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 36th Annual Report on the protection of the European Union's financial interests and the fight against fraud - 2024
Date: 2025-07-25
Institutions: European Anti-Fraud Office, European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, EU budget, EU strategy, activity report, corruption, digitisation, fight against crime, financial control, fraud, fraud against the EU

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 25.7.2025  SWD(2025) 198 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 36th Annual Report on the protection of the European Union's financial interests and the fight against fraud - 2024 {COM(2025) 426 final} - {SWD(2025) 196 final} - {SWD(2025) 197 final} - {SWD(2025) 199 final} - {SWD(2025) 228 final} - {SWD(2025) 229 final} - {SWD(2025) 230 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.  Recommendation of the Panel ............................................................... 8 

3.  COOPERATION WITH OLAF ...................................................................... 9 

4.  THE WORK OF THE CURRENT PANEL .................................................. 10 

5.  ASSESSMENT OF REMEDIAL MEASURES ........................................... 11 

6.  CASE LAW DEVELOPMENTS .................................................................. 12 

7.  OVERVIEW OF THE CASES REFERRED TO THE PANEL ................... 13 

 
 
 
 
 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

The  Early  Detection  and  Exclusion  System  (‘EDES’)  is  a  system  established  by  the 
Commission  to  reinforce the protection of the Union’s financial interests and to  ensure 
compliance  with  the  principle  of  sound  financial  management  when  implementing  the 
budget, in accordance with Article 317 TFEU. In particular, EDES requires the authorising 
officers responsible to exclude unreliable operators from EU funding for a limited number 
of years.  

More specifically, EDES covers: 

➢  the  early  detection  of  persons  and  entities  representing  risks  threatening  the 

Union’s financial interests; 

➢  the exclusion of persons and entities from participating in award procedures or 

from implementing Union funds; 

➢  the imposition of financial penalties; 

➢  the  publication  on  the  Commission’s  internet  site  of  information  related  to 
exclusions and financial penalties to reinforce their deterrent effect in the most 
severe cases. 

The EDES rules are set out in Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2024/2509 of the Parliament (the 
‘Financial  Regulation’)(1),  which  replaced  Regulation  2018/1046(2)  on  26  September 
2024, and  in  the Rules of Procedure of the Panel (3). They provide for a robust system 
which includes the centralised review of cases by a panel (the ‘EDES Panel’ or the ‘Panel’) 
and a central database. 

This  system,  which  currently  applies  to  direct  and  indirect  management,  ensures  an 
independent  and  centralised  assessment  of  the  exclusion  situations,  and  the  respect  of 
fundamental rights of the person and entities concerned. With the adoption of the current 
Financial Regulation,  EDES will be extended  as  of 1 January 2028 instances  to  certain 
cases involving shared management funds and funds disbursed under direct management 
with Member States. 

(1)   Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2024/2509 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 
2024 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union (recast) (OJ L, 2024/2509, 
26.9.2024, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/2509/oj). 

(2)  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. 

(3)  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). 

2 

 
 
 
In this respect, EDES constitutes an important instrument to ensure the 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 nature 
(4).   

This Staff Working Document presents the activity of the EDES Panel over 2024. 

2.  THE PANEL 

The  key  responsibility  of  the  Panel  is  to  issue  recommendations  on  the  adoption  of 
administrative measures (i.e. exclusion and/or financial penalty and, where applicable, the 
publication of information related to these actions), following a request from an authorising 
officer responsible in any the EU institution, agency, office or body. After the assessment 
of the case, the Panel addresses its recommendation to the requesting authorising officer.  

In addition, pursuant to Article 93 of the Financial Regulation, the Panel is also responsible 
for assessing cases of financial irregularities involving EU civil servants.  

By  centralising  the  requests  from  authorising  officers,  the  Panel  ensures  the  coherent 
operation  of  the  system  by  carrying  out  a  preliminary  classification  in  law  of  the 
misconduct and upholding the right of defence of the person or entity concerned  in the 
context of the adversarial procedure. In addition, the Panel may assess whether remedial 
measures presented by the person or entity demonstrate its reliability. 

