COVID-19 related inquiries and initiatives

In response to the unprecedented situation created by COVID-19, many of the EU institutions, agencies and bodies adopted targeted measures. These ranged from coordinating the public health response in the EU and approving dedicated medicines to economic measures to address the social and economic impact of the crisis. Many also adapted their working processes.

In April 2020, the Ombudsman:

• Began examining the work of the EU administration in the context of the COVID-19 crisis, reminding the European Commission and Council that their obligations concerning transparency were just as important during a crisis.

In July 2020, the Ombudsman:

• Opened an own-initiative inquiry into the role of the European Centre for Disease Control (ECDC) in gathering and communicating information in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

• Opened an own-initiative inquiry into the extraordinary decision-making procedures put in place by the Council of the EU in the context of the COVID-19 crisis. 

• Launched three other initiatives concerning the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and COVID-19 related medicines, the European Commission and the transparency of procurement procedures related to COVID-19, and the European Investment Bank (EIB) and the transparency of funds related to the crisis. 

Ethical issues

The EU administration has many rules in place to prevent conflicts of interest or other ethical breaches. The Ombudsman’s role is to make sure these rules are implemented, as well as to help institutions avoid any perception that ethical breaches could occur.

The Ombudsman opened an inquiry into the Commission’s decision to award BlackRock Investment Management a contract to carry out a study on integrating environmental, social and governance (ESG) objectives into EU banking rules. The Ombudsman's 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 bid gave rise to concerns, not least because of its low price. As the world’s largest asset manager, it could be perceived to be part of a strategy to gain insights into, and influence over, the regulation of the financial sector. As such, the Ombudsman found that the Commission should have done more to verify that the company was not subject to a conflict of interest.

She suggested that the Commission update 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 contract. She also suggested that the applicable rules should be updated to address such situations, and will bring this to the attention of the EU legislators.

REVOLVING DOORS

Revolving doors – where staff members of the EU institutions take positions in the private sector or vice-versa – is an area of particular focus for the Ombudsman. Revolving door moves can be damaging for the institutions themselves and damaging to the public’s perception of the EU.

In January, the Ombudsman opened an inquiry into the decision by the European Banking Authority (EBA) to allow its then executive director to take up a position as CEO of the Association for Financial Markets in Europe (AFME), an association representing banks and other financial institutions.

The Ombudsman found that the EBA should have forbidden the job move, and that the measures it put in place to prevent conflicts of interest are not sufficient to address the risks involved. The Ombudsman recommended that the EBA should, in future: forbid senior staff members from taking up certain positions after their term of office, with clear criteria; and put in place procedures so that, once it is known that a staff member is moving to another job, their access to confidential information is immediately withdrawn.

The EBA agreed to implement the Ombudsman’s recommendations.

Lobbying transparency

While it is a normal for interest groups seek to exert influence over the EU’s democratic decision-making process, it is essential that this takes place according to the highest transparency standards, to mitigate concerns about potential conflicts of interest. Lobbying transparency and how interest groups engage with the EU institutions are recurring themes of Ombudsman inquiries.

The Ombudsman’s inquiry into corporate sponsorship of the Presidency of the Council of the EU came to a successful close in June 2020, after the Council agreed to consider drawing up guidance for Member States. The complainant, an NGO, had turned to the Ombudsman raising concerns about the sponsorship of the Romanian EU Presidency (in the first half of 2019) by a major soft drinks company.

The Ombudsman considered that, as the Presidency is part of the Council, its activities are likely to be perceived by the wider European public as being linked to the Council and the EU as a whole. The Ombudsman therefore found that the use of sponsorship by the Presidency entails reputational risks, which the Council should address. In addition to the Council’s positive response, a number of Member States indicated that they would no longer accept sponsorship in the context of their presidencies.

Fundamental rights

The Ombudsman regularly receives complaints from individuals who believe their fundamental rights have been breached. She can also look into more systemic fundamental rights issues related to the work of EU institutions or agencies.

In November 2020, the Ombudsman opened an inquiry into how the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) deals with alleged breaches of fundamental rights. The aim of the inquiry is to assess the effectiveness and transparency of Frontex’s complaints mechanism for those who feel their rights have been violated in to context of Frontex border operations (including those that have been returned to non-EU countries), as well as the role and independence of Frontex’s ‘Fundamental Rights Officer’.