Case title: How the European Innovation Council and SMEs Executive Agency (EISMEA) and the European Commission ensure that the use of artificial intelligence (AI) by external experts is compatible with their tasks as evaluators of applications for Horizon funds

Date: Monday, 23 March 2026

Meeting at DG Research & Innovation’s office

Present 

European Commission

• Head of Complaints and Litigation Sector. DG RTD.H1. Common Legal Support Service (CLSS)

• Legal Officer, DG RTD.H1. CLSS

• Administrative Assistant, DG RTD.H1. CLSS

• Policy Analyst, REGIO.G1 

• Legal Officer, REGIO.B4

European Innovation Council and SMEs Executive Agency (EISMEA)

• Team Leader Legal Team, EISMEA.Team.C-Legal Team

• Legal Manager, EISMEA.Team.C-Legal

• Legal Adviser, EISMEA.Team.C-Legal

European Ombudsman: 

• Tanja EHNERT, Inquiries Coordinator 

• Michał KRAJEWSKI, Inquiries Officer

• José Luis da MOTA FLORES, Inquiries Trainee

Purpose of the inspection of documents and meeting 

The Ombudsman opened an inquiry concerning how the EISMEA and the Commission ensure that the use of third-party artificial intelligence (AI) tools by external experts contracted for the evaluation of proposals for EU funding is compatible with their tasks as evaluators. The purpose of the meeting was for the Ombudsman inquiry team to gather information and clarifications regarding the rules applicable in this regard and the means for monitoring whether these rules are observed in practice. EISMEA and the Commission provided, as requested, some clarifications to the Ombudsman before the meeting and  shared the relevant documentation with the Ombudsman inquiry team.

Introduction and procedural information 

The Ombudsman inquiry team introduced themselves, thanked the Commission and EISMEA representatives for meeting with them and set out the purpose of the meeting. 

They outlined the legal framework that applies to meetings held by the Ombudsman, in particular, that the Ombudsman would not disclose any information identified by the Commission and the EISMEA as confidential, neither to the complainant nor to any other person outside the Ombudsman’s Office, without the Commission and EISMEA’s prior consent.^[1]

The inquiry team explained that they would draw up a draft report on the meeting to be sent to the Commission and the EISMEA to ensure that the contents were factually accurate and complete. The meeting report would then be finalised, included in the file and provided to the complainant. No confidential information would be included in the report or otherwise provided to the complainant or any third party.

Information exchanged 

Background information 

A short introduction was made by the Commission representatives to explain the process for evaluating proposals submitted under the Horizon Europe programme. The Commission explained that the process is focused on ‘excellence’, ‘impact’ and ‘quality and efficiency of implementation’ and, to ensure the quality and reliability of assessments, the selection of proposals is based on the evaluation made by qualified independent external experts. The process typically begins with an admissibility and eligibility check, followed by the allocation of the submitted proposals to independent external expert evaluators for their evaluation. 

Before starting the evaluation process, the evaluators are briefed on the evaluation processes and procedures, the content of the topics under consideration, the need to evaluate proposals as they were submitted, rather than their potential should certain changes be made. External experts are also briefed about the terms of their contracts (confidentiality, impartiality, conflicts of interest, completing tasks, penalties for non-compliance, etc). 

Proposals are normally evaluated by an evaluation committee (‘the panel’) which is composed of a minimum of three independent external experts and then a final review is

conducted by the panel. The evaluation process may also be followed by independent observers. At the end of the evaluation, the Granting Authority produces the final ranked list and the list of applications proposed for funding. The Commission representatives underlined that the process is demanding as it involves the evaluation of extensive and complex information by different actors, which requires a lot of effort for ensuring the uniformity of evaluations.

Risk assessment by EISMEA regarding the use of third-party AI by external experts

The EISMEA representatives said they are aware of concerns of applicants related to the use of third-party AI tools by external experts, including the potential risk of disclosure of technical and business data contained in the proposals, as well as personal data. 

Nevertheless, the EISMEA acknowledged that third-party AI tools can be useful for certain ancillary tasks, including for language and style editing, which helps some experts to express their complex opinions more clearly. In this context and taking note that the experts’ contract at the time did not include provisions on the use of AI tools, the EISMEA initially had not explicitly regulated the use by external experts of third-party AI tools, but rather instructed them how to use AI tools responsibly. Since then, the quality of expert comments has overall improved, in particular in terms of language and style, which helps the applicants to understand the outcome of the evaluations.

The EISMEA representatives noted that they had performed a risk assessment regarding the use of AI in the different programmes they manage. Every year, each EISMEA department assesses the AI-related risk they encounter in the performance of their tasks. 

In addition, the EISMEA received in 2024 very few complaints regarding the use of thirdparty AI tools by external experts. Since then, the EISMEA has continuously updated its own internal compulsory briefing for expert evaluators, which is based on the Commission’s standard briefing for Horizon Europe external expert evaluators, and which now contains specific instructions regarding the use of AI tools. In parallel, EISMEA has also updated its internal guidance for all units and programmes on how to handle AI-related complaints. 

