COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Early-Detection and Exclusion System (EDES) - Panel referred to in Article 143 of the Financial Regulation Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 34th Annual Report on the protection of the European Union's financial interests and the fight against fraud - 2022
Date: 2023-07-27
Institutions: European Anti-Fraud Office, European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, EU budget, EU strategy, activity report, digitisation, fight against crime, financial control, fraud, fraud against the EU, innovation

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 27.7.2023  SWD(2023) 272 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Early-Detection and Exclusion System (EDES) - Panel referred to in Article 143 of the Financial Regulation Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT  34th Annual Report on the protection of the European Union's financial interests and the fight against fraud - 2022 {COM(2023) 464 final} - {SWD(2023) 273 final} - {SWD(2023) 274 final} - {SWD(2023) 275 final} - {SWD(2023) 276 final}  
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. 

INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 2 

2.  THE PANEL ............................................................................................................... 3 

2.1.  The composition of the Panel ............................................................................ 3 

2.2.  Role of the Panel ............................................................................................... 5 

2.3.  Recommendations of the Panel ......................................................................... 8 

3.  THE  PUBLICATION  OF  ADMINISTRATIVE  ACTIONS  ADOPTED 

WITH REGARD TO PERSONS AND ENTITIES .................................................... 9 

4.  COOPERATION WITH OLAF ................................................................................ 10 

5.  BEGINNING OF THE MANDATE OF THE NEW PANEL .................................. 11 

6.  ASSESSMENT OF REMEDIAL MEASURES ....................................................... 14 

7.  OVERVIEW OF THE CASES ................................................................................. 15 

 
 
 
 
 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

The  European  Commission  manages  the  EDES,  the  Early-Detection  and  Exclusion 
System.  The  EDES  was  set  up  in  2016  and  is  rooted  in  the  Financial  Regulation 
applicable  to  the  EU  budget (1).  Over  the  years,  the  EDES  has  become  a  solid  and 
effective  tool  for  strengthening  the  protection  of  the  EU’s  financial  interests  against 
unreliable  persons  and  entities  and  against  fraudsters  (e.g.  the  system  provides  for  the 
exclusion  of  such  persons  and  entities  from  participating  in  EU  and/or  European 
Development Funds (EDF) award procedures (2). 

On the one hand, the EDES protects the EU financial interests by providing for a broad 
range of prohibited practices that represent a risk and, accordingly, need to be impeded. 
In this respect, it constitutes a privileged instrument to ensure an effective protection of 
the  EU  financial  interests  through  measures  of  an  administrative  nature,  while  national 
authorities  remain  competent  for  adopting  sanctions,  including  those  of  a  criminal 
nature3.  On  the  second  hand,  the  system  ensures:  (i)  the  independent  and  transparent 
centralised assessment of administrative measures taken to that effect; and (ii) the respect 
of the fundamental  rights of the persons and entities concerned.  In that way, the EDES 
sets up a balance between the protection of the EU financial interest  and the  respect of 
the relevant principles of EU law, such as proportionality, the right to be heard, the right 
of defence, legal certainty, and the presumption of innocence. 

The Financial Regulation contains rules that centralise the exclusion process for all EU 
institutions, agencies, offices, and bodies. In particular, Article 143 provides for an inter-
institutional panel (‘the Panel’) presided over by a standing high-level independent chair 
(‘the Chair’) and acting in each case on request of the competent authorising officer.  

The  key  responsibility  of  the  Panel  is  to  issue  recommendations  on  the  adoption  of 
administrative actions (i.e. exclusion and/or financial penalty and, where applicable, the 

(1)  Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 July 2018 
on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union, amending Regulations (EU) No 
1296/2013, (EU) No 1301/2013, (EU) No 1303/2013, (EU) No 1304/2013, (EU) No 1309/2013, (EU) 
No 1316/2013, (EU) No 223/2014, (EU) No 283/2014, and Decision No 541/2014/EU and repealing 
Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012, OJ L 193 of 30.7.2018, p.1. 

(2)  As  of  1  January  2021,  the  EDF  has  been  included  in  the  general  budget  under  the  Neighbourhood 
Development  and  International  Cooperation  instrument  (see  Regulation  (EU)  No  2021/947  of  the 
European Parliament and of the Council of 9 June 2021 establishing the Neighbourhood, Development 
and  International  Cooperation  Instrument  –  Global  Europe,  amending  and  repealing  Decision  No 
466/2014/EU  and  repealing  Regulation  (EU)  2017/1601  and  Council  Regulation  (EC,  Euratom)  No 
480/2009).  under  the  Neighbourhood  Development  and  International  Cooperation  instrument.  EDF 
actions adopted before that date continue to be governed and implemented by the 11th EDF Financial 
Regulation.  

(3)  Contrary  to  what  had  been  the  norm  with  previous  versions  of  the  Financial  Regulation,  which 
provided  for  the  imposition  of  administrative  sanctions  on  unreliable  economic  operators,  in  the 
current  Financial  Regulation,  adopted  in  2018,  the  purpose  of  the  EDES  system  is  not  punitive  but 
aims exclusively at the protection of the financial interests of the EU, by stopping unreliable entities 
from  accessing  Union  funds,  albeit  for  a  limited  period  and,  at  the  same  time,  deterring  them  from 
misbehaving once they are allowed to benefit from those funds again. 

2 

 
                                                 
 
publication  of  information  related  to  these  actions),  following  a  request  from  an 
authorising officer by delegation (4) of any of the EU institutions, agencies, offices, and 
bodies. After the assessment of the case, the Panel addresses its recommendation to the 
requesting authorising officer. It is yet the authorising officer’s discretion to follow or to 
deviate  from  the  Panel’s  recommendation  when  deciding  the  exclusion  of  persons  or 
entities as well as the imposition of a financial penalty on them. In addition, pursuant to 
Article 93 of the Financial Regulation, the Panel is also responsible for assessing cases of 
internal financial irregularities by EU staff.  

2022  was  the  first  full  year  under  the  5  year  term  of  office  of  the  second  Chair  of  the 
Panel, Ms Maria Isabel Rofes i Pujol, a former judge at the European Union Civil Service 
Tribunal,  who  was  appointed  in  November  2021.  Her  Deputy  is  Mr  Igors  Ludboržs,  a 
former Member of the European Court of Auditors. 

This  Staff Working  Document presents  the  seventh  year of activity of the EDES Panel 
and also covers the first months of 2023. 

