board of Supervisors. Like staff members, Board members are obliged to notify post-mandate activities up to two years after the end of their mandate.

The Ombudsman inquiry team asked why Point 4 of Annex II obliges EIOPA to notify the responsible NCA within ten working days. The EIOPA representatives highlighted that they applied a short timeline because these consultations were a sensitive matter for EIOPA and the Board member. Respecting the ten-day limit is generally not a problem if all information is available in the application. Where a notification from a Board member is unclear or incomplete, the EIOPA representatives stated they would consult with the Board member and would suspend the ten-working day timeline.

The Ombudsman inquiry team asked whether former Board or staff members have notified EIOPA after taking on a post-mandate/post-service activity.

The EIOPA representatives affirmed that they generally know about such activities beforehand because of informal negotiations before the formal notification. To their knowledge, there have been no cases of unnotified post-mandate/post-service activities that may have given rise to a conflict of interest.

The Ombudsman inquiry team highlighted one inspected case where a post-mandate activity was seemingly not notified and, consequently, not authorised by EIOPA.

The EIOPA representatives said that the activities concerned did not fall within the remit of EIOPA and therefore the activity could not create any conflict of interest. According to the EIOPA representatives, the former Board member in question was correct in not notifying EIOPA of this respective post-mandate activities, adding that the same former Board member informed EIOPA in due time about an intended post-employment activity and agreed on the mitigating measures imposed by EIOPA.

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

The Ombudsman inquiry team asked how EIOPA collaborates with NCAs in relation to post-mandate activities of (former) Board members.

The EIOPA representatives said that, once they become aware of any post-mandate activity, they would directly consult with the individual to establish the facts. Subsequently, EIOPA’s Ethics Officer would assess any conflicts of interest and submit a draft recommendation including potential mitigating measures to the EIOPA Chairperson. The draft is discussed with the (former) Board member, and the NCA of the (former) Board member is informed in view of potential alignment.  In the past, the NCAs have always agreed with EIOPA’s proposals.

EIOPA relies on the extensive training it provides to Board members to raise their awareness about its conflict-of-interest policy.

The EIOPA representatives confirmed that the Ethics Officer assesses all notifications of Board members.

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

The EIOPA representatives confirmed that staff members or Board members are always asked for comments on the draft decision to ensure their right to be heard. Normally, there is no contestation of the draft decision because the assessment and proposal of potential mitigating measures are done in a consensual and communicative procedure, before any decision is adopted.

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

The EIOPA representatives confirmed that it informed both staff and Board members about their means of redress.

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

EIOPA’s Chairperson informs, by email, the Board of Supervisors’ members of her decisions on mitigating measures regarding post-employment activities of Board members, after having informed the relevant NCA.

g) Monitoring compliance of former Board members with their obligations

The EIOPA representatives set out the steps that the Authority takes to ensure compliance with its conflict-of-interest policy. After the end of a Board member’s mandate, or once EIOPA is informed of the Board member’s departure, it sends an email informing the Board member about their obligations. If the Board member declares any post-mandate activity, the Ethics Officer follows up on the notification and the procedure described above is followed. In addition, EIOPA monitors different social media channels and regularly consults with the NCAs to receive information about the activities of former Board members. This monitoring is done informally and does not follow a structured approach. According to the EIOPA representatives, there is no precedent of an undisclosed post-mandate activity.

The Ombudsman inquiry team asked how EIOPA would notice when a former Board member remains employed at the NCA at first but then moves to a private company.

The EIOPA representatives said that their monitoring system works seamlessly. They would also be informed about such a situation, irrespective of the national jurisdiction concerned.

2) (Former) Senior staff members – post-service activities

a) Policies

The EIOPA representatives explained that the Authority applies Commission Decision C(2018) 4048 by analogy to the Authority’s staff and provided the Ombudsman inquiry team with all relevant policy documents.

b) Timely submission and handling of Article 16 notifications

The Ombudsman inquiry team referred to one inspected file concerning a risk of a conflict of interest that had been notified by a staff member but seemingly left without a response from EIOPA for several weeks. The EIOPA representatives were asked whether EIOPA has taken measures to ensure that it acts in a timely manner on notifications of personal interests that potentially conflict with EIOPA’s legitimate interests and, if so, which ones.

The EIOPA representatives said that the Executive Director had in fact had a phone discussion with the staff member a day after the notification was made. The screenshot of EIOPA Executive Director’s calendar, confirming the meeting the day after the email, was shared with Ombudsman inquiry team. The Executive Director answered the staff member’s questions and told the staff member to await the result of any negotiations leading to a job offer before submitting an Article 11a declaration. The EIOPA representatives expressed their regret that this phone call was not mentioned in the case file, which made it appear like EIOPA had not reacted to the staff member’s concerns.

The Ombudsman inquiry team highlighted that already the start of negotiations for a post-service activity can compromise a staff member’s independence.

