You have a complaint against an EU institution or body?

Search inquiries

Text search

Document type

Institution concerned

Type of settlement

Case number


Date range


Financial markets

Or try old keywords (Before 2016)

Showing 1 - 20 of 154 results

Decision in case 1990/2020/MIG on the European Central Bank’s (ECB) refusal of public access to documents concerning an alleged violation of EU law by a bank

Friday | 19 February 2021

The case concerned public access to files held by the European Central Bank (ECB) concerning one of the banks covered under its supervisory role. The ECB refused to give access based on the confidential nature of the documents at issue. The complainant had submitted a report to the ECB alleging that the bank had breached EU law. Based on his role in reporting the breach and his claim to be negatively impacted by the bank’s actions, the complainant was of the view that he should be granted access to the documents.

The Ombudsman found that it was reasonable for the ECB to consider that the documents at issue are confidential and protected by law. The fact that the complainant may have reported and been affected by the alleged breach does not mean he has a specific right to access the documents in question.

The Ombudsman concluded that the ECB was justified in refusing to give the complainant access to the requested documents, and closed the inquiry finding no maladministration.

Decision in case 1700/2020/OAM on how the European Commission dealt with a request for public access to a legal note on the German constitutional court’s ruling about the European Central Bank and the Court of Justice of the EU

Wednesday | 27 January 2021

The case concerned the European Commission’s refusal to grant public access to a note of its legal service on the German constitutional court’s ruling concerning a programme of the European Central Bank and a related judgment of the Court of Justice of the EU. In refusing access to the document, the Commission relied on the need to protect the Union’s financial, monetary and economic policy, as well as the need to protect legal advice and its decision-making process.

The Ombudsman inspected the document and found that there was no obvious error in the Commission’s assessment. She thus closed the inquiry finding no maladministration.

The judgment of the German constitutional court is unprecedented in terms of possible consequences on the EU legal order. The Ombudsman recognises that the public has an interest in being reassured that the Commission is properly assessing and, where needed, acting upon such consequences, in accordance with its role as guardian of the Treaties. She is confident the Commission will continue to keep the public informed, to the extent possible, of any future steps it decides to take in response to the judgment.

Decision of the European Ombudsman in joint inquiry 853/2020/KR on the European Commission’s decision to award a contract to BlackRock Investment Management to carry out a study on integrating environmental, social and governance (ESG) objectives into EU banking rules

Monday | 23 November 2020

The case concerns the European Commission's decision to award to BlackRock Investment Management a contract to carry out a study on integrating environmental, social and governance (ESG) objectives into EU banking rules. The Ombudsman opened an inquiry after receiving complaints from MEPs and a coalition of civil society organisations. The inquiry assessed how the Commission evaluated the company’s offer in the context of the call for tenders for carrying out the study.

The Ombudsman found that the company’s offer gave rise to concerns. First, if a bidder has a direct or indirect financial interest in developments in a market, because it invests in that market, or manages investments in that market, there is a clear risk that those interests may influence the outcome of its work in its own favour. This applies to the company in question. Second, because of the weighting applied by the Commission in its evaluation, the low price the company offered optimised its chances of securing the contract. Winning the contract may enable the company to gain insights and assert influence over a growing investment area of major and increasing relevance to its clients and therefore to the company itself.

The Ombudsman agrees that there are legitimate concerns around the risk of conflicts of interest that could negatively impact the performance of the contract as the company manifestly has an interest in the development of future EU regulation that will impact on itself and on its clients. She concluded that the Commission should have been more rigorous, and brought a wider perspective to bear, as it moved to verify, in compliance with the rules, that the company was not subject to a conflict of interest that may negatively affect the company’s ability to execute the contract. However, not doing so does not meet the threshold of maladministration, given the limitations of EU rules on awarding contracts in such situations on the Commission staff awarding the contract.

The Ombudsman suggests that the Commission updates its guidelines for public procurement procedures for policy-related service contracts, giving clarity to staff as to when to exclude bidders due to conflicts of interest that may negatively affect the performance of the contract. The Ombudsman also suggests the Commission reflect on whether a specific update to the applicable rules is also required to make them more relevant to the EU’s current policy ambitions. The EU is planning a period of unprecedented levels of spending and investment, which will necessarily involve significant linkages with the private sector.

This Decision will also be forwarded to EU legislators. It is a matter for the legislators to agree the legal underpinning of the ‘green transition’ including the appropriate manner in which its development and rollout is influenced.

Decision in case 2168/2019/KR on the European Banking Authority’s decision to approve the request from its Executive Director to become CEO of a financial lobby group

Wednesday | 18 November 2020

The case concerned the decision of the European Banking Authority (EBA) to allow its Executive Director to take up a position as CEO of a lobby group.

The Ombudsman found two instances of maladministration and made three recommendations to avoid similar issues arising in future.

First, the EBA should, where necessary, invoke the option of forbidding its senior staff from taking up certain positions after their term-of-office. Any such prohibition should be time-limited, for example, for two years.

Second, the EBA should set out criteria for when it will forbid such moves in future so as to give clarity to senior staff. Applicants for senior EBA posts should be informed of the criteria when they apply.

Third, the EBA should put in place internal procedures so that once it is known that a member of its staff is moving to another job, their access to confidential information is cut off with immediate effect.

The Ombudsman closed the inquiry after the EBA accepted her recommendations and adopted measures to implement them.

The Ombudsman is confident that the policies the EBA has introduced will help it avoid damaging revolving door moves in the future. Other EU institutions and agencies should draw on these new EBA safeguards when revising their own rules.