2.  THE PANEL 

By  centralising  the  requests  from  authorising  officers,  the  Panel  ensures  the  coherent 
operation  of  the  administrative  actions  (i.e.  exclusion,  financial  penalties,  and 
publication) adopted at EU level to protect the EU and the EDF budgets. In particular, it 
relieves the  authorising  officers  in  each case  from  (i)  the burden of having to  ascertain 
whether the misconduct is established and having to carry out a preliminary classification 
it  in  law,  (ii)  having  to  ensure  that  the  persons  and  entities’  right  to  be  heard  has  been 
respected and, (iii) where applicable, having to  assess the remedial  measures submitted 
by the persons or entities. 

2.1.  The composition of the Panel 

As laid down in Article 143 of the Financial Regulation, the Panel is composed of: 

- 

- 

a standing high-level independent Chair; 

two  permanent  members  representing  the  Commission  as  owner  of  the  Early-
Detection and Exclusion system, who express a joint position on each case submitted 
to the Panel and; 

- 

one representative of the requesting authorising officer. 

The Chair of the Panel and his/her Deputy are appointed by the Commission (5) and are 
independent in the performance of their duties (6). They are chosen from among former 

(4)  Authorising officers by delegation  generally have the rank of Director-General or Director. They are 
responsible for: (i) implementing revenue and expenditure  in accordance with the principle of sound 
management, including through ensuring reporting on performance; and (ii) ensuring compliance with 
the requirements of legality and regularity and equal treatment of recipients of EU funds. 

(5)  The rules applicable to the Deputies are to be found in the Rules of Procedure of the Panel. These rules 

also apply to the Chair. 

3 

 
                                                 
members of the Court of Justice of the EU, the Court of Auditors or former officials who 
have  had  at  least  the  rank  of  Director-General  in  a  Union  institution  other  than  the 
Commission.  Their  independence  is  guaranteed  by  the  fact  that  their  term  of  office  is 
limited and is non-renewable. 

The two permanent Members of the Panel representing the Commission in 2022 were Mr 
Hubert  Szlaszewski,  a  Principal  Adviser  in  the  Secretariat  General  of  the  Commission, 
and Mr Olivier Waelbroeck, Director of the Commission Central Financial Service in the 
Directorate-General  for  Budget  (DG  BUDGET) (7).  In  March  2023,  Mr  Kristian 
Vangrieken,  a  senior  staff  member  of  the  Commission  DG  BUDGET  took  over  the 
mandate of Mr Hubert Szlaszewski who had retired. 

For  each  case,  the  additional  member  representing  the  requesting  authorising  officer  is 
designated according to the rules of procedure and the internal administrative rules of the 
institution, agency, office, or body concerned. 

Where  dealing  with  cases  of  internal  financial  irregularities  by  EU  staff  pursuant  to 
Article 93 of the Financial Regulation, the Panel is composed of 3 additional members: a 
representative  of  the  competent  appointing  authority,  a  member  appointed  by  the 
competent  staff  committee  and  a  member  of  the  legal  service  of  the  Union  institution 
concerned. 

The  Panel  is  assisted  by  observers  and,  as  such,  a  representative  of  the  Commission’s 
Legal Service sits in on each of the Panel’s meetings. The observers do not take part in 
the  adoption  of  recommendations.  Members  of  staff  of  the  European  Anti-fraud  Office 
(“OLAF”) participate in the Panel’s meetings as observers in cases referred to the Panel 
on the basis of an OLAF investigation. Their attendance allows the Panel to be informed 
first-hand  of:  (i)  the  facts  and  findings  resulting  from  OLAF  investigations;  (ii)  the 
estimated financial impact of the misconduct; (iii) the procedural guarantees accorded to 
the  persons  and  entities  concerned;  (iv)  the  state  of  exchanges  of  information  between 
OLAF and the competent authorities of the Member States; and (v) where applicable, the 
state of the exchanges of information between OLAF and EPPO. The active contribution 
of the Commission’s Legal Service and of OLAF to the workings of the Panel is key in 
providing  it  with  relevant  information  about  the  facts8  and  legal  advice  on  their 
classification in law and allows it to deliver high-quality recommendations. 

The  Panel  is  supported  by  a  permanent  secretariat  provided  by  the  Commission  and 
administratively attached to the Directorate-General for Budget. 

(6)  Article 144(3) of the Financial Regulation. 

(7)  Deputies of the Permanent Members are: Mr Rene Slootjes, Head of Unit in the Secretariat-General of 
the  Commission  designated  ad  personam  and  Mr  Alessandro  Nucara,  Head  of  Unit  in  the  Central 
Financial Service in the Directorate-General for Budget.   

(8)   The Panel does not have investigative powers. 

4 

 
                                                                                                                                                 
The Panel has its own rules of procedure, which are laid down by Commission Decision 
2018/1220 (9). These rules aim to: (i) govern the way the Panel organises its work; and 
(ii) inform all parties involved, including the persons or entities subject to an exclusion 
procedure, of their rights and obligations. These rules implement and supplement, as far 
as  necessary,  the  rules  of  Article  143  of  the  Financial  Regulation.  In  2021,  the 
Commission amended the rules of procedure of the Panel (10), with the purpose of: 

- 

- 

- 

defining the practical arrangements for close cooperation between the Panel and the 
European Public Prosecutor’s Office (“EPPO”) (11); 

ensuring  the  continuity  of  the  functioning  of  the  Panel  and,  consequently,  the 
continued protection of the Union’s financial interests; and 

harmonising  the  designation  of  deputies  to  the  permanent  members  of  the 
Commission. 

2.2.  Role of the Panel 

Pursuant to the Financial Regulation (12), in the absence of a final national judgment – or, 
where  applicable,  in  the  absence  of  a  final  administrative  decision  –  the  authorising 
officer  who  envisages  to  exclude  and/or  fine  unreliable  economic  operators  must  first 
request  a  recommendation of the Panel.  The  grounds for exclusion  that require a Panel 
recommendation are the following (13): 

- 

- 

- 

grave professional misconduct resulting from: (i) the violation of applicable laws or 
regulations  or  ethical  standards  of  the  profession  to  which  the  economic  operator 
concerned  belong,  or  (ii)  the  engagement  in  any  wrongful  conduct  which  has  an 
impact  on  professional  credibility  where  such  conduct  denotes  wrongful  intent  or 
gross negligence; 

fraud,  corruption,  participation  in  a  criminal  organisation,  money  laundering  or 
terrorist financing, terrorist-related offences or offences linked to terrorist activities, 
and child labour or other forms of trafficking in human beings; 

significant  deficiencies  in  complying  with  the  main  obligations  in  performing  a 
contract financed by the budget (‘serious breach of obligations’), which: (i) has led 
to  early  termination  of  the  contract  or  to  the  application  of  liquidated  damages  or 
other  contractual  penalties;  or  (ii)  has  been  discovered  following  checks,  audits  or 
investigations by an authorising officer, OLAF or the Court of Auditors; 

(9)  Commission  Decision  (EU)  2018/1220  of  6  September  2018  on  the  rules  of  procedure  of  the  panel 
referred to in Article 143 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of 
the Council (OJ L 226, 7.9.2018, p. 7). 