2.1.  The composition of the Panel 

As laid down in Article 145 of the Financial Regulation, the Panel is composed of: 

- 

- 

a standing high-level independent Chair; 

two permanent Members representing the Commission as owner of EDES, who jointly 
cast a single vote; and 

- 

one representative of the requesting authorising officer. 

The  Financial  Regulation  also  provides  for  a  high-level  Vice-Chair,  who  acts  as  Chair 
when the latter is unable to perform his or her functions, and for alternates for each of the 
two permanent members representing the Commission. 

(4)  Contrary  to  what had been  the  norm  with versions  of  the Financial  Regulation  prior  to 2018,  which 
provided for the imposition of administrative sanctions on unreliable economic operators, , the purpose 
of EDES 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. 

3 

 
 
 
The  Chair  and  Vice-Chair  of  the  Panel  are  appointed  by  the  Commission (5)  and  are 
independent in the performance of their duties (6). They are chosen from among former 
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 to single  non-renewable period of five years. 

The current Chair of the Panel,  Ms Maria Isabel  Rofes i Pujol, is a former judge at the 
European Union Civil Service Tribunal. The current Vice-Chair is Mr Igors Ludboržs, a 
former  Member  of  the  European  Court  of  Auditors.  The  were  appointed  in  November 
2021. 

One of the permanent members representing the Commission on the Panel in 2024 is Mr 
Olivier Waelbroeck, currently principal adviser responsible for ‘Legal Affairs, financial 
controls  and  reporting’  in  DG  BUDG  and  previously  Principal  Adviser  for  Legal  and 
Financial Issues, Rule of Law, Fraud Prevention and EDES. His alternate is Mr Alessandro 
Nucara, Head of Unit D1, Protection of the Union’s Financial Interests, DG BUDG. 

The other permanent member representing the Commission on the Panel in 2024 was Mr 
Kristian  Vangrieken,  a  senior  staff  member  of  the  Commission  DG  BUDG  until  his 
retirement in July 2024. He was succeeded by Mr Pierre Bischoff, currently Adviser for 
internal  relations,  DG  ESTAT.  His  alternate  is  Mr  Rene  Slootjes,  Head  of  Unit  E3, 
Implementation and enforcement of EU law, Secretariat-General of the Commission. 

For each case, the requesting authorising officer designates a Panel member according to 
the internal administrative rules of the institution, agency, office, or body concerned. 

When  dealing  with  cases  of  internal  financial  irregularities  by  EU  staff  pursuant  to 
Article 93 of the Financial Regulation, the Panel is composed of three 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  who  participate  in  the  Panel’s  deliberations  without 
voting  rights.  The  Commission’s  Legal  Service  is  a  permanent  observer  to  the  Panel’s 
meetings. Where a referral to the Panel stems from an investigation by the European Anti-
fraud  Office  (“OLAF”)  or 
the  European  Public  Prosecutor’s  Office  (EPPO), 
representatives of the relevant office participate in the Panel’s meetings as observers. Their 
attendance allows the Panel to be informed first-hand of: (i) the facts and findings resulting 

(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. 

(6)  Article 145(3) of the Financial Regulation. 

4 

 
 
 
 
from an OLAF/EPPO investigation; (ii) the estimated financial impact of the misconduct; 
(iii) the procedural guarantees accorded to the persons and entities concerned; (iv) actions 
taken by national judicial authorities, if any. The active participation of the Commission’s 
Legal Service, OLAF and EPPO to the work of the Panel is key to ensuring that the Panel 
delivers  high-quality  recommendations.  In  addition,  authorising  officers  (other  than  the 
referring authority) who are concerned by the case referred to the Panel may participate as 
observers in the Panel meetings.  

The Panel is supported by a permanent secretariat provided by the Directorate-General for 
Budget of the European Commission. 

