Background to the complaint

1. The complainant is a staff member working for many years at a division of the European Central Bank (ECB). In 2021-2022, they[1] participated unsuccessfully in an internal recruitment procedure for a post in their division. Believing that the procedure had not been impartial and objective, they conveyed their concerns to the ECB’s department in charge and asked for support to change business area. The alleged issue was a possibly too close family relationship between a hiring officer and the person who was recruited.[2]

2. In November 2022, the complainant made a formal whistleblower complaint regarding the above-mentioned concerns, and in parallel requested the ECB to open an administrative investigation into alleged inappropriate behaviour of colleagues. The complainant considered that the person who had been in charge of the internal recruitment procedure, as well as the person who had been recruited, had committed acts of harassment, abuse of power and discrimination against them, after having become aware that the complainant had raised the above-mentioned concerns. (This is known as a ‘dignity at work’ complaint at the ECB[3]. It will here be referred to as the complainant’s ‘harassment complaint’.) The complainant moreover suspected that the department in charge of the recruitment (DGHR) had failed to handle the complainant’s communications confidentially, effectively leaking their identity to the hiring manager and the person who was recruited.

3. In May 2023, the ECB informed the complainant about its further handling of the matter. It did so in three email messages.

4. The first message of 4 May 2023 was communicated through the ECB’s whistleblower tool, and informed the complainant that their whistleblower report had been assessed and closed by decision of the ECB departments in charge “with the follow-up steps to be conducted by the Directorate General Human Resources pertaining to the potential conflict of interest you raised in the report”.

5. A second message was an email of 12 May 2023 sent directly to the complainant, and referred to the decision of the departments in charge: “I realise that you had originally wanted to keep the whistleblowing aspects separate to the [harassment allegations], but the decision ... was that HR would look into both...”.

6. A third message, an email of 16 May 2023, sent directly to the complainant, informed them that the departments in charge had discussed whether an internal administrative investigation was necessary, and had concluded, on the basis of the evidence the complainant had submitted, that an administrative investigation should not be opened.

7. The complainant then made an administrative complaint against the decision to handle the whistleblower report and the harassment complaint jointly, as well as against the decision not to open an investigation into the harassment complaint. In addition to the inconsistency that they saw with the ECB’s internal rules, they took issue in particular with the fact that the joint handling of the matter would be in the hands of the department (DGHR) that they suspected of having wrongfully revealed (leaked) their identity to the alleged wrongdoers.

8. The ECB rejected the administrative complaint as inadmissible, concluding that the complainant had no legal interest in challenging the joint handling of the two matters. This was because the final decision on whether to fully investigate a whistleblower report and a harassment complaint was a decision to be taken collectively by the ECB departments in charge. With regard to the decision not to open an administrative investigation into the alleged harassment, the ECB concluded that the messages the complainant received in May 2023 contained a reference to preparatory measures only. There was therefore no decision they could challenge.

9. The complainant then turned to the European Ombudsman on 27 March 2024. The complainant argued that they were not in a position to understand which aspects of their complaint to the ECB had been finalised and could be challenged, and which aspects the ECB still considered to be under assessment. In particular, the complainant claimed that they had not received proper reasons as to why no formal administrative investigation had been opened on the basis of their harassment complaint.

The inquiry

10. The Ombudsman opened an inquiry into the complaint, asking the ECB to submit a reply.

11. In its reply of 30 August 2024, the ECB first clarified that an assessment of the facts submitted by the complainant had in the meantime been finalised by the departments in charge, and that the corresponding formal (and negative) decision had been sent to the complainant. However, the matter was not final because internal appeals options were still available. The ECB has a two-stage administrative review procedure.[4]

12. The ECB also confirmed that the departments in charge had in 2023 decided to assess jointly (a) the whistleblower report, and (b) the harassment complaint. The ECB referred to the ‘temporary nature’ of the decision not to open an administrative investigation at the time. It explained that the ECB departments in charge “did not take any final position on allegations submitted by the complainant”, and “only found that the allegations reported by the complainant did not warrant, at that stage, an internal administrative [investigation]. At the same time, none of these allegations were finally dismissed.”