(10)  Commission Decision (EU) 2021/1081 of 28 June 2021 (OJ L 234, 2.7.2021, p. 99). 

(11)  As of 1 June 2021, the EPPO is operational and has started its investigative and prosecutorial tasks. 

(12)  See Article 136 of the Financial Regulation. 

(13)  See Article 136(2) of the Financial Regulation. 

5 

 
                                                 
 
- 

- 

irregularity within the meaning of Article 1(2) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) 
No 2988/95 (14) and; 

the creation or use of a shell company in a different jurisdiction from the one of the 
registered office, central administration or principal place of business, with the intent 
to circumvent fiscal, social or any other legal obligations. 

In  principle,  each  case  is  assessed  by  the  Panel  in  two  phases.  Firstly,  it  examines  the 
facts and findings and performs a preliminary qualification in law of these facts to hold 
an adversarial procedure. To ensure the right to be heard, the Panel sends an adversarial 
letter  to  the  economic  operator  concerned,  providing  it  with  the  possibility  to  submit 
observations  in  writing.  Secondly,  the  Panel  examines  the  written  observations  and 
adopts  a  recommendation,  which  is  addressed  to  the  requesting  authorising  officer. 
During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Panel started to operate remotely (15) and resorted 
to  written  procedures  where  necessary  and  appropriate.  Such  working  methods  have 
proved  an  effective  means  of  conducting  the  procedure  and  have  still  been  widely 
applied, after the end of the pandemic, during the reporting period. 

As  a  general  rule,  the  Panel  must  adopt  its  recommendation  within  3  months  from  the 
opening  of  the  case.  A  case  is  opened  when  the  Chair  finds  that  the  file  is  complete 
because  it  contains  all  the  necessary  documents  and  information,  and  the  Panel  is  in  a 
position  to  establish  a  preliminary  classification  in  law,  with  a  view  to  notifying  the 
economic operator concerned thereof. 

The  rules  of  procedure  determine  that  the  economic  operator  is  granted  3  weeks  to 
submit  its  observations.  In  exceptional  cases,  following  a  motivated  request  from  the 
economic  operator  concerned,  the  deadline  may  be  extended  by  no  more  than  half  the 
period initially  granted.  The Panel  takes particular care to  ensure  that sufficient  time  is 
granted  for  submitting  the  observations,  taking  account,  where  applicable,  of  specific 
justified  circumstances  This  also  allows 
informed 
recommendations, striking a balance between aggravating and mitigating circumstances, 
and to ensure that equal treatment of economic operators is continuously safeguarded. 

to  adopt  fully 

the  Panel 

Nevertheless,  without  prejudice  to  the  right  of  defence  of  the  economic  operator 
concerned, the Panel  strives to  act  swiftly where  the nature or the circumstances of the 
case require  that it  be  given priority  (e.g. business  continuity  and pending procurement 
procedures). 

(14)  Council  Regulation  (EC,  Euratom)  No  2988/95  of  18  December  1995  on  the  protection  of  the 
European Communities financial interests (OJ L 312, 23.12.1995, p. 1) which defines irregularity as: 
‘any infringement of a provision of Community law resulting from an act or omission by an economic 
operator, which has, or would have, the effect of prejudicing the general budget of the Communities or 
budgets managed by them, either by reducing or losing revenue accruing from own resources collected 
directly on behalf of the Communities, or by an unjustified item of expenditure.’ 

(15)  By videoconference. 

6 

 
                                                 
Prior to adopting a recommendation, the Panel performs an assessment of  the facts and 
findings established against the economic operator. It is important to recall that the Panel 
has no investigative powers. It therefore relies, inter alia, on: 

a) 

facts established through audits or investigations carried out by: (i) “EPPO”; (ii) the 
European Court of Auditors; (iii) OLAF; (iv) internal audits; or (v) any other check, 
audit or control performed under the responsibility of the authorising officer; 

b)  non-final  administrative  decisions,  which  may  include  disciplinary  measures  taken 
by  the  competent  supervisory  body  responsible  for  verifying  the  application  of 
professional ethical standards; 

c) 

d) 

facts  referred to  in  decisions  of persons and entities implementing  EU funds under 
indirect management (16); 

information sent by entities implementing EU funds under shared management with 
Member States; and 

e)  decisions  of:  (i)  the  Commission  relating  to  the  infringement  of  the  EU’s 
competition rules; or (ii) a national competent authority relating to the infringement 
of EU or national competition law. 

Where the Panel considers that the economic operator concerned should be excluded as 
well as where that a financial penalty should be imposed on that economic operator, the 
Panel’s recommendation contains the preliminary classification in law of the misconduct, 
including  a  legal  assessment  of  the  measure  proposed  in  relation  to  the  respect  of  the 
proportionality  principle (17).  More  specifically,  the  Panel’s  recommendation  may 
include one or several of the following assessments: 

a) 

the analysis of the misconduct in light of the established facts and findings; 

b) 

the  analysis  of  the  remedial  measures  taken  by  the  economic  operator  (except  for 
cases  of  fraud,  corruption,  criminal  organisations,  money  laundering,  terrorist 
financing  or  offences,  child  labour,  or  other  offences  concerning  trafficking  in 
human beings). 

c) 

the presence of aggravating or mitigating circumstances; 

d) 

e) 

the  need  to  exclude  the  economic  operator  concerned  and,  in  that  case,  the 
recommended duration of such an exclusion; 

the need to publish the information related to the economic operator excluded as well 
as where it is subject to a financial penalty; 

(16)  For  example,  by:  the  European  Central  Bank;  the  European  Investment  Bank;  the  European 
Investment Fund; international organisations; non-EU countries, or the  bodies designated by non-EU 
countries and Member States. 