The Panel operates under its rules of procedure, which serve to implement and complement 
Article 145 of the Financial Regulation (7). These rules are designed to achieve two main 
objectives: (i) to regulate the internal functioning of the Panel; and (ii) to provide clear 
guidance regarding the rights and obligations of all parties involved, including persons or 
entities subject to  exclusion procedures. 

2.2.  Role of the Panel 

Under Article 138 of the 2024 Financial Regulation (8), where a person or entity is in an 
exclusion situation that has not been established by a final judgment or final administrative 
decision,  authorising  officers  who  have  become  aware  of  the  exclusion  situation  are  to 
exclude  that  person  or  entity  on  the  basis  of  a  preliminary  classification  in  law  of  the 
conduct,  but  in  most  cases  must  first  request  a  recommendation  from  the  Panel  to 
determine whether an exclusion situation exists, and, if so, what would be the proportionate 
administrative  measures  to  adopt,  if  any.  Authorising  officers  must  also  request  a 
recommendation from the Panel in cases where a final judgment or final administrative 
decision has established the existence of an exclusion situation but has not determined the 
exclusion period. 

Not  every  exclusion  situation  requires  a  recommendation  from  the  Panel.  Authorising 
officers  may  directly  exclude  entities  in  certain  situations  involving,  for  example, 
insolvency or the non-payment of taxes, social security contributions, or fines.  

The main grounds for exclusion that require a Panel recommendation are the following (9): 

- 

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 

(7)  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). 

(8)  See Article 138(3) of the Financial Regulation. 

(9)  See Article 138(1) of the Financial Regulation. 

5 

 
 
 
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, the Court of Auditors or the EPPO; 

irregularity within the meaning of Article 1(2) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) 
No 2988/95 (10); 

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; and 

intentionally and without proper justification resisting an investigation, check or audit 
carried out by an authorising officer (or its representative or auditor), OLAF, the EPPO 
or the Court of Auditors. 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

In principle, each case is assessed by the Panel in two phases. First, the Panel reviews the 
facts established and performs an initial preliminary classification in law of the conduct in 
order  to  open  the  adversarial  procedure  with  respect  to  the  person  or  entity  concerned. 
Second,  the  Panel  examines  the  written  observations  submitted  by  the  person  or  entity 
concerned and adopts a recommendation, which is addressed to the requesting authorising 
officer.  

A case can be 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 person or entity concerned 
thereof. 

To ensure their right to be heard, the Panel sends an adversarial letter inviting the person 
or entity concerned to submit written observations within 3 weeks. Upon a duly justified 
request, the deadline may be extended by no more than half the period initially granted. 
Nevertheless, without prejudice to their right of defence, the Panel strives to act swiftly 

(10)  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.’ 

6 

 
 
 
where  the  nature  or  the  circumstances  of  the  case  require  that  it  is  given  priority  (e.g. 
ongoing award procedures; risk of time-barring of the facts). 

The Financial Regulation introduced the possibility for authorising officers to request – or 
for the Panel to apply at its own initiative – an expedited procedure, allowing the Panel to 
treat with priority cases when this is justified by their nature or circumstances (e.g. where 
the facts have already been established by a final judgment). The Rules of Procedure of 
the Panel are currently being revised to give effect to this new possibility.  Concretely, this 
would mean endeavouring to transmit the adversarial letter to the person or entity subject 
to the proceeding within 30 working days of receiving the request for a recommendation; 
and adopting the recommendation within 20 working days from the expiration of the time 
limit for submitting observations by the person or entity subject to the proceedings. It is 
important to underline that the accelerated timeline will not be achieved at the expense of 
the rights of defence. 

Another  novelty  to  be  introduced  by  the  upcoming  revision  of  the  Panel’s  Rules  of 
Procedure  is  the  possibility  to  adopt  an  abridged  recommendation  to  accelerate  the 
adoption of authorising officer’s decision e.g. not to reject a given entity from ongoing 
tenders (this is limited to cases where the Panel  does not recommend the imposition of 
administrative  measures).  This  will  allow  authorising  officers  to  adopt  decisions  more 
quickly in certain cases without affecting the rights of defence. 