Rules concerning the use of AI by expert evaluators

The EISMEA representatives said that the rules for the use of third-party AI tools by external experts are contained in the model contract for experts and in the annex thereto laying down a ‘Code of Conduct’^[2]. 

The Commission has developed these documents at ‘corporate level’, which means that they are applicable across EU programmes and procedures managed by the Commission, and not only to those managed by the EISMEA. 

The Commission continues monitoring developments in this area and, where necessary, adapts its guidance and documents to ensure that evaluation practices remain robust, fair, and trustworthy.

In this context, the EISMEA applies the corporate documents by analogy to all EU programmes managed by the Agency.

The Ombudsman inquiry team and the representatives of the Commission and EISMEA discussed the applicable rules contained in the above-mentioned documents, namely that the experts (i) must remain responsible for their reviews, (ii) they can use third-party AI tools only for ancillary tasks, under their full responsibility, and any such use must be documented and made available to the contracting authority upon request, and (iii) they must also remain responsible for the protection of confidential information, including personal data when using AI tools (where exceptionally allowed). 

The EISMEA representatives clarified that compliance with the corporate model expert contract, the Code of Conduct, and the information provided during the briefings, is mandatory for external experts. They are contractually liable in case of any breach of the rules as per their signed expert contract.

The Commission representatives further clarified that the Code of Conduct of the expert model contract was updated on 15 December 2025 to clarify the conditions for the use of AI tools by experts³. The above rules were also included in the expert contract because of complaints from applicants regarding the use of third-party AI tools by expert evaluators received in 2024. Therefore, they were not yet formally in force during the assessment of the complainant’s proposal, which gave rise to this inquiry.

The EISMEA representatives added that, in accordance with the Code of Conduct of the expert model contract, external experts must provide to the granting authority evidence on the use of AI tools upon request. EISMEA therefore requests this evidence in particular when a complaint regarding the use of third-party AI tool is lodged, which, until now, has happened only a few times. 

At the Commission level, other options were also under internal discussion, such as requiring external experts to declare the use of AI tools proactively, when submitting their reviews of proposals, and not only in case of subsequent complaints. However, it was considered that requiring declarations of any use of AI proactively would result in a need to record and verify a great number of additional documents. The competent administration would need to allocate to this additional task significant resources, considering that external experts participate in many different EU programmes managed not only by the EISMEA, but also by the Commission, as well as other executive agencies.

The inquiry team asked whether the EISMEA and the Commission had considered introducing a simple questionnaire in which the external experts could record proactively whether they have used third-party AI tools, which AI tools exactly, and for which ancillary task, providing further brief comments if necessary. 

The Commission and EISMEA representatives replied that introducing even such a system would require significant resources, as the Commission and executive agencies overall

³ The new version provides under:

Point 1.3: “(…). AI tools may be used only for strictly ancillary purposes, under their full responsibility, and that any such use must be documented and made available to the contracting authority upon request”. Point 3. Confidentiality. “The confidentiality obligations also apply when using AI tools (where exceptionally allowed).” 

Point 4. “Data protection obligations must also be respected when using AI tools (where exceptionally allowed).”

receive tens of thousands of submitted proposals which are evaluated individually by at least three independent experts. 

Documentation of the use of AI tools by expert evaluators

The inquiry team asked how the provision of the Code of Conduct regarding the documentation on the use of AI tools by external experts is put into practice. According to the relevant provision, “AI tools may be used only for ancillary purposes and under the full responsibility of the expert; their use must be appropriately documented and made available to the contracting authority on request” (underlining added). 

Moreover, the inquiry team asked whether there are specific rules in place concerning the precise form and contents of the external experts’ own documentation of their use of thirdparty AI tools, as such practical information does not seem to be provided in the Code of Conduct or in the briefings for experts shared with the inquiry team.

The Commission representatives replied that there are many ways of preparing such documentation, but one way could be to keep two versions of the expert review, that is, one version before and another version after editing by AI tools. This would enable a comparison, if needed, as clear evidence that the initial version of the review was prepared by the expert without the use of AI tools. However, this form is not mandatory, and different ways of keeping the documentation are possible. The EISMEA representatives clarified that further information in this regard is provided to the experts orally during their mandatory training (expert briefings), in response to their specific questions.

Conclusion of the meeting

The Ombudsman inquiry team then thanked the Commission and EISMEA representatives for their time and for the explanations and documentation provided, and the meeting ended.

Brussels, 16 June 2026

Tanja Ehnert	Michał Krajewski
Inquiries Coordinator	Inquiries Officer

 

[1] Article 4.8 of the European Ombudsman’s Implementing Provisions.

[2] The ‘Expert Model Contract’ and the ‘Expert Code of Conduct’ can be found at the EU Funding & Tenders Portal, under the Section: ‘Work as an expert’.