(17) Article 136(3) of the Financial Regulation. 

7 

 
                                                 
f) 

the need to impose a financial penalty and its amount and; 

g) 

the need for the authorising officer to consider any other relevant elements.  

When  remedial  measures  have  been  taken  by  the  economic  operator  to  address  the 
negative  consequences  of  the  misconduct,  the  Panel  may  decide  to  recommend  that  no 
actions are adopted. Such an outcome is in line with Articles 136(6)(a) and Article 136(7) 
of  the  Financial  Regulation,  mirrors  Article  57(6)  of  the  Public  Procurement 
Directive (18) and allows a person or an entity to avoid an exclusion where it has adopted 
remedial measures to an extent that is sufficient to demonstrate its reliability.  

2.3.  Recommendations of the Panel 

In the light of the principle of proportionality (19), and taking into account the remedial 
measures  –  if  any  –  taken  by  the  economic  operator  concerned (20),  the  Panel  can 
recommend adopting the following administrative actions: 

- 

- 

the exclusion of the economic operator concerned for a maximum of 3 years (21) or 5 
years  in  the  case  of  the  most  serious  misconducts (22)  from  participating  in  award 
procedures funded under the EU budget; 

the imposition of a financial penalty of a maximum of 10% of the total value of the 
legal commitment the recipient (23) of EU funds concerned has entered into: 

(i) 

(ii) 

either as an alternative to a decision to exclude the economic operator, where 
such an exclusion would be disproportionate; or 

to  ensure  a  deterrent  effect,  in  addition  to  an  exclusion,  where  economic 
operator  has  adopted  a  systemic  and  recurrent  conduct  with  the  intention  of 
unduly obtaining EU funds (24). 

(18)  Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public 
procurement  and  repealing  Directive  2004/18/EC  (OJ  L  94,  28.3.2014,  p.  65)  and  Directive 
2014/23/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  26  February  2014  on  the  award  of 
concession contracts (OJ L 94, 28.3.2014, p. 1). 

(19)  This principle is enshrined in Articles 49 and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European 

Union and recalled in the Financial Regulation. 

(20)  Where  remedial  measures  have  been  adopted  to  an  extent  that  is  sufficient  to  demonstrate  the 

reliability of the economic operator, no administrative actions can be imposed upon it. 

(21)  Exclusion  situations  provided  under  Article  136(1)(c),  (e),  (f),  (g)  and  (h):  grave  professional 
misconduct,  significant  deficiencies  in  complying  with  main  obligations  in  the  implementation  of  a 
legal commitment, irregularity, or intentional circumvention of fiscal, social, or other legal obligation 

(22)  Exclusion  situations  listed  under  Article  136(1)(d):  fraud,  corruption,  conduct  related  to  a  criminal 
organization, money laundering or terrorist financing, terrorist offences or offences linked to terrorist 
activities, child labour or trafficking of human beings. 

(23)  A  recipient  means  a  beneficiary,  a  contractor,  a  remunerated  external  expert  or  a  person  or  entity 
receiving  prizes  or  funds  under  a  financial  instrument  or  implementing  EU  funds  in  the  method  of 
budget implementation of indirect management. Financial penalties cannot be imposed on participants, 
since their amount is calculated on the basis of a legal commitment at stake. 

8 

 
                                                 
However,  a  financial  penalty  cannot  be  imposed  on  a  recipient  who  has  disclosed 
that it is in a situation of exclusion. 

- 

the publication of  the exclusion  and, where applicable, the  financial penalty on the 
Commission’s  website  to  reinforce  the  deterrent  effect  of  the  administrative 
action (25). 

The recommendation of the Panel is not binding and the referring authorising officer can 
deviate  from  it.  However,  pursuant  to  Article  143  of  the  Financial  Regulation,  the 
authorising officer who envisages taking a more severe administrative action than what 
has been recommended by the Panel, has to make sure that his/her decision is taken with 
due respect for the right of the economic operator to be heard. 

Without prejudice to the administrative autonomy of the EU institutions and bodies and 
with  due  respect  for  the  full  discretion  of  the  authorising  officer  to  deviate  from  the 
recommendation of the Panel, the recommendations of the Panel  are taken seriously by 
the  authorising  officers.  These  recommendations  carry  a  significant  weight  because  the 
Panel is a specialised body and because of the recognised authority of its standing high-
level  independent  Chair.  This  is  further  embedded  in  Article  143  of  the  Financial 
Regulation  which  requires  the  authorising  officer  to  inform  the  Panel  when  he  or  she 
decides to deviate from the recommendation. In this regard, it must be pointed out that, 
since the introduction of the early-detection and exclusion system in 2016, no authorising 
officer has deviated from a Panel recommendation. 

3.  THE  PUBLICATION  OF  ADMINISTRATIVE  ACTIONS  ADOPTED  WITH  REGARD  TO 

PERSONS AND ENTITIES 

The publication of the administrative actions adopted concerning economic operators is a 
powerful tool to ensure a deterrent effect and to prevent misuse of EU funds. Currently, 
there are four decisions to exclude and one imposing a financial penalty published on the 
Europa website: EDES database European Commission (europa.eu). 

There  are  two  reasons  why  only  a  limited  number  of  decisions  adopting  such 
administrative actions can be found on the website of the Commission. 

First, the decision of the authorising officer can only be published 3 months after (26) it 
has  been  notified  to  the  economic  operator  concerned,  and  the  publication  is  often 

(24)  This  possibility  is  not  applicable  to  cases  where  the  conduct  consists  of  significant  deficiencies  in 

complying with the main obligations of a contract. 

(25)  Information  cannot  be  published  in  any  of  the  following  circumstances:  (i)  where  it  is  necessary  to 
preserve  the  confidentiality  of  an  investigation  or  of  national  judicial  proceedings;  (ii)  where 
publication  would  cause  disproportionate  damage  to  the  economic  operator  concerned  or  would 
otherwise be disproportionate on the basis of the proportionality criteria set out and to the amount of 
the financial penalty; and (iii) where a natural person is concerned, unless the publication of personal 
data is exceptionally justified, among other things by the seriousness of the conduct or its impact on 
the Union’s financial interests. 

(26)  Article 140(1), subparagraph 3, of the Financial Regulation. 

9 

 
                                                                                                                                                 
deferred  when  an  action  for  annulment  is  brought  before  the  Court  of  Justice.  In  such 
cases (27), the publication can only occur after a final judgment confirming the decision 
intervenes.  This  means  that  the  period  of  exclusion  (and  the  time  frame  for  the 
publication) may easily have elapsed by the time the final judgment is delivered (28).  