13. In a follow-up reply of 27 January 2025, the ECB informed the Ombudsman of developments in the matter, as follows.

a) Opening of an own initiative investigation by the Chief Services Officer on a potential breach of the obligation to report a conflict of interest

14. On 28 August 2024, the ECB’s Chief Services Officer decided to open an own initiative investigation related to the conflict of interest matter that was the subject of the whistleblowing report filed by the complainant.

b) Follow-up to the Deputy Director General’s decision of 9 July 2024

15. With regard to the complainant’s harassment complaint, the ECB departments in charge concluded on 12 March 2024 that the complainant had not been the subject of inappropriate behaviour, and therefore decided not to open a related administrative investigation. The complainant challenged this decision through the ECB’s two-stage administrative complaints procedure. On 30 October 2024, the President of the ECB annulled the decision. The decision of the President noted that the complainant had “provided prima facie evidence supporting some of [their] allegations of inappropriate behaviour, with references to specific occurrences”, and that there was a duty of the investigating department to properly look at all the evidence, including by seeking corroboration from third parties (for instance hearing witnesses). The President instructed the ECB departments in charge to consider proposing the initiation of an administrative inquiry to the Chief Services Officer acting on behalf of the Executive Board as per Article 4(2) of the Administrative Circular on internal administrative investigations.[5]

c) Follow-up to the Chief Compliance and Governance Officer rejecting the request for whistleblower’s protection

16. In May 2024, the Chief Compliance and Governance Officer had rejected a request by the complainant for whistleblower protection because the request did not fulfil the conditions required by the Staff Rules.[6] The complainant challenged this decision through the ECB’s two-stage administrative complaints procedure. On 16 January 2025, the President of the ECB annulled the decision, and referred the case back for reassessment by the Chief Compliance and Governance Officer to determine if the eligibility conditions for protection were met and, should that be the case, if there exists a need for protection.

17. In summary, there were three ongoing internal processes at the end of January 2025:

a) The ongoing Chief Services Officer's own initiative investigation into the conflict of interest matter.

b) The pending action on the complainant’s harassment complaint related to the President’s instruction that the relevant departments in charge consider proposing the initiation of an administrative investigation to the Chief Services Officer acting on behalf of the Executive Board as per Article 4(2) of the Administrative Circular on internal administrative investigations.

c) The ongoing Chief Compliance and Governance Officer’s reassessment of the eligibility conditions for protection against retaliation for whistleblowing.

18. On 14 July 2025, the complainant submitted further observations and updates to the Ombudsman. They recalled that the core of the complaint related to the ECB’s initial decision to handle their whistleblower report and their harassment complaint jointly, as well as what they understood to be its decision of in May 2023 not to open an administrative investigation. The complainant found it positive that the ECB was now carrying out its above-mentioned internal investigations, but was concerned that the scope of these investigations was too limited and that the investigations would take too long. The complainant also put the case in a broader context, suggesting that the Ombudsman could address general flaws in the ECB’s handling of complaints and whistleblower reports.

19. On 2 December 2025, the Ombudsman inquiry team met with representatives of the ECB to obtain information about the state of the above-mentioned investigations. The ECB’s representatives confirmed that the assessment of the most complex and pertinent investigation, relating to alleged conflicts of interest, is before the ECB’s Executive Board and is expected to be concluded soon. The scope of the assessment was understood to be wide. With regard to the other two investigations, which are ongoing, the matters are being addressed and their resolution is expected in due course.

The Ombudsman's assessment

Preliminary remarks

20. The Ombudsman opened this inquiry into two related procedural issues in the ECB’s ongoing handling of a whistleblower matter. These issues were, first, whether the ECB was correct in deciding that the complainant had no legal interest in challenging the decision taken in May 2023 to handle jointly their whistleblower report and their harassment complaint, and, second, whether the ECB was correct in concluding that there had been no challengeable decision not to open an administrative investigation into their harassment complaint.

