Background to the complaint

1. The complainant is an EU-based company. In 2018, it started cooperating with the European External Action Service (EEAS) by providing IT services in the framework of projects between the EEAS and a national civil protection agency. As of December 2022, after the complainant had been awarded a service contract by the new main contractor of the EEAS, and until July 2024, the complainant acted as a subcontractor for the EEAS. According to the complainant, it was not paid for the work it carried out in April, May and June 2024.

2. The EEAS informed the complainant that it was willing to pay for the services provided in April and May 2024, given that the complainant had provided certain deliverables. A disagreement arose, however, on the precise extent of the services provided and on the corresponding payments. Disputes also arose in relation to the complainant having ceased providing its services in June 2024, and the transfer of intellectual property rights following the end of the contractual agreement between the complainant and the main contractor.

3. Between May 2024 and April 2025, there were exchanges on these disagreements between the complainant, the EEAS and its main contractor. Given that the complainant acted as a subcontractor, the EEAS refrained from direct communication with the complainant and instead channelled its interactions through its main contractor, with the exception of a three-party-meeting held in November 2024.

4. Dissatisfied with how the EEAS dealt with the matter and given that its efforts to resolve the matter with the main contractor remained fruitless, the complainant turned to the Ombudsman in May 2025.

The inquiry

5. The Ombudsman opened an inquiry into how the EEAS handled the disputes and how it monitored the actions of the main contractor in this regard.

6. In the course of the inquiry, the Ombudsman received the reply of the EEAS on the complaint and, subsequently, the comments of the complainant in response to the EEAS’s reply.

Arguments presented to the Ombudsman

7. The complainant claimed that, throughout the project, it had a direct communication channel with the EEAS. Only when the contractual disagreements arose, in the final months of the project, the EEAS refused to communicate directly, and it consistently referred the complainant to the main contractor. However, according to the complainant, the main contractor had no operational knowledge of the project and the negotiations on the disputes consequently remained unsuccessful. Due to the EEAS’s unwillingness to pay for the services the complainant had provided, the complainant had been forced to lay off staff.

8. The EEAS argued that, while operational interactions with the complainant were necessary, all contractual and financial processes were handled via the main contractor, as required under the applicable framework contract. It outlined the steps it had taken to resolve the matter, specifically by communicating with the main contractor and by consulting the contracting authority (DG DIGIT). The EEAS explained that it had clarified to the complainant, via the main contractor, the essential deliverables and documentation necessary for the EEAS to validate the invoices, and that payments were made to the contractor for the validated work carried out in April and May 2024. According to the EEAS, the remaining issue regarding payment for unvalidated services is a dispute to be resolved directly between the contractor and the subcontractor.

9. The EEAS further claimed that, in June 2024, the complainant had unilaterally decided to cease providing its services without prior notification, with severe operational consequences, in particular by disrupting services for the continuity of ‘mission support’. The EEAS provided the following background: it had launched a new procurement procedure for IT consultancy services in November 2023, as the contractual agreement between the main contractor and the subcontractor was coming to an end on 31 July 2024. Following the announcement of a new subcontractor (other than the complainant) on 8 May 2024, the complainant requested a ‘stay and review procedure’, which was dismissed and closed on 3 June 2024. According to the EEAS, after that, the complainant unilaterally informed the EEAS, on 5 June 2024, of its decision to immediately cease providing its services.

10. The EEAS also said that the complainant refused to transfer the intellectual property rights, contrary to the applicable framework contract. In addition, the EEAS contended that the complainant had acknowledged holding certain documents necessary for payment validations, but refused to provide them unless payments were made in advance. According to the EEAS, the complainant’s position on the matter was contrary to the applicable framework contract and the EU Financial Regulation, which requires proof of delivery before payment. Finally, the EEAS said that, due to the lack of proper documentation and knowledge transfer, it had to invest substantial additional time and resources with the new consultancy company that had to reengineer the entire process and to produce the non-delivered critical documentation (that the complainant had nevertheless invoiced).

11. In its comments on the EEAS’s reply, the complainant disputed the EEAS’s statements and maintained its position. It further argued that the administrative practices of the EEAS from 2018 until March 2024 had created legitimate expectations regarding the applicable requirements and steps for invoice validation. Difficulties with the project started to emerge only with the arrival of new EEAS managers in early June 2024, who decided to impose new requirements on invoice validation. However, the EEAS made the first formal objections on the timesheets and invoices only in December 2024, months after the relevant services had been performed. The complainant also said that it had not unilaterally ceased to provide services in June 2024. The complainant could not provide services because the EEAS had not made the prior validations necessary for providing those services, and the EEAS had failed to finance the supporting infrastructure. The complainant further argued that it had provided the technical documentation for the intellectual property transfer. Finally, the complainant said that the EEAS provided no documents to support its assertion that it had to redevelop the system entirely.

The Ombudsman's assessment

12. In accordance with the Ombudsman’s well-established practice, the scope of review on contractual obligations entered into by an EU institution is necessarily limited[1]. It is not for the Ombudsman to determine whether there has been a breach of contract by any of the parties concerned, as this question could be dealt with effectively only by a court of competent jurisdiction[2]. This holds true particularly when the complainant acted as a subcontractor and when the direct contractual link exists only between the complainant and the main contracting party.

13. In cases concerning contractual disputes, the Ombudsman therefore limits the inquiry to examining whether the EU institution concerned has provided a coherent and reasonable account of the legal basis for its actions and why it believes that its view of the contractual position is justified[3]. The conclusions of the Ombudsman in this regard do not affect the right of the parties to have their contractual dispute examined and authoritatively settled by a court of competent jurisdiction.