The EIOPA representatives stated that this is correct, but that this was not the case in this file. The staff member’s e-mails were high-level and informative by nature and should be rather interpreted as a preliminary question about the staff rules. Once the negotiation for the job offer had become serious, EIOPA took sufficiently effective measures, including the immediate withdrawal of the staff member’s access to confidential data, the transfer to another department and a prolonged cooling-off period.

The Ombudsman inquiry team asked whether EIOPA uses such a functional mailbox to ensure that notifications are always handled irrespective of the availability of the Ethics Officer.

The EIOPA representatives confirmed that they used a functional mailbox for this reason.

The Ombudsman inquiry team asked whether EIOPA suspends the timelines for providing a decision if an Article 16 notification is incomplete or unclear.

The EIOPA representatives explained that they consult with the staff members concerned in such cases, but they never had to exceed the 30-working-day period.

The Ombudsman inquiry team asked if EIOPA asked for a job description or vacancy notice from the new employer in cases where they had doubts that an activity could be misrepresented.

The EIOPA representatives highlighted that EIOPA maintained a relation of trust with its staff members. Some staff members submit the vacancy notice proactively in their notification, but EIOPA never had doubts about the description of an activity. If they noticed inconsistencies in the follow-up conversation with the staff member they may ask for a vacancy notice.

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

The EIOPA representatives confirmed that the line manager is always consulted first, then the Joint Committee becomes involved.

The EIOPA representatives explained that the consultation of the responsible line managers was crucial to take the technical profile of the staff member into consideration in the assessment and that this is why they consult them consistently and firstly in accordance with the annexes to the Ethics Rules which form part of the applicable framework.

The Ombudsman inquiry team asked whether the Joint Committee was consulted in all Article 16 applications.

The EIOPA representatives confirmed that the Joint Committee was always involved, except for cases in which a staff member moves to another EU institution, agency or body, or to a national authority, which would not warrant a consultation of the Joint Committee.

The Ombudsman inquiry team asked how EIOPA would handle post-service activities of lawyers who were involved in litigation on behalf of the Authority. They asked whether EIOPA had already dealt with such cases and highlighted that the Commission draws up a list of restricted cases to prevent any conflicts of interest.

The EIOPA representatives stated that such a case has never materialised. However, they affirmed that they would impose enhanced restrictions, including lobbying and advocacy bans, to exclude the possibility that a former staff member could work for the adverse party in a pending court case.

The Ombudsman inquiry team asked whether EIOPA could apply lobbying and advocacy bans to all staff.

The EIOPA representatives explained that their Ethics Rules provide for such bans to all staff members. It would still decide on such measures on a case-by-case basis.

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

See 1(d) above.

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

See 1(e) above.

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

The Ombudsman inquiry team asked whether EIOPA makes restrictions, such as a lobbying ban, publicly available to ensure its enforcement.

The EIOPA representatives explained that they made restrictions for senior managers public and that they internally communicated restrictions of all other staff within the Authority and where relevant to the Board.

g) Monitoring compliance of former staff members with obligations stemming from Article 16^[6]

The EIOPA representatives said that they have an offboarding tool that automatically informs leavers about their obligations, including the provisions under Article 16 of the Staff Regulations. The offboarding tool also sends an automatic reminder about obligations under Article 16 one year after their departure.

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

EIOPA informs the future employer of the mitigating measures of a former staff member on a case-by-case basis.

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 asked whether EIOPA had introduced measures to ensure that annual authorisation requests are made and dealt with in a timely manner and, if so, which ones.

The EIOPA representatives explained that the HR department sends a reminder at the end of the requested period of unpaid leave. They added that this includes a separate reminder about the end of the authorisation of any external activity carried out while on unpaid leave.

The Ombudsman inquiry team noted that the form on outside activities whilst on personal leave records the mandatory consultation of the staff member’s line manager and the Ethics Officer. However, Article 18 of EIOPA’s Ethics Rules does not explicitly mention that this consultation is mandatory.

The EIOPA representatives clarified that the Ethics Officer and the responsible line manager were consulted to assess outside activities whilst on personal leave in relevant cases. They further clarified that the Annexes to the Ethics Rules foresee this mandatory consultation and are part of the applicable legal framework.

Conclusion of the meeting

The inquiry team thanked the EIOPA representatives for their time and for the explanations provided. 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] See: https://www.eiopa.europa.eu/system/files/2023-01/eiopa-mb-20-064_mb_decision_coi_policy_non-staff.pdf.

[4] For reference: Regulation (EU) 2022/2554 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 December 2022 on digital operational resilience for the financial sector and amending Regulations (EC) No 1060/2009, (EU) No 648/2012, (EU) No 600/2014, (EU) No 909/2014 and (EU) 2016/1011, PE/41/2022/INIT, OJ L 333, 27.12.2022.

[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.

[6] 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