21. Staff disputes must in general be challenged through the EU institutions’ internal complaints procedures before the Ombudsman can carry out a substantive assessment.[7] This is in particular the case when the dispute concerns the staff member’s individual rights. In this case, the issue at the source of the dispute is whistleblowing, for which the Ombudsman has an expressly stipulated role. [8] The Ombudsman considered it appropriate to open this inquiry into what appeared to concern a lack of clarity regarding key issues in the ECB’s follow-up to the whistleblower report here concerned.

22. It remains the case, however, that the Ombudsman would generally want the EU institutions to finalise their internal reviews on a given matter before opening a full inquiry. During this inquiry, several key procedural events and actions have occurred at the ECB, and at the time of this decision at least three investigations are still ongoing. On the basis of the ECB’s rules and procedures, these investigations involve, or will ultimately involve, multiple actors within the ECB, including its Executive Board, its Chief Services Officer, the Chief Governance Officer, the Directorate-General for Human Resources, Internal Audit, the Directorate Secretariat and ultimately the President. The three investigations are moreover procedurally distinct, not being conducted and concluded simultaneously. The most complex and pertinent investigation, relating to alleged conflicts of interest, is before the ECB’s Executive Board and is expected to be concluded soon.

23. It is perfectly understandable that the complainant would want the Ombudsman to continue to examine the matter more in-depth. However, in the above-mentioned circumstances it would not be appropriate for the Ombudsman to inquire into the issues in parallel with the ongoing investigations at the ECB. The exception to this would be situations where there are delays that are clearly unreasonable or which even amount to inaction. In that regard, the Ombudsman would assume that the ECB’s two investigations related to the complainant’s protection will likely benefit, in terms of their focus and efficient handling, from the conclusions on the conflict of interest matter, which are expected soon.

24. If appropriate action has not been taken in the above-mentioned investigations by the end of the first quarter of 2026, the complainant may contact the Ombudsman again.

25. In light of the foregoing, the Ombudsman strictly limits her findings to the two above-mentioned issues on which the inquiry was opened. Based on the assessment set out below, the Ombudsman will make a suggestion for improvement to the ECB.

26. The Ombudsman finally notes that the ECB is currently in the process of completing an own-initiative review of its reporting, investigation and disciplinary framework (the ‘Framework’), which in addition to enhancing the overall governance of the Framework, is also expected to positively impact the duration of investigations by simplifying the procedures and their follow-up. This review was requested by the ECB’s Executive Board. The Ombudsman understands that the ECB expects the revised Framework to provide for a faster and more streamlined handling of ethics issues, and welcomes this initiative.

Joint assessment of issues

Arguments presented to the Ombudsman

27. The complainant considered that the ECB was wrong to assess the whistleblower issues and the harassment complaint jointly. The complainant noted that the ECB’s messages of 4, 12 and 16 May 2023 - which were seen to contain a/the decision(s) - should essentially be understood to mean that the ECB departments in charge had decided not to have the whistleblower matter handled by the department normally in charge of handling whistleblower reports (Internal Audit[9]). In addition, and more specific to the facts of this case, the complainant took issue with the fact that DG HR would be the lead department in the matter, given that the complainant had already expressed concerns about inappropriate behaviour by that department (in particular the alleged leaking of the complainant’s identity to the alleged wrongdoers).

28. The ECB considered that the complainant had no legal interest in challenging the decision to assess the whistleblower matters and the harassment complaint jointly. This was because the final decision on whether to fully investigate a whistleblower report and a harassment complaint was a decision to be taken collectively by the ECB departments in charge.[10]

The Ombudsman's assessment

29. The Ombudsman considers that temporary procedural measures are not by definition excluded from being decisions of individual legal interest to the person concerned. It depends on the applicable rules and the circumstances.

30. The joint handling of the two matters in question included a matter that was of direct and individual interest to the complainant, namely the assessment of their harassment complaint. The complainant had an individual and direct interest in the protection of the integrity of the procedure through which the assessment would be carried out.

31. The decision to assess jointly the complainant’s whistleblower report and related harassment complaint arguably put the integrity of the procedure related to the harassment complaint at risk in at least two respects.