14. This said, it is the Ombudsman’s long-standing position that the absence of a direct contractual relationship between the EU institution and the subcontractor does not exempt the institution, acting in its capacity as a public authority, from its obligation to respect the subcontractor's fundamental right to good administration, of which fairness is an important aspect[4]. This obligation encompasses, amongst other things, the institution’s duty to monitor the behaviour of its contractor and, if necessary, to insist that the contractor fulfils its obligations towards the subcontractor[5]. The Ombudsman further expects the EU institution to help resolving direct operational issues with subcontractors in an efficient manner.

15. In the case at hand, both the EEAS and the complainant have provided the Ombudsman with a copy of an e-mail of 5 June 2024 whereby the complainant informed the EEAS of its decision to discontinue deliveries. A review of the file confirms that the EEAS immediately communicated its concerns to the main contractor, both by means of continuous email exchanges and by attending meetings to discuss any outstanding issues. The EEAS also regularly monitored the contractor’s communication with the subcontractor, making sure that the EEAS’s requirements were diligently communicated to the subcontractor. In this regard, the EEAS also consulted the contracting authority DG DIGIT to see if it could assist in resolving the situation. The complainant’s argument that the EEAS was late in making objections as regards the timesheets and invoices is thus not convincing, as the EEAS took swift action towards its main contractor.

16. Based on the above, the Ombudsman considers that the EEAS made multiple efforts to help resolving the issues with the subcontractor in a timely manner. The Ombudsman further notes that the EEAS exceptionally did communicate directly with the complainant to clarify its position, for example during the meeting held in November 2024. The Ombudsman also notes that the EEAS made payments for the validated work that the complainant had carried out in April and May 2024 and that it provided specific guidance, through the contractor, on the requirements in terms of deliverables and documentation regarding the remaining unvalidated services.

17. As to the complainant’s argument that it had legitimate expectations regarding the applicable requirements and steps for invoice validation, the Ombudsman has consistently noted the high threshold set by the Court of Justice of the EU (‘CJEU’) to establish infringements of the principle of legitimate expectations[6]. According to the established case law of the CJEU, three conditions must be fulfilled[7]. First, precise, unconditional and consistent assurances originating from authorised and reliable sources in the EU institution must have been given to the person concerned. Second, those assurances must be such as to give rise to a legitimate expectation on the part of the person to whom they are addressed. Third, the assurances given must comply with the applicable rules.

18. In the case at hand, the complainant argued, in essence, that the administrative practices of the EEAS from 2018 until March 2024 had created legitimate expectations regarding the applicable requirements and steps for invoice validation. Based on a thorough review of the documents provided in the course of the inquiry, the Ombudsman concludes, however, that the conditions on legitimate expectations are not met. In particular, it does not follow from the documents provided that there have been unconditional and consistent assurances by the EEAS that its subcontractual relationship with the complainant would factually correspond to a direct relationship in terms of contractual, financial and invoicing purposes. Moreover, considering that the dispute concerns, in essence, the validation of invoices, it does not follow from the documents provided that the EEAS at any point assured the complainant that it would unconditionally accept the invoices sent, without preserving the possibility to contest their validity and to request further clarification. As an EU institution, the EEAS is bound by the EU Financial rules, notably the Financial Regulation[8], which requires proof of delivery in accordance with the contract. The Ombudsman therefore concludes that the EEAS did not infringe the principle of legitimate expectations.

19. Based on the above, the Ombudsman concludes that there was no maladministration by the EEAS in this case.

Conclusion

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

There was no maladministration by the EEAS regarding how it handled the disputes and how it monitored the actions of the main contractor.

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

Teresa Anjinho
European Ombudsman

Strasbourg, 10/07/2026

 

[1] See for example the decision closing the inquiry into complaint 346/2009/(BEH)KM, point 35, available at https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/decision/en/4743 and the decision on complaint 772/99/GG, point 3.6, available at https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/decision/en/1228.

[2] See for example the decision closing the inquiry into complaint 1922/2010/(VIK)ER, point 38, available at https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/decision/en/52929, and the decisions on complaint 2843/2005/BM, point 2.7, available at https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/decision/en/3004 and on complaint 100/2004/GG, point 2.7, available at https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/decision/en/2065.

[3] See for example the decisions closing the inquiry into complaint 1176/2012/(VIK)CK, point 9, available at https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/decision/en/52682, complaint 346/2009/(BEH)KM, point 32, available at https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/decision/en/51391 and complaint 2431/2011/MMN, point 36, available at https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/decision/en/4743.

[4] See for example the decision closing the inquiry into complaint 2410/2012/MHZ, point 14, available at https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/decision/en/53183.

[5] See for example the decision closing the inquiry into complaint 535/2010/(PF)RT, points 39-47, available at https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/decision/en/11735.

[6] See for example the decisions closing the inquiry into complaint 2354/2013/ANA, point 28, available at https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/decision/en/60888. See also the decision on complaint 1693/2002/GG, available at https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/decision/en/1797.

[7] See for example the judgments in: Case T-203/97 of 6 July 1999, Forvass v Commission [1999] ECR-SC I-A-129 and II-705, ECLI:EU:T:1999:135, paragraph 70; Case T-199/01 of 7 November 2002, G v Commission [2002] ECR-SC I-A-217 and II-1085, ECLI:EU:T:2002:271, paragraph 38; Case T-347/03 of 30 June 2005, Branco v Commission [2005] ECR II-2555, ECLI:EU:T:2005:265, paragraph 102; Case T-207/10 of 15 November 2018, Deutsche Telekom AG v European Commission, ECLI:EU:T:2018:786, paragraph 46 and Case T-80/25 of 10 June 2026, Xpand Consortium and Others v European Commission, ECLI:EU:T:2026:386, paragraph 93.

[8] Currently in force as Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2024/2509 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2024 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union (recast), available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/2509/oj.