Search inquiries

The case concerned how the European Commission investigated the complainant’s concerns about an alleged conflict of interest. The EU Delegation to Ukraine organised a call for tenders to support policy and institutional reforms in agriculture in Ukraine. The complainant, the head of a consortium that submitted a tender, argued that the successful tenderer had a competitive advantage as its leading expert participated in meetings, where he might have obtained information on the project that was not available to the other bidders. The complainant contended that this was in breach of the principle of equal treatment.

The Ombudsman found that the Commission took the allegations seriously and thoroughly investigated the matter in line with the applicable rules and EU case-law. The Ombudsman therefore closed the inquiry with a finding of no maladministration.

The case concerned how the European Union Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation (Eurojust) carried out a selection procedure for the position of legal officer and assessed the complainant’s application.

The Ombudsman found nothing to suggest a procedural error or a manifest error in how the selection board assessed the complainant’s application and therefore closed the case with a finding of no maladministration.

The case concerned the decision of the European Defence Agency (EDA) to approve, with conditions, two intended jobs of its former chief executive, namely as head of public affairs for Airbus Spain and as strategic advisor for Airbus Defence and Space.

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

First, the Ombudsman recommended that, in future, the EDA should forbid its senior staff from taking up positions after their term of office where a clear conflict of interest arises with the legitimate interests of the EDA.

Second, the Ombudsman recommended that the EDA should set out the criteria for forbidding such moves, in order to give clarity to senior staff. Applicants for senior EDA posts should be informed of these criteria.

Furthermore, the Ombudsman suggested that the EDA should ensure that the specific form for those applying for authorisation for intended jobs is drafted in such a way that (former) staff members provide the relevant information to enable the EDA to perform a meaningful assessment from the outset.

The EDA agreed in essence to implement the recommendations on potentially forbidding staff from taking up certain positions and providing guidelines to staff on how it would apply such a measure. It indicated that it had started to adopt measures to implement the recommendations. At the same time, the EDA raised some questions about the Ombudsman's findings, which the Ombudsman has addressed in this decision.

The Ombudsman invites the EDA to inform her of any future actions it takes in relation to her recommendations, in particular with regards to the EDA’s criteria for forbidding intended jobs that give rise to clear conflicts of interest.

The Ombudsman conducted an inquiry on her own initiative into the decision of the European Defence Authority (EDA) to allow its former Chief Executive to take up two senior positions with Airbus, an aerospace company.

The Ombudsman’s inquiry also looked into how the EDA dealt with the fact that the former Chief Executive took up his new positions before the EDA had authorised him to do so, which is a breach of the EDA’s Staff Regulations.

The Ombudsman found that the conditions imposed on the former Chief Executive by the EDA in its authorising decision were insufficient when measured against the risks, and could not be monitored and enforced. There were also shortcomings in how the EDA assessed the risk of conflicts of interest.

The EDA should have instead applied stronger conditions and forbidden the former Chief Executive from taking up the position which gave rise to the greatest risk of conflict with the EDA’s legitimate interest. Not doing so amounted to maladministration by the EDA.

Based on these findings, the Ombudsman issued two recommendations:

(i) In future, the EDA should forbid its senior staff from taking up positions after their term of office where a clear conflict of interest arises with the legitimate interests of the EDA;

(ii) The EDA should set out the criteria for forbidding such moves, in order to give clarity to senior staff. Applicants for senior EDA posts should be informed of the criteria when they apply.