32. First, the joint assessment could too easily cause unreasonable delays, and the Ombudsman points out that a reasonable handling time is, in EU law, a fundamental right.[11] A decision on whether to open a full administrative investigation into a harassment complaint should normally be taken within weeks or a few months. To make such a decision dependant on the finalisation of a full assessment of a whistleblower report would foreseeably cause unreasonable delays. In this case, the ECB’s first formal decision not to open an administrative investigation into the complainant’s harassment complaint was effectively taken one and a half years after the complainant submitted their harassment complaint.

33. Second, to join the assessment of a whistleblower report with the assessment of a related harassment complaint may too easily lead to the understanding that the assessment of the latter depends on the findings related to the former. The whistleblower’s obligation is to act in good faith and on the conviction that s/he submits concerns and information that is true. The whistleblower shall be protected from related negative consequences on that basis only.

34. In addition, the complainant identified what appears to be a breach of the ECB’s own rules, pointing to the fact that the ECB Staff Rules foresee that the competent department for a whistleblower report shall be the Director of Internal Audit (and not DGHR, which was put in charge of the joint handling). The apparent departure from this rule was not explained to the complainant.

35. In the above circumstances, the Ombudsman cannot agree with the ECB that the complainant had no legal interest in challenging its decision to examine jointly the complainant’s whistleblower report and their related harassment complaint.

36. However, in light of the above mentioned significant further developments in the matter, which are still ongoing, the Ombudsman does not consider it necessary to further inquire into this part of the case.

Decision not to open an administrative investigation

Arguments presented to the Ombudsman

37. The complainant argued that there had been a decision, in May 2023, not to open an administrative investigation in response to their harassment complaint. They pointed to the ECB’s following message of 16 May 2023, which referred to the deliberations of the ECB departments in charge:

“They discussed whether an internal administrative [investigation] (IAI) was necessary but, based on the evidence you submitted, decided that an IAI would not be proposed to the EB. [These] are in-depth Investigations, used especially where extensive evidence-gathering is needed, and can take a very long time (and I know that already until this point, the situation has been going on a long time for you). They did recognise that follow up is needed on the "connections" and dignity at work parts, which is why they did not close the case. They considered that HR should do that follow up, which is where we are at now.”

I note that the Troika decision is about the way forward, it does not make any 'findings' as such. The findings are for us (HR) to make in the follow up.”

38. In its decision on the complainant’s administrative complaint, the ECB concluded that the decision not to open an administrative investigation at the time was a preliminary and procedural step that implied no definite findings. The decision therefore did not bring about any change in the legal situation of the complainant, who therefore had indeed no interest in challenging that decision.

The Ombudsman's assessment

39. The ECB’s conclusion that it had not, in May 2023, communicated a challengeable decision to the complainant was reached against a particularly unclear background. The ECB itself had to interpret its own previous communications to the complainant. In its final decision on the complainant’s administrative complaint, the ECB stated that the decision that the complainant attempted to challenge “is to be considered a preliminary and procedural step to the extent that in the present case, it neither includes nor implies any definite finding of the administration as to the elements reported ...”. In its reply to the Ombudsman, the ECB stated that the ECB departments in charge “did not take any final position on allegations submitted by the complainant”, and “only found that the allegations reported by the complainant did not warrant, at that stage, an internal administrative inquiry. At the same time, none of these allegations were finally dismissed.”

40. The Ombudsman finds the above ECB statements and positions problematic in at least two respects.

41. First, its message to the complainant of 16 May 2023 clearly stated that “based on the evidence you submitted, (...) an IAI would not be proposed”. Given that if a staff member submits information and evidence demonstrating that there is ‘prima facie’ (apparent) evidence of harassment, the ECB has an obligation to rapidly open an administrative investigation, one can only understand the above ECB statement as meaning that the allegations and evidence submitted by the complainant did not suffice for opening an administrative investigation.

42. Second, the ECB’s reference to a ‘preliminary and procedural’ step is equally difficult to understand. In relation to the complainant’s harassment complaint, there was no ‘procedural step’. There were only unstructured email communications with some unclear information that, in essence, could at best be understood by the complainant to mean that their harassment complaint could not, in and of itself, give rise to an administrative investigation. It was then for the complainant to guess whether the unspecified follow-up work would at some point in the future - through the ECB’s own initiative and efforts - produce some evidence that might warrant a proper administrative investigation.

