Background to the complaint

1. In 2023, the EU funded a project aimed at providing technical assistance to the East African Community Competition Authority (EACCA) under the EU Framework Contract “Services for EU External Action 2023” (SEA 2023). The project was based in Arusha, Tanzania. It was implemented by a company (the ‘contractor’) and managed by the Delegation of the European Union to Tanzania and the East African Community (‘the Delegation’) under the responsibility of the European Commission, as the ‘contracting authority’. 

2. The contractor hired the complainant in September 2024 to work as an expert on the project. At the start of his contract, the complainant encountered difficulties in securing a work permit in Tanzania. According to him, this was because the contractor refused to register in Tanzania, which meant that he could not obtain a work permit but could only apply for a business or a multiple-entry tourist visa. He argued this was in breach of the contractor’s legal obligations under Tanzanian law. The complainant eventually secured a work permit through a local sponsor company, which registered him as one of its employees, despite the sponsor company having no link with the EU funded project. The complainant claimed he repeatedly raised the matter with the contractor and the Delegation.

3. In July 2025, the contractor informed the complainant of its decision to terminate his contract because of his overall performance. According to the contractor, the complainant’s work had failed to meet its expectations, as well as those of the Delegation and the EACCA, both of which had raised concerns regarding his project coordination, timeliness, the quality of deliverables, and his overall engagement with the project.

4. The complainant challenged the termination of his contract with the contractor, asserting that he had been dismissed without prior notice and without receiving substantiated explanations for his alleged poor performance. He further maintained that he had received only positive feedback from colleagues with whom he had worked closely and suspected that the decision was, in fact, linked to his dispute regarding the work permit. In response, the contractor stated that the termination was based on a joint assessment with the Delegation and the EACCA, based on feedback received. It asserted that it had fully complied with the applicable contractual framework.

5. The complainant contacted the Delegation regarding the termination of his contract. He sought clarification on the grounds for its endorsement of the decision. He further requested information as to whether the Delegation had formally raised any concerns regarding his work performance with the contractor. He also raised concerns about the contractor’s handling of his work permit application in Tanzania.

6. In August 2025, the Delegation replied. It said that while it may offer its views on an expert’s performance in an EU-funded project, it has no contractual relationship with individual experts. As such, any decision regarding the early termination of an expert’s contract falls exclusively under the contractor’s responsibility. The Delegation is under no obligation to provide experts with justifications for a contractor’s decision. Any formal concerns regarding the complainant’s performance would have been communicated solely to the contractor as part of its contract management responsibilities. Ultimately, the contractor bears full responsibility for addressing and resolving any disputes arising from such exchanges.

7. Regarding the work permit, the Delegation said that experts contracted under EU funded projects are required to comply with the laws and regulations of the host country, including immigration and labour laws. However, this obligation lies with the expert and the contractor and any issues regarding regulation compliance or visa costs should be addressed directly with the contractor.

8. The complainant subsequently reiterated his concerns with the Delegation, which did not further engage with the complainant on the matter.

9. Dissatisfied with the situation, the complainant turned to the Ombudsman in September 2025.

The inquiry

10. The Ombudsman opened an inquiry into how the Delegation handled the complainant’s concerns about the EU contractor’s compliance with Tanzanian law and the termination of his contract.

11. In the course of the inquiry, the Ombudsman inspected the Commission’s file on the case. The Commission, acting as the contracting authority, also provided a written reply on the complaint. The reply was shared with the complainant, who provided comments.

The termination of the complainant’s contract

Arguments presented to the Ombudsman

By the Commission

12. In its reply to the Ombudsman, the Commission clarified that the EACCA handled the day-to-day implementation of the project. The Commission’s role included supervising and monitoring the experts’ work through the contractor. The Commission reiterated that it held no direct contractual relationship with the expert. This meant that in case of poor performance, it would notify the contractor who would then take the necessary actions. The Commission further stated that it was not responsible for communicating dissatisfaction with the expert’s work directly to him, nor would it intervene in disputes between a contractor and its employees.

13. The Commission noted that under Article 17.2 of the general conditions of the framework contract with the contractor, it could request the replacement of an expert provided it justified the request in writing and allowed the contractor and the expert to submit observations. However, the Commission did not consider this provision to apply to this situation, as the Commission had not ordered or instructed the contractor to terminate the contract with the expert. The Commission was only involved in the discussions with the contractor and the EACCA. The decision to terminate the complainant’s contract was taken by the contractor based on the contractual relationship with the complainant. The contractor subsequently informed the Commission of this decision.