Second,  the  time  frame  for  the  publication  of  the  measure  is  strictly  limited  to  the 
duration of the exclusion. This is why, even if new economic operators are included over 
time, other entries are removed as soon as the exclusion period is over. 

4.  COOPERATION WITH OLAF 

The  use  of  information  resulting  from  OLAF  investigations  and  reports  is  key  to  the 
exclusion system and to an effective protection of the EU’s financial interests. 

In  light  of  the  OLAF  Regulation (29),  the  Financial  Regulation  and  the  Rules  of 
Procedure of the Panel, the responsible authorising officers follow up on OLAF reports 
and other information stemming from – or relating to – OLAF investigations. They will 
then use these reports and other information in the context of EDES procedures. 

The facts and findings established in an OLAF report cannot be disclosed if this threatens 
the  confidentiality  of:  (i)  the  investigations  conducted  or  coordinated  by  OLAF, 
including  the  protection  of  whistle-blowers;  (ii)  national  investigations  or  judicial 
proceedings;  or  (iii)  investigations  by  the  European  Public  Prosecutor’s  Office.  This 
means that, in compliance with the right of defence (30) and the principle of ‘equality of 
arms’, only documents  that the economic operator  concerned has been able to  examine 
and  comment  on  are  taken  into  account  by:  (i)  the  Panel  in  its  recommendation  on 
administrative  actions;  and  (ii)  the  competent  authorising  officer  when  adopting  the 
subsequent  decision.  To  ensure  compliance  with  the  above  provisions,  the  information 
communicated to the economic operator concerned during the adversarial procedure must 
often be redacted before it is submitted to the Panel (31). In each case, the expunction is 
strictly limited to those parts of the report that might affect the rights mentioned above. 

(27)  This  depends  on  the  legislation  applicable  at  the  time  the  misconduct  occurred.  For  facts  that  took 
place  from  2016  onwards,  publication  occurs  3  months  after  the  decision  has  been  notified  to  the 
economic operator  concerned, notwithstanding the lodging of an action contesting the decision. This 
means that the deferral of the publication of decisions to exclude should gradually disappear over time. 

(28) This legal anomaly is likely to disappear over time once most situations of exclusion will have arisen at 
a time where the applicable substantive rules will be those of the most recent versions of the Financial 
Regulation. 

(29)  Regulation  (EU,  Euratom)  No  883/2013  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  11 
September 2013 concerning investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) and 
repealing Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Council 
Regulation (Euratom) No 1074/1999 (OJ L 248 18.9.2013, p. 1). 

(30) The right to be heard, which is a key component of the right of defence, is also enshrined in Article 13 

of the Rules of Procedure of the Panel. 

(31)  In practice, most OLAF reports and information must be redacted. 

10 

 
                                                 
This  rule  applies  mutatis  mutandis  to  information  stemming  from  the  European  Public 
Prosecutor’s Office to protect the investigative and prosecutorial tasks conferred upon it. 
The  said  regime  also  applies  to  all  documents  used  by  the  Panel,  in  particular  audit 
reports. 

During  the  reporting  period,  the  Panel  and  OLAF  have  sought  to  enhance  their 
cooperation,  in  particular  in  respect  of  the  conditions  under  which  the  information 
contained in the OLAF reports can support the assessments of the Panel, since the latter 
has no investigative powers. 

5.  BEGINNING OF THE MANDATE OF THE NEW PANEL  

Building  on  the  solid  track  record  and  set  of  precedents  established  by  the  first  Panel 
chaired  by  Mr  Christian  Pennera (32),  in  its  new  composition,  the  Panel  chaired  by  Ms 
Rofes  i  Pujol  has  continued  to  develop  its  practice  and  has  gone  deeper  into  several 
important fields of interests by: 

- 

- 

- 

- 

interpreting and clarifying the wide and dense set of rules on exclusion enshrined in 
the successive versions of the Financial Regulation; 

taking  into  account  the  number  of  other  legal  rules  and  general  principles  of  law 
applicable,  which  lie  at  the  intersection  of  EU  administrative  and  budget  law, 
business law, contractual law, criminal law, and also national law; 

gaining  thorough  knowledge  of  various  EU  policies  and  the  way  they  are  funded 
under the rules applicable to direct and indirect management; 

establishing  a  new  set  of  precedents (33)  and  drawing  out  strong  principles,  which 
pave  the  way  for  the  coherent  and  effective  application  of  the  system  of 
administrative actions to be adopted with regard to unreliable economic operators. 

On a day-to-day basis, the Panel faces complex situations. To name but a few:  

 

the  application  to  the  facts  under  assessment  of  several  versions  of  the  Financial 
Regulation.  Indeed,  where  facts  occurred  over  several  years,  the  Panel  needs  to 
evaluate these facts in the light of different provisions  depending on the applicable 
versions of the Financial Regulation, to ensure that the principle according to which 
no one can be held accountable for acts that were not objectionable at the time they 
were  committed,  is  respected  (legality  principle).  In  this  regard,  the  Panel  plays, 
pursuant  to  Article  49  of  the  Charter  of  Fundamental  Rights,  an  important  role  in 
deciding whether the rule applicable at the time of the acts or that in force at the time 
of  the  proceedings  is  the  more  lenient.  This  has  led  the  Panel  to  find  that  some 

(32)  Ms Rofes i Pujol was the deputy of the preceding Chair, Mr Christian Pennera. 

(33)  The  domain  of  administrative  actions  to  protect  the  EU  budget  was  widely  uncharted  before  2016, 
since  up  until  then  only  a  few  authorising  officers  had  taken  such  actions.  These  initiatives  were 
isolated and taken by the authorising officers on their own. 

11 

 
                                                 
situations did not legally fall within the scope of the EDES system. For example, for 
facts  that  occurred  before  2016,  the  Panel  cannot  recommend  the  adoption  of 
administrative  actions  if  they  amount  to  fraud  and  corruption.  Similarly,  older 
versions  of  the  Financial  Regulation  contain  substantial  rules  that  prevent  an 
authorising  officer  from  adopting  an  exclusion  once  a  rather  short  period  of  time 
since  the  facts  has  elapsed.  However,  the  improvements  brought  by  the  Financial 
Regulation  in  force  have  addressed  these  issues  and  are  apt  to  ensure  that  facts 
committed from 2018 onwards lead, where justified, to exclusion from participation 
in EU award procedures of unreliable economic operators. 