It  is  important  to  recall  that  the  Panel  has  no  investigative  powers.  Therefore,  when 
autonomously assessing the facts and findings established against the person or entity, the 
Panel relies, inter alia, on: 

a) 

facts established through audits or investigations carried out by: (i) the 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 (11); 

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

(11)  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. 

7 

 
 
 
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. 

The relevant documents and evidence, whether inculpatory or exculpatory, pertaining to 
the relevant case is then disclosed to the person or entity concerned in the context of the 
adversarial procedure, together with the preliminary classification in law of the conduct 
and the envisaged administrative measure to adopt. 

2.3.  Recommendation of the Panel 

At the outcome of the  adversarial procedure, the Panel  issues a recommendation  to  the 
referring authorising officer on the preliminary classification in law of the conduct and the 
appropriate administrative measures (if any) to be adopted in the case at issue.  

Where the Panel finds that the person or entity should be excluded, or a financial penalty 
should be imposed, the recommendation will outline the facts justifying the adoption of a 
measure, their preliminary classification in law, as well as the outcome of the adversarial 
proceedings led by the Panel. 

The Panel’s recommendation typically includes the following elements: 

a)  a comprehensive description of the facts and findings established against the person 

or entity concerned; 

b)  a summary of the observations put forward by the person or entity concerned; 

c)  an all-circumstances analysis of the conduct and its preliminary classification in law; 

d)  where applicable, an analysis of the remedial measures adopted by the person or entity 

concerned; 

e)  an analysis of aggravating and mitigating circumstances; 

f) 

the recommended duration of the exclusion and/or amount of the financial penalty; 

g)  an  evaluation  of  whether  publication  of  the  administrative  measure  is  necessary  in 

order to reinforce its deterrent effect. 

The Panel may recommend an exclusion from participating in award procedures or from 
implementing Union funds for a maximum of three years or five years, depending on the 
type of misconduct (12). 

(12)  A  maximum  duration  of  three  years  is  provided  for  the  following  grounds:  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  obligations.  A 
maximum duration of five years is provided for the most serious misconducts: fraud, corruption, conduct 

8 

 
 
 
 
In some cases, the Panel may recommend imposing a financial penalty, capped at 10% of 
the  total  value  of  the  legal  commitment.  This  penalty  may  serve  as  an  alternative  to 
exclusion  in  cases  where  exclusion  would  be  deemed  disproportionate,  or  it  may  be 
imposed  in  addition  to  the  exclusion  in  cases  of  systemic  or  recurrent  misconduct. 
However, it is important to note that a financial penalty cannot be imposed on a recipient 
who has voluntary disclosed being in an exclusion situation. 

Moreover, the Panel may recommend that information regarding persons with powers of 
decision  and  control  over  an  entity  in  an  exclusion  situation  who  were  personally  and 
directly implicated in the wrongful conduct be transmitted to the EDES database. 

Finally,  the  Panel  may  suggest  the  publication  of  the  administrative    measure  on  the 
European Commission website (13) to reinforce its deterrent effect (14). 

The recommendation of the Panel is not binding, and the referring authorising officer is 
free to depart from it. In such cases, the authorising officer must justify their decision to 
the  Panel.  Where  an  authorising  officer  envisages  taking  a  more  severe  administrative 
action  than  what  has  been  recommended  by  the  Panel,  he  or  she  must  ensure  that  the 
decision is taken with due respect for the right of the economic operator to be heard.  

To date, no authorising officer has departed from the Panel’s recommendation. 

3.  COOPERATION WITH OLAF 

Given that the Panel  lacks investigative powers,  the use of information stemming from 
OLAF  investigations  and  Final  Reports  is  key  to  the  success  and  effectiveness  of  the 
exclusion system and of the protection of the financial interests of the Union.  