14. The Commission said that the decision to terminate the complainant’s contract was based on his limited availability on site and his poor performance. In particular, the complainant was not sufficiently present in Arusha, in breach of his contractual obligations, hindering project implementation and disrupting coordination with other experts on site. Regarding his work performance, the Commission referred to shortcomings in both reporting and coordination tasks. The EACCA and the Delegation considered that the complainant had been late in submitting certain deliverables, which were furthermore of unsatisfactory quality.

15. The Commission stated that these concerns had been repeatedly shared with the complainant. He had been put in copy of e-mails, and the contractor had sent several warnings to the complainant through formal meetings and informal communications between May 2025 and June 2025. The Commission thus considered that the complainant was given the possibility to improve and to submit observations on the shortcomings identified.

By the complainant

16. The complainant argued that the Delegation had endorsed the termination of his contract in the context of an EU-funded project without providing any justification or giving him the opportunity to be heard. In particular, the complainant argued that his contract was terminated without prior notice, based on vague and unsubstantiated allegations and in contradiction with feedback received from colleagues working closely with him. It could not be excluded that the termination of his contract was in fact related to concerns he had raised regarding the work permit.

17. Regarding the comments of the Commission on his work performance, the complainant raised concerns over the limited operational support received from the contractor and he argued that there were communication issues which affected operational activities. Moreover, the complainant argued that he had not received formal feedback on the deliverables, which mean that he could not address the concerns raised. 

The Ombudsman's assessment

18. The Ombudsman has consistently taken the view that, in the absence of a contractual relationship with an expert, the EU institution or body that requests an expert's removal from an EU-funded project should still provide fair and objective grounds to justify such a request. Moreover, it should either itself hear the expert in question or satisfy itself that the expert was heard by the contractor before the decision is taken.[1]

19. This principle is reflected in Article 17.2 of the general conditions of the SEA 2023 framework contract, which provides that: “In the course of performance, the contracting authority can order an agreed personnel to be replaced. This shall be done on the basis of a written and justified request to which the contractor and the agreed personnel have had the opportunity to provide observations.”

20. In this case, the Commission argued that it had no responsibility regarding the termination of the complainant’s contract, as it had not requested or instructed his removal from the project. The decision was taken by the contractor, taking into account concerns raised by the Delegation.

21. While the Ombudsman takes note of the Commission’s explanation, the documents inspected by the Ombudsman do not support its position. Rather, the documents in the Commission’s file show that the decision to replace the complainant (that is, to terminate his contract) was taken jointly and unanimously by the contractor, the EACCA and the Delegation during a dedicated meeting. Thus, while the Commission did not alone instruct the complainant’s replacement, the fact that other actors also considered that he should be replaced cannot absolve the Commission from its responsibility under Article 17.2 of the general conditions of the framework contract as well as principles of fairness and good administration. The Ombudsman will thus assess the actions of the Commission based on the provision in the contract as well as principles of good administration.

22. First, the replacement of an expert should be justified, meaning that it should be based on fair and objective grounds. At the same time, the Commission enjoys broad discretion in assessing the performance of an expert working on an EU-funded project and it is not for the Ombudsman to redo this assessment. What the Ombudsman can do is to assess whether the explanations provided are reasonable and that there is no manifest error of assessment.

23. The Ombudsman finds that, in its reply to the Ombudsman in this case, the Commission provided clear grounds for the replacement of the expert, namely his unavailability at the place of employment and the overall dissatisfaction with his work performance. Those concerns, clearly reflected in the documents in the Commission’s file inspected by the Ombudsman, show that the Delegation had shared these concerns with the contractor, and that the decision to replace the complainant was based on these concerns.

24. While the complainant disagrees with the grounds provided, there is nothing that would indicate that the Commission’s assessment was manifestly wrong. Regarding the complainant’s claim that his dismissal was related to the concerns he had raised regarding the work permit, that claim is unsubstantiated and there is nothing in the documents inspected by the Ombudsman to support this view.

25. Second, given that the Commission was involved in the decision to replace the complainant, the applicable contractual provision required the Commission to ensure that the complainant was given the opportunity, by the contractor or by the Commission itself, to comment on the concerns about his performance prior to the decision to replace him. 

