The case concerned the adequacy of the European Commission’s annual reviewing of export credit agencies — national bodies that give financial support to companies doing business in risky markets — in particular with respect to the protection of human rights and the environment.

The Ombudsman inquired into the matter and found that the Commission’s methodology and procedures could be improved. In particular, the Ombudsman recommended that the Commission should engage in a dialogue with Member States and other stakeholders with a view to improving the template used by Member States to compile the reports on export credit agencies which they are required to submit to the Commission each year. The Ombudsman also recommended that the Commission, for its part, should enhance the analysis and evaluation content of the annual reviews of export credit agencies which it submits to the European Parliament.

The Commission informed the Ombudsman that it would consult the Council, Parliament and the European External Action Service, and engage with civil society, in order to implement the Ombudsman’s recommendations. In particular, the Commission will propose to the Council Working Group on Export Credits a revised checklist template to be used by Member States for their annual reports. The Commission will also consider drawing up relevant guidance for Member States’ reporting.

As the measures announced by the Commission adequately address the Ombudsman’s recommendations, the Ombudsman closed her inquiry but asked the Commission to report back within one year.

The case concerned the adequacy of the European Commission’s annual reviewing of export credit agencies - national bodies that give financial support to companies doing business in ‘risky’ markets - in particular with respect to the protection of human rights and the environment.

The Ombudsman inquired into the matter and found that the Commission’s methodology and procedures could be improved. In particular, she suggested that the Commission should engage in a dialogue with Member States and other stakeholders with a view to improving the template used by Member States in compiling the reports on export credit agencies which they are required to submit to the Commission each year. The Ombudsman also proposed that the Commission, for its part, should enhance the analysis and evaluation content of the annual reviews of export credit agencies which it submits to the European Parliament.

The Commission rejected the Ombudsman’s proposals mainly because it considers that their implementation would require an amendment to the existing legislation. The Ombudsman disagreed with the Commission’s position and has now made recommendations to the Commission in the same terms as those of her earlier proposals.  The Ombudsman believes that the Commission’s annual review, which it sends to Parliament, should amount to more than a compilation of the content of the annual reports received from the Member States and that it should contain an informed and detailed evaluation of the performance of the export credit agencies, particularly, as regards respect for human rights and the environment.

The case concerned the EU funded research project on GMO risk assessment (known as GRACE). The complainant, a Germany-based research institute, alleged that a number of scientists involved in the GRACE project were in a conflict of interest situation because of their alleged relations with the biotech industry. It claimed that the European Commission had failed to address the complainant´s concerns about the scientific soundness of the project's results and the independence of the related scientific publication. The complainant also claimed that the Commission had failed to ensure the objectivity and independence of the project, in particular full transparency with respect to the experts involved in its selection.

The Ombudsman inquired into the case. She agreed with the Commission that it should not interfere in the scientific interpretation or the publication process of scientific studies it funds. The Ombudsman also concluded that the mere fact that there are links between the scientists involved in the project and the industry does not prove a conflict of interest. The Ombudsman pointed out that the Commission often funds projects carried out either by industry or by groups with close links to industry. Nevertheless, the Ombudsman suggested that the Commission should consider sending the complainant a fuller and more thorough explanation of why it takes the view that the links between industry and the GRACE scientists do not create conflict of interest situation.

The case concerned IMI's handling of an alleged conflict of interest in the tender procedure for a research project on risks and benefits of a vaccination scheme in Europe.

The complainant, a member of a consortium that took part in the procedure, argued that IMI failed to address whether all the members of an evaluation committee were impartial. The complainant argued that two members had links to the winning consortium, which gave rise to a conflict of interests.

The Ombudsman found that IMI applied the relevant rules correctly and found no evidence of unjust treatment of the proposal from the complainant's consortium. Therefore, the Ombudsman found that there was no maladministration concerning this aspect of the complaint. The Ombudsman further considered whether experts in a conflict of interest situation with one proposal should be allowed evaluate a competing proposal. The Ombudsman found that, as the rules followed by IMI were drawn up by the European Commission, no further inquiries into this question are justified within the context of this specific complaint.

The issue in this complaint is the alleged failure of the European Commission, in appointing a Special Adviser, to abide by its own rules on preventing conflicts of interest.

In September 2015, two NGOs complained to the Ombudsman that the Commission had failed to comply with its Rules when it appointed a Special Adviser to assist the Commission President. The Commission issued a press release on 18 December 2014 announcing the appointment of Mr Edmund Stoiber as a Special Adviser to the Commission President. This announcement was made three months before Mr Stoiber was officially appointed on 4 March 2015, without any disclaimer about the pending administrative requirements still to be fulfilled. The complainants argued that this premature announcement compromised the Commission's capacity to conduct an unbiased and critical assessment of whether the person in question had any conflicts of interest. They complained also that the Commission's "statement of assurance", an essential part of the appointment process, failed to mention the positions the Special Adviser held with Nürnberger, a large insurance group.  

The Ombudsman inquired into the issue and found that the Commission's press release was incorrect and misleading. The Ombudsman also found that the premature announcement of the appointment, without any disclaimer, raised legitimate doubts for the interested public as to whether an unbiased and critical examination of the conflict of interest question had been carried out following the announcement. The Ombudsman found maladministration by the Commission on both counts. The Ombudsman also found that the Commission had failed to explain why the positions of the appointed Special Adviser in the insurance group were omitted from the "statement of assurance". She found that this also amounted to maladministration.

The case concerned alleged conflicts of interest in the Commission's scientific working group preparing an opinion on the safety and performance of dental amalgam and its alternatives. The Ombudsman inquired into the issue and found, in the case at hand, no maladministration as regards the Commission's evaluation of the independence and suitability of the members of the working group.

The Ombudsman took the opportunity to comment on certain more general aspects of the case. The Ombudsman underlined the importance of ensuring that scientific advice, provided by experts working with the Commission's scientific committees, is independent and objective. Even the perception that such scientific advice may not be independent and objective can be very damaging. The Commission must therefore ensure, not only that such scientific advice is fully independent and fully objective , but also that any reasonable doubts as regards the independence and objectivity of such advice are dispelled.

The Ombudsman therefore considers that it is important for the Commission to put in place very robust procedures which ensure that experts declare all their interests. The Commission should assess all these interests carefully. It should carry out these procedures as transparently as possible. The Ombudsman therefore very much welcomes the fact that the Commission is in the process of drafting 'Guidelines relating to the handling of declarations of interests of members, external experts and ad hoc experts involved in the activities of the Scientific Committees', aiming at explaining in a transparent manner how the assessment of experts' interests is made. The Ombudsman has asked the Commission to keep her updated on the progress of the drafting and the final Guidelines.

The case concerned an alleged conflict of interest by a former Commissioner in a Commission decision not to investigate an antitrust complaint made to the Commission. The antitrust complaint to the Commission alleged an infringement of EU competition rules by the Union of European Football Associations ('UEFA'). The complainant considered that the UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations ('the FFP') are unlawful insofar as they require that, over a period of three years, the relevant income of a football club has to at least match its relevant expenses. The Commission decided not to investigate the complaint on the grounds that the issue did not constitute a priority for it. In the complainant's view, this decision was influenced by the Commissioner in charge who had a conflict of interest, as he was an "associate" and a strong supporter of one particular club for which the FFP are advantageous.The complainant also pointed to the fact that the Commissioner had issued a joint declaration with the UEFA president, expressing support for the FFP, more than a year prior to his complaining to the Commission.