43. In these circumstances, it was reasonable for the complainant to consider that the ECB had adopted a negative decision on the harassment complaint in question.

44. In the end, whatever interpretation one may give to the ECB’s above-quoted messages of May 2023, the fact remains that the complainant was left without a decision on their harassment complaint after several months, and/or that the exchanges between them could only mean that it would take several additional months before there would be a decision by the ECB on whether to open an administrative investigation into their harassment complaint. The complainant could also have believed that the ECB had in an implied manner rejected their harassment complaint.

45. The Ombudsman therefore has serious doubts regarding the nature of the ECB’s decision in question.

46. In light of the significant further developments in the matter, which are still ongoing, the Ombudsman does not consider it necessary to further inquire into this part of the case.

Conclusion

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

In light of the significant further developments that have occurred since the submission of the complaint, which are still ongoing and will lead to decision-making at the highest levels of the ECB, the Ombudsman concludes that no further inquiries are justified at this point in time.

If appropriate action has not been taken in the ongoing investigations by the end of the first quarter of 2026, the complainant may again contact the Ombudsman.

The complainant and the European Central Bank will be informed of this decision.

Suggestion for improvement

The ECB should organise training on whistleblowing issues (including whistleblower protection) for its senior staff. Such training sessions, in addition to being useful fora for information on best practices, can serve to streamline internal understanding of the applicable rules, principles and procedures. It could furthermore positively support the ECB’s implementation of its revised Framework in this field of its administration.

 

Teresa Anjinho

European Ombudsman

Strasbourg , 17/12/2025

 

 

[1] For reasons of anonymity, including as regards the gender of the complainant, the text refers to the complainant as ‘they’/’their’/’them’.

[2] The complainant currently works in an ECB workplace separate from their normal division.

[3] The ECB works with an ethics framework in which “’Dignity at work’ means the absence of inappropriate behaviour. Inappropriate behaviour means any form of direct or indirect discrimination, physical violence, psychological harassment (also referred to as bullying or mobbing) and sexual harassment.” (Article 0.5.2.1 of the ECB’s Staff Rules.)

[4] The ECB has established a two-level system of internal appeals in staff matters. The first stage is the

administrative review of a staff-related decision by the Director General of DG-HR or their Deputy. The

second stage is a ‘grievance procedure’. Grievances are assessed by the Civil Service Law Team in

the Directorate General Legal Services (DG-L) as regards their admissibility and their substance, and

finally decided by the ECB President.

[5] ECB Administrative Circular 01/2006 on internal administrative inquiries

[6] This refers to a specific separate procedure. The related issues are not in the scope of the Ombudsman’s inquiry. The information here provided is included in the text for context. 

[7] “Complaints concerning employment relations between the Union institutions, bodies, offices or agencies and their staff shall be admissible only if the person concerned has exhausted all internal administrative procedures, (...). Article 2(6) of the European Ombudsman’s Statute.

[8] “The Ombudsman may also inquire whether there was an instance of maladministration in the handling of such case [whistleblower report] by the Union institution, body, office or agency concerned, including as regards the protection of the official or other servant concerned.” Article 8(3) of the European Ombudsman’s Statute.

[9] “0.4bis.3.1 For reports of information on breaches received through the whistleblowing tool, the competent authority shall be:

(a) the Director Internal Audit,...”.

[10] The ECB referred to (Article 4 of the ECB ADMINISTRATIVE CIRCULAR 01/2006 on internal administrative inquiries, which in Article 4(2) provides that “If the Director General Human Resources, Budget and Organisation, the Director Internal Audit and the Director General Secretariat and Language Service confirm the need for an administrative inquiry, they shall immediately propose its initiation to the Chief Services Officer, who shall act on behalf of the Executive Board”. It also referred to related provision in the ECB Staff Rules (0.5.3.3 and 04bis.3.3.).

[11] Article 41(1) of the EU Charter on Fundamental Rights: “Every person has the right to have his or her affairs handled impartially, fairly and within a reasonable time by the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union.”