26. In fact, the documents inspected showed that the complainant was aware of concerns regarding his on-site availability, as he was in copy of several emails addressing this issue. However, there is no evidence in the Commission’s file that dissatisfaction with the quality of the complainant’s work was clearly communicated to him. While the complainant appears to have received some negative feedback, it remains unclear whether he was fully informed of the extent of the concerns regarding his work performance prior to the termination of his contract. Furthermore, the documents inspected contain no indication that the Commission verified that the contractor had clearly shared these concerns with the complainant. There is also no evidence in the Commission’s file that the Commission either afforded the complainant an opportunity to be heard or ensured that the contractor had done so before his contract was terminated.

27. In light of this, the Ombudsman cannot but draw the conclusion that the Commission failed to ensure that the complainant’s right to be heard was respected prior to the termination of his contract. This amounts to maladministration. The Ombudsman finds that no recommendation is suitable in this case given that, in the course of the inquiry, the complainant has been informed of the reasons for his replacement and the right to be heard cannot be remedied retroactively. Nevertheless, the Ombudsman will make a suggestion for improvement for the future.

The work permit

Arguments presented to the Ombudsman

By the complainant

28. The complainant argued that the Delegation had failed to act on his repeated concerns regarding the contractor’s potential breach of Tanzanian law, namely its failure to register in Tanzania which prevented the complainant from obtaining a valid work permit. Although the complainant acknowledged that his contractual relationship was with the contractor, he argued that the Delegation bears a responsibility to ensure that contractors adhere to local legal requirements in the implementation of an EU-funded project.

By the Commission

29. The Commission said that it had been informed by the contractor, in February 2025, of issues regarding the eligibility of visa costs. It had offered assistance to the contractor in this regard, while pointing out that registration fees could not be accepted as an eligible cost under the EU project.

30. However, the Commission argued that it had not been informed, at that time, of any problems with the complainant obtaining a work permit or the alleged refusal by the contractor to register in Tanzania. The complainant only raised this with the Delegation in August 2025. In any event, the Commission emphasised that the responsibility for compliance with local laws rests entirely with the contractor and its employees, as set out in the framework contract.

The Ombudsman's assessment

31. The Commission said that it was not aware of the contractor’s refusal to register in Tanzania at the time the issue occurred. The Delegation appears to have been consulted by the contractor only with regard to the eligibility of permit costs. The Ombudsman notes that the complainant has provided no evidence to put into question the Commission’s statements.

32. Nevertheless, following the termination of the complainant’s contract, the complainant informed the Commission about his concerns regarding the contractor’s potential breach of Tanzanian law. In this regard, the Ombudsman notes that the framework contract imposes an obligation on the contractor and its employees to abide by all laws and regulations in force in the partner country.[2] If the contractor fails to comply with this obligation, it amounts to a breach of contract for which the Commission can take certain measures under the framework contract, including damages, suspension or termination of the contract.[3] In its reply, the Commission failed to address this possibility.[4]

33. However, given that the complainant’s contract has been terminated, the Ombudsman finds that no further inquiries are justified into the issue of the work permit as the matter has lost its practical relevance. Still, the Ombudsman invites the Commission to examine, within the scope of the framework contract, the complainant’s allegations concerning the contractor’s potential breach of Tanzanian law. In particular, the Ombudsman notes that the contractor’s actions may also affect other experts currently deployed in Tanzania. If this is the case, the Commission should determine whether remedial measures under the framework contract should be taken The Ombudsman will make a suggestion for improvement in this regard.

Conclusions

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

The Commission’s failure to ensure that the complainant was informed and heard about his work performance before his contract was terminated constitutes maladministration.

No further inquiries are justified concerning the issue of the work permit.

The complainant and the Commission will be informed of this decision.

Suggestions for improvement

If the Commission is involved in a decision of a contractor to replace an expert from an EU funded project, it should ensure that the expert in question is heard before such decision is taken, in line with its legal obligations.

The Commission should examine, within the scope of the framework contract, the complainant’s allegations concerning the contractor’s potential breach of Tanzanian law. Should any breach of Tanzanian law be confirmed, the Commission should determine whether remedial measures under the framework contract should be taken.

 

Teresa Anjinho

European Ombudsman

Strasbourg, 02/06/2026

 

 

[1] See, for example, decisions in case 2154/2019/EIS: https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/decision/en/139243,

in case 699/2019/AMF: https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/decision/en/126131 and in case 1854/2016/JAP https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/decision/en/89508.

[2] Article 7.4 of the General conditions of the framework contract.

[3] Article 34 and 35 of the General conditions of the framework contract.

[4] The Ombudsman is aware that the Commission may not on its own be able to determine a breach of local laws, and that a judgment from a national court may be required.