 

the  actual  reliability  of  the  sources  that  support  the  established  facts  and  findings 
which ground the preliminary classification in law of a conduct. Since the Panel has 
no investigative powers, it attaches great importance to the adversarial phase of the 
procedure conducted with the economic operators. Particularly, the Panel ensures in 
each case that the entities’ right to be heard is fully upheld. 

  The  inability  to  adopt  an  administrative  action  because  the  economic  operator 
intentionally  avoids  notification  in  the  context  of  the  procedure.  In  line  with  the 
case-law of the Court of Justice of the EU (34), the Panel has to verify in each case 
whether  the  economic  operator  concerned  acknowledged  receipt  of  the  notification 
through different means (e.g. electronic mail, post or courier service). This issue has 
the  Financial 
been  addressed  by 
Regulation. (35) 

the  Commission’s  proposal 

to  amend 

Despite  the  complex  setting  in  which  the  Panel  is  bound  to  act,  the  2022  exercise  has 
confirmed the solidity and the efficiency of the EDES system. Particularly, in a judgment 
of  the  General  Court,  of  29  June  2022 (36),  the  soundness  of  the  main  principles 
established by the Panel has been confirmed. In its judgment, the General Court recalled 
that,  concerning  the  judicial  review  of  EDES  decisions,  it  has  unlimited  jurisdiction  to 
review  a  decision  whereby  the  contracting  authority  excludes  an  economic  operator 
and/or imposes on it a financial penalty, including reducing or increasing the duration of 
the  exclusion  and/or  cancelling,  reducing  or  increasing  the  financial  penalty  imposed’. 
Beyond the mere review of legality, which allows only for the dismissal of the action for 
annulment or for the annulment of the contested act, that unlimited jurisdiction empowers 
the Court to vary the contested act, even without annulling it, by taking into account all 
the  factual  circumstances,  so  as  to  amend,  for  example,  the  duration  of  the  exclusion. 
This  entails  assessing  whether  the  duration  of  the  exclusion  at  issue  takes  into  account 
the  mitigating  circumstances  invoked  by  the  applicant,  namely  its  good  cooperation 
during the investigation and the organisational measures it subsequently adopted (37). In 
light  of  its  review  of  all  findings  and  circumstances,  the  General  Court  found  that  the 

(34) Judgment of 7 December 2018, Case T‑280/17, GE.CO. P. Generale Costruzioni e Progettazioni SpA, 

v. Commission (par. 62-63).  

(35) COM(2022)223 of 16 May 2022. 

(36)  Judgment of 29 June 2022, Case T-609/20, LA International Cooperation v. Commission. 

(37)  Par. 62, 63, 66, 161. 

12 

 
                                                 
decision to exclude had been taken after a thorough application of the rights of defence, 
in particular, of the right to be heard (38). Likewise, the authorising officer, on the basis 
of the recommendation of the Panel, had shown a sound application of the right to good 
administration (39), and had correctly assessed the evidence at his disposal and had linked 
it correctly to the preliminary classification in law. (40) 

In  conclusion,  the  decision  to  exclude  the  concerned  entity  from  participating  in 
procedures  for the award of EU funds  for  a period of four  years was  fully upheld  as it 
was  based  on  sufficient  reasons (41),  in  light  of  the  principle  of  legality.  Moreover,  the 
mitigating, as well as the aggravating circumstances, had properly been weighted and had 
led to proportionate conclusions. (42) 

Overall,  the  soundness  of  the  exclusion  system,  is  based  on:  (i)  the  quality  of 
recommendations issued; and (ii) the increasing number of cases referred by authorising 
officers, (this increasing number is partly due to the awareness-raising activities carried 
out to increase the system’s visibility). 

By  contrast,  in  a  recent  judgment (43),  the  Court  has  annulled  a  decision  of  exclusion 
taken by an authorising officer based on a recommendation of the Panel on the grounds 
that  the  facts  and  findings  resulting  from  an  OLAF  investigation  were  not  conclusive 
enough  to  demonstrate  a  grave  professional  misconduct  and  accordingly  did  not  allow 
the  authorising  officer  to  take  the  decision  to  exclude  the  applicant  from  participating 
procedures for the award of EU funds for a period of two years (44). 

On the spending areas most covered through cases submitted to the Panel in recent years, 
the  Panel  has  dealt  with  referrals  involving  the  most  relevant  programmes  under  direct 
and indirect management: 

  Horizon 2020 and its previous versions (FP7 and FP6 namely); 

  SAFER; 

  SESAR  2020  (Single  European  Sky  ATM  Research)  Research  and  Innovation 

(R&I); 

 

the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights; 

 

the Marco Polo programme or SME support actions; 

(38)  Par. 74 to 78. 

(39)  Par. 127. 

(40)  The merits of the Commission decision are confirmed in par. 121 to 123, 126, 127 and 129 to 134. 

(41)  Par. 143 to 148. 

(42)  Par. 151 to 164. 

(43)  Judgement of 15.2.2023, Case T-175/21, RH v. Commission.. 

(44)  Par. 114. 

13 

 
                                                 
  programmes funded under the European Development Funds (EDF) (45); 

  other programmes implemented by non-EU organisations concerning enlargement 
and  neighbourhood  policies  (e.g.  ENLARG,  the  European  Neighbourhood  and 
Partnership Instrument or the Instrument for Pre-accession).  

Contracts  managed  directly  by  EU  institutions  (in  areas  like  security,  IT  programmes, 
audit, communication activities, or technical support to Member States) have also been at 
the centre of exclusion procedures.  

Amongst the various sources of information at the origin of Panel cases, OLAF  reports 
represent the majority (46). In this respect, it must be highlighted that a crucial part of the 
work is carried out by the authorising officers that refer cases to the Panel. Not only have 
they to detect misconducts, but also have to assess the sources at their disposal, such as 
OLAF reports, audits and other reports (47). In addition, authorising officers play the key 
role in  closely  monitoring ongoing legal  commitments  (grants  or  contracts  mainly) and 
performing  the  administrative  checks.  Thus,  OLAF  reports  do  not  always  represent  the 
initial detection of misconduct as some investigations were launched following an audit 
carried out at the request of – or following a notification from – the authorising officer.  

