The complainant worked as an expert for an external EU contractor on an EU-funded project in Tanzania managed by the Delegation of the European Union to Tanzania and the East African Community. The complainant claimed that the contractor breached Tanzanian law by failing to register in Tanzania, preventing him from obtaining a valid work permit. Subsequently, the contractor informed the complainant of its decision to terminate his contract, taking into account concerns about the complainant’s work raised by the EU Delegation.

The Ombudsman opened an inquiry into the complainant’s concerns about how the Delegation handled both matters. In this regard, the Ombudsman referred to her consistently taken view that, where EU institutions seek the replacement of experts working on EU projects, those individuals should be heard before they are replaced. While the Commission argued that it did not ask for the expert’s replacement, the Ombudsman found that the Commission had been involved in the replacement decision. The Ombudsman thus found that the Commission failed to ensure that the complainant’s right to be heard was respected prior to his replacement, which amounted to maladministration.  She made a suggestion for improvement aimed at preventing the issue from occurring in the future. 

In addition, the Ombudsman found that, as the complainant’s contract had been terminated, no further inquiries were justified into the work permit issue. She nevertheless made a suggestion for improvement to the Commission, inviting it to verify the matter as it may affect other experts working on the EU project. 

 

EU agencies play a central role by implementing EU policies and providing technical, scientific, and legal expertise across key sectors. Any perception that their public servants pursue private interests that conflict with their duties can undermine public trust in their work. The European Ombudsman has consistently highlighted the risks of the “revolving door” phenomenon - where staff move to external roles, particularly in the private sector. Even a small number of high-profile cases can trigger public disquiet and reputational damage, as reflected in recent inquiries.

At the same time, the EU administration must attract skilled professionals to address priorities such as sustainability, digitalisation, and security. Measures such as cooling-off periods and job restrictions can affect career flexibility, especially in fields like law, finance or technology.

Against this background, this inquiry examined, from a systemic point of view, how EU agencies handle revolving door cases. The aim was to identify good practices and possible shortcomings in the policies and practices in place. To this end, the Ombudsman conducted a detailed review of the policies put in place by 15 EU agencies and inspected 54 files on individual cases dealt with by nine EU agencies. The Ombudsman inquiry team met with representatives of five EU agencies to clarify outstanding matters.

Almost all EU agencies that submitted documentation to the Ombudsman said that they had adopted the European Commission’s approach to implementing the legal obligations of staff transitioning to private-sector roles, whether upon departure or during unpaid leave. However, the Ombudsman found that some EU agencies have more detailed and comprehensive guidance on the implementation of these legal obligations than others. Differences that the Ombudsman identified concern how agencies deal with late or incomplete notifications of post-service activities, how agencies assess such notifications, the nature of the mitigating measures imposed, the transparency of decisions on notified post-service activities and how any obligations arising from them are monitored, as well as how agencies train staff on their ethics obligations.

Furthermore, the Ombudsman found that the rules and policies governing the post-mandate activities of non-staff, that is, members of the agencies’ Management Boards or Boards of Supervisors, differ markedly. Most agencies’ Board members are appointed by national authorities and represent their respective Member States, meaning that they remain subject to national ethics rules, which vary across Member States. To address potential conflicts of interest and reputational damage arising from revolving door moves, only a few of the governing bodies from the EU agencies examined in this inquiry have adopted policies regulating post-mandate activities of (former) Board members.

To assist EU agencies in further strengthening their rules on revolving door moves, the Ombudsman set out a series of good practice guidelines:

• A strong integrity framework begins with prevention: equipping staff and Board members with clear guidance, regular training, and ongoing awareness initiatives to ensure full understanding of ethical obligations is essential.
• This is reinforced by robust standard operating procedures for handling revolving door situations, which provide a clear, step-by-step approach to notifications, assessments, and compliance.
• Transparent criteria for restricting post-service or post-mandate roles must be established upfront, so that individuals are fully aware of limitations before joining.
• When a move to the private sector is signalled, agencies should act swiftly - by conducting thorough risk assessments, identifying potential conflicts of interest, and taking immediate precautionary steps such as revoking access rights or reassigning responsibilities where necessary.
• Decision-making should be fair, transparent, and well-documented, allowing individuals to comment on proposed restrictions while ensuring that risks are effectively managed through proportionate measures such as cooling-off periods, lobbying bans or, where needed, outright prohibitions.
• Timely, reasoned decisions must clearly outline rights of appeal.
• Beyond thorough decision-making, accountability depends on strong enforcement. This includes publishing summaries of authorised activities, actively monitoring compliance with imposed conditions, and upholding confidentiality obligations.
• Where breaches are suspected, agencies must respond promptly - establishing the facts, and pursuing disciplinary action in serious cases - to maintain trust and safeguard institutional integrity.

The Ombudsman concludes that EU agencies can learn a lot from each other’s practices. The Ombudsman intends to apply these good practice guidelines to cases that may be brought to her attention in the future.