- EN English
How EU agencies deal with ‘revolving door’ cases
Case OI/5/2025/KR - Opened on Thursday | 10 July 2025 - Decision on Monday | 20 April 2026 - Institutions concerned European Banking Authority ( No further inquiries justified ) | European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority ( No further inquiries justified ) | European Securities and Markets Authority ( No further inquiries justified ) | Agency for Support for BEREC ( No further inquiries justified ) | European Union Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators ( No further inquiries justified ) | Single Resolution Board ( No further inquiries justified ) | European Union Aviation Safety Agency ( No further inquiries justified ) | European Chemicals Agency ( No further inquiries justified ) | European Food Safety Authority ( No further inquiries justified ) | European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights ( No further inquiries justified ) | European Medicines Agency ( No further inquiries justified ) | European Union Agency for Cybersecurity ( No further inquiries justified ) | European Union Intellectual Property Office ( No further inquiries justified ) | European Defence Agency ( No further inquiries justified ) | European Institute of Innovation and Technology ( No further inquiries justified )
Inquiry opened
10/07/2025Inquiry ongoing
10/07/2025Inquiry outcome
20/04/2026
This own-initiative inquiry examined how EU agencies manage ‘revolving door’ cases involving senior and/or managerial staff, as well as members of their governing bodies, who take up positions in the private sector after leaving their agency.
The Ombudsman conducted a thorough review of the policies implemented by 15 EU agencies and inspected 54 case files from nine of those agencies. Additionally, the inquiry team met with representatives of five agencies to clarify specific issues.
The Ombudsman found that while some EU agencies have adopted particularly detailed and comprehensive guidance on revolving door cases, significant variations exist among agencies in key areas. These include how agencies handle late or incomplete notifications of post-service activities; the nature and scope of mitigating measures imposed; how compliance with such measures is monitored; and the training provided to staff on their ethical obligations.
The inquiry also revealed marked differences in the rules governing the post-mandate activities of governing body members (such as those on Management Boards or Boards of Supervisors). Only a few of the agencies examined had adopted policies to regulate such activities.
To help EU agencies further strengthen their rules on revolving doors, the Ombudsman issued a series of good-practice guidelines. She also confirmed that her office would apply these same guidelines in any future inquiries into specific revolving-door cases.