6.  ASSESSMENT OF REMEDIAL MEASURES 

According  to  the  Financial  Regulation (48),  the  Panel  must  assess  whether  the  remedial 
measures adopted by an economic operator are sufficient to demonstrate its reliability, in 
which case it would recommend the authorising officer not to exclude. 

In addition,  where an  exclusion has  been  adopted, the Panel can be called  upon by the 
authorising officer to assess the need to revise the decision on the basis of new remedial 
measures taken. The initiative to revise a decision can be taken by the authorising officer 
ex officio or following a request from the entity concerned. The Panel then adopts a new 
recommendation  in  which  it  concludes  where  its  former  recommendation  to  exclude 
needs to  be revised,  either because the  entity  has taken  remedial  measures to  an  extent 
that  is  sufficient  to  demonstrate  its  reliability  or  because  it  has  provided  new  elements 
demonstrating that the exclusion situation no longer exists.  In such cases, the burden of 
proof lies with the economic operator. 

The Panel  must carry out  a discretional  assessment,  and therefore, just as it did  for the 
original  recommendation,  has  to  precisely  state  the  reasons  as  to  whether  it  should  be 

(45)  Where  legally  possible,  the  recommendations  to  exclude  an  economic  operator  from  EU  award 
procedures  extend  to  EDF  procedures.  Conversely,  recommendations  to  exclude  from  EDF  award 
procedures cannot generally be extended to EU award procedures for legal reasons attached to the design 
of the EDF rules. 

(46)  OLAF reports represent 54% of the referral sources of the Panel cases. 

(47)  E. g. whistle-blowers’ information, or national/international decisions. 

(48)  Articles 136(8) and 143(7). 

14 

 
                                                 
revised.  Article  136(7)  of  the  Financial  Regulation  lists  a  non-exhaustive  catalogue  of 
possible  remedial  measures  that  the  economic  operator  can  adopt.  However,  the 
assessment as to how far the remedial measures go is left to the appreciation of the Panel 
(and/or the authorising officer) (49). 

The  remedial  measures  are  not  only  assessed  following  a  decision  to  exclude.  Where 
such  measures  are  submitted  by  an  economic  operator  as  part  of  the  adversarial 
procedure, they are already taken into account by the Panel. If the measures are deemed 
sufficient to demonstrate the economic operator’s reliability, they are likely to prevent its 
exclusion (50)  and  the  recommendation  will  state  the  reasons  for  reaching  this 
conclusion (51).  The  Panel  may  also  consider  that  excluding  an  entity  may  be 
disproportionate partly because: (i) the entity has adopted remedial measures that, even if 
not fully implemented, go in the right direction to restore its reliability; and (ii) there is 
strong evidence that the entity has been substantially improving its corporate governance 
and therefore the likelihood of recurrence of the misconduct is low. 

In  harmonising  administrative  actions  adopted  with  regard  to  unreliable  economic 
operators, the Panel plays an important role in ensuring that businesses are sound from a 
professional and ethical perspective. 

7.  OVERVIEW OF THE CASES 

In  2022,  10  referrals  to  the  Panel  were  made  through  its  permanent  secretariat  by 
authorising officers. In addition, 14 cases sent to the permanent secretariat in 2021, 3 in 
2020 and 1 in 2019 are considered in the present report, since these cases were, once the 
files had been completed, dealt with by the Panel in 2022. 

Out of these referrals, 2 cases concerned members of staff (Art 93) and 1 case concerned 
the revision of a prior recommendation. The Panel issued 19 recommendations in 2022, 
out of which 1 covered an opinion regarding a member of staff under Article 93 of the 
Financial  Regulation  and  1  covered,  in  application  of  Article  147  of  the  Financial 
Regulation,  a  revision  of  a  previous  recommendation  following  the  delivery  of  a  final 
national  judgment.  In  that  second  case  the  Panel  decided  to  revise  its  recommendation 
and  reduce  the  length  of  exclusion,  in  application  of  the  principle  of  proportionality. 
Concerning the other cases (4 from 2022, 14 from 2021, 3 from 2020 and 1 from 2019), 
the  Panel  recommended  the  exclusion  of  9  entities.  This  was  based  on  various  legal 
grounds,  including:  grave  professional  misconduct,  significant  breaches  in  complying 
with the main obligations in implementing a contract, and fraud. 

Overall, the Panel recommended not to exclude the entities concerned in 10 occurrences 
due to various reasons. In 4 cases, the Panel lacked sufficiently established evidence. In 3 
cases, the recommendation not to exclude was justified by the principle of proportionality 

(49)  Article 136(6) of the Financial Regulation. 

(50)  Article 136(6)(a) of the Financial Regulation.  

(51) Article 143(6)(e) of the Financial Regulation.  

15 

 
                                                 
and, in 2 other cases, the entity could not be excluded due to the limitation period having 
expired.  And  in  1  case,  the  time  remaining  before  the  period  of  exclusion  set  by  the 
national  court  was  too  short  to  enable  the  Panel  to  perform  an  adversarial  procedure, 
particularly as far as guaranteeing the entity’s right to be heard. 

On the recommendations to exclude adopted so far, all of  them have been taken by the 
authorising officers, following the recommendation of the Panel. 

In  addition,  out  of  the  9  recommendations  to  exclude,  the  Panel  recommended,  in  3 
cases, that the exclusions be published. The publication was justified by: (i) the inherent 
gravity  of  the  misconduct;  and  (ii)  the  high  impact  of  the  misconduct  on  the  EU’s 
financial interests and/or image. 

The  following  table  presents  an  overview  of  the  cases  where  the  Panel  issued  a 
recommendation in 2022 and 1 recommendation and an opinion issued in January 2023. 
It  contains  a  summary  of:  (i)  facts  and  findings;  (ii)  where  applicable,  the  preliminary 
qualification  in  law  of  these  facts  and  findings;  (iii)  the  recommended  administrative 
action and the date that it took effect; and (iv) information on whether publication on the 
website of the Commission was recommended. The cases have been anonymised. 

16 

 
Annex  - Summary of anonymised cases referred to the Panel under Article 143 of the Financial Regulation (52) 

Recommendation 
number 

Facts 

Classification in law 
(exclusion grounds) 

Date of the 
Panel 
recommendation 
or opinion 

Recommended 
actions 

Recommended 
Publication 

Date of 
decision of the 
authorising 
officer 
responsible 

Opinion No 2022/1 

Financial irregularity: non-disclosure of 
a conflict of interests. 

Member of staff, financial 
irregularity 

07/06/2022 

N/A 

N/A 

 N/A 

Opinion No 2023/1 

Financial irregularity: on-disclosure of a 
conflict of interests. 

Member of staff, financial 
irregularity 

25/01/2023 

N/A 

N/A 

 N/A 

Rec. No 2022/1 

Fraudulent or negligent 
misrepresentation of information 
required for the verification of the 
absence of grounds for exclusion or the 
fulfilment of eligibility (final judgment) 

Grave professional 
misconduct. 

28/01/2022 

Not to exclude 
(Duration of exclusion 
decided by an 
authorising officer 
cannot exceed the 
duration set by the 
final judgement of a 
Member State)  

N/A 

 N/A 

(52)  Only finalised cases are included. 

 
 
 
                                                 
Recommendation 
number 

Facts 

Classification in law 
(exclusion grounds) 

Date of the 
Panel 
recommendation 
or opinion 

Recommended 
actions 

Recommended 
Publication 

Date of 
decision of the 
authorising 
officer 
responsible 

Rec. No 2022/2 

Non-contribution to a project 
implementation without returning the 
received pre-financing.  

Significant breaches in the 
implementation of a legal 
commitment 

28/01/2022 

Not to exclude 
(statutory time limits) 

N/A 

N/A 

Rec. No 2022/3 

Failure to distribute the pre-financing 
and interim payments to the other 
beneficiaries of a project. 

N/A 

14/02/2022 

Rec. No 2022/4 

Negligence in verifying invoices to the 
Commission. 

Professional misconduct 

23/02/2022 

Rec. No 2022/5 

Failure to inform the Commission of 
crucial information at various contractual 
stages. 

 Significant breaches in the 
implementation of a legal 
commitment. 

28/04/2022 

Rec. No 2022/6 

Scientific misconduct. 

None 

04/05/2022 

Not to exclude (expiry 
of the limitation 
period, impossibility 
for the authorising 
officer to notify the 
entity) 

Not to exclude 
(proportionality) 

Not to exclude 
(mitigating 
circumstances and 
remedial measures) 

Not to exclude (facts 
and findings not 
established in the 
sense of the Financial 
Regulation). 

N/A 

 N/A 

N/A 

 N/A 

N/A 

 N/A 

N/A 

 N/A 

18 

 
 
 
Recommendation 
number 

Facts 

Classification in law 
(exclusion grounds) 

Date of the 
Panel 
recommendation 
or opinion 

Recommended 
actions 

Recommended 
Publication 

Date of 
decision of the 
authorising 
officer 
responsible 

Rec. No 2022/7 

Non-compliance with various contractual 
obligations  

None 

13/06/2022 

Not to exclude (facts 
not sufficiently 
established) 

N/A 

 N/A 

Rec. No 2022/8 

Impact of a final judgment 

Grave professional 
misconduct, fraud, 
corruption. 

29/06/2022 

Revision of a previous 
recommendation: 
reduction of the length 
of the initially 
recommended 
exclusion by 3 months 
(from 48 months to 45 
months). 

N/A 

 11/10/2022 

Rec. No 2022/9 

Defects in the performance under a 
works contract. 

Significant breaches in the 
implementation of a legal 
commitment. 

06/07/2022 

Exclusion for a 30 
month period. 

N/A 

 05/09/2022 

Rec. No 2022/10 

EU financial contribution not used in 
compliance with contractual conditions. 

N/A 

07/07/2022 

Not to exclude 
(Impossibility to notify 
the adversarial letter) 

N/A 

 N/A 

19 

 
 
 
Date of 
decision of the 
authorising 
officer 
responsible 

 15/09/2022 

 03/10/2022 

 29/09/2022 

Recommendation 
number 

Facts 

Classification in law 
(exclusion grounds) 

Date of the 
Panel 
recommendation 
or opinion 

Recommended 
actions 

Recommended 
Publication 

Rec. No 2022/11 

Various breaches of multiple provisions 
of a grant agreement 

Rec. No 2022/12  

Defects in the performance of works 
under a works contract. 

Rec. No 2022/13 

Rec. No 2022/14 

Rec. No 2022/15 

Rec. No 2022/16 

Various breaches in several grant 
agreements and misrepresentation in the 
context of the preparation of a grant 
agreement. 
Discrepancy between the country of 
origin mentioned in the certificates of 
origin, in other certificates and the 
invoices provided and fraudulent 
intention to obtain EU funds by using 
and presenting false and/or incorrect 
information and documents. 
Manipulation of a tender procedure 
through unlawful access to tender 
confidential information, and collusion. 
Breach of competition rules by entering 
into an agreement with other persons or 
entities with the aim of distorting 
competition. 

Rec. No 2022/17 

Impact of a final administrative 
decision 

Significant breaches in the 
implementation of a legal 
commitment 
Significant breaches in the 
implementation of a legal 
commitment. 
Significant breaches in the 
implementation of a legal 
commitment and 
irregularities. 

12/07/2022 

04/08/2022 

28/07/2022 

Significant breaches in the 
implementation of a legal 
commitment and fraud. 

28/10/2022 

Exclusion for a 24 
month period. 

Exclusion for a 24 
month period. 

Exclusion for a 36 
month period. 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

Exclusion for a 48 
month period. 

Yes 

 20/12/2022 

Grave professional 
misconduct. 

28/10/2022 

Exclusion for a 36 
month period. 

Grave professional 
misconduct 

08/12/2022 

Exclusion for a 24 
month period. 

Yes 

Yes 

 22/12/2022 

 18/01/2023 

Entity where a person 
having powers of 
representation, decision or 
control over it is in an 
exclusion situation of grave 
professional misconduct. 

12/12/2022 

Exclusion for a 12 
month period. 

N/A 

 14/02/2023 

20 

 
 
 
Recommendation 
number 

Facts 

Classification in law 
(exclusion grounds) 

Date of the 
Panel 
recommendation 
or opinion 

Recommended 
actions 

Recommended 
Publication 

Date of 
decision of the 
authorising 
officer 
responsible 

Rec. No 2022/18 

Rec. No 2023/1 

Breach of competition rules by entering 
into an agreement with other persons or 
entities with the aim of distorting 
competition. 
Unlawful access to confidential tender 
details before the launch of a 
procurement procedure. 

Grave professional 
misconduct 

Grave professional 
misconduct 

16/12/2022 

06/01/2023 

Not to exclude 
(remedial measures) 

Not to exclude (Expiry 
of the limitation 
period) 

N/A 

N/A 

 N/A 

N/A 

21