In accordance with the OLAF Regulation (15), the Financial Regulation and the Rules of 
Procedure  of  the  Panel,  the  responsible  authorising  officers  may  use  the  information 
stemming  from  or  relating  to  OLAF  investigations  to  request  a  recommendation  to  the 

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. 

(13)  https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/eu-budget/how-it-works/annual-

lifecycle/implementation/anti-fraud-measures/edes/edes-database_en 

(14)  The time frame for the publication of the measure is strictly limited to the duration of the  exclusion. 
Information on the measure 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.  

(15)  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). 

9 

 
 
 
EDES Panel. In fact, OLAF reports represented a key source of information in the majority 
of Panel cases in 2024 (16). 

Provided that all the information collected by OLAF as part of its investigation is subject 
to strict rules of confidentiality and protection of personal data, as stipulated in Article 10 
of  that  Regulation,  the  information  communicated  to  the  person  or  entity  during  the 
adversarial proceedings must often be redacted before it is submitted to the Panel (17). 

Only  exceptionally,  where  there  are  compelling  legitimate  grounds  to  preserve  the 
confidentiality of an investigation, of national judicial or EPPO proceedings, the right to 
be heard may be deferred.  

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. 
That regime also applies to all documents used by the Panel, in particular audit reports. 

During the reporting period, the Panel, its Secretariat and OLAF have sought to enhance 
their cooperation on the matter and to further clarify how information stemming from or 
relating to OLAF investigations may be used by the authorising officer responsible in the 
context of Panel proceedings. 

4.  THE WORK OF THE CURRENT PANEL  

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 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, 
competition law, contractual law, and criminal law; 

establishing  a  set  of  precedents and  drawing  out  principles  for  the  coherent  and 
effective  application  of  the  system  of  administrative  measures  to  be  adopted  with 
regard to unreliable persons and entities. 

A significant example of the Panel's work in 2024 concerned its practice with respect to 
remedial measures, which increasingly feature in exclusion cases. In two cases, the Panel 
was asked to review its previous exclusion recommendations after the entities concerned 
provided new evidence of the remedial measures that had been taken. In only one of the 
two  cases  did  the  Panel  conclude  that  the  new  evidence  of  the  remedial  measures  was 

(16)  OLAF reports featured in 90% of the cases referred to the Panel in 2024. 

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

10 

 
 
 
sufficient  when  considered  with  the  evidence  that  was  previously  submitted  for  it  to 
recommend immediately lifting the exclusion. 

Throughout  the  reporting  period,  the  EDES  Panel  faced  a  severe  escalation  in  the 
complexity of cases referred by authorising officers. These cases often required exhaustive 
and  protracted  deliberations  to  ensure  fair  and  well-reasoned  recommendations.  Such 
complexity stemmed from various factors, including the extended duration of misconduct, 
its legal qualification, and occasionally, the complex assessment of the available evidence.  

A  point  of  attention  in  the  work  of  the  Panel  is  the  actual  reliability  of  the  sources 
underpinning the 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 
checks and investigations carried out by other EU bodies (e.g. OLAF, EPPO), as well as 
to the adversarial phase of the EDES proceeding in which the person or entity concerned 
submits arguments and information in its defence.  

5.  ASSESSMENT OF REMEDIAL MEASURES 

According to the Financial Regulation (18), the authorising officer, having regard, where 
applicable, to the recommendation of the Panel, shall not exclude a person or entity that 
has taken remedial measures to an extent sufficient to demonstrate its reliability.  

Where such measures are submitted by the person or entity in the context of the adversarial 
procedure led by the Panel, the latter will thoroughly assess them individually and as a 
whole before adopting its recommendation.  

Conversely,  where  an  exclusion  has  been  adopted,  the  Panel  can  be  called  to  revise  its 
recommendation on the basis of (new) remedial measures taken, following a request by 
the authorising officer or by the person or entity concerned (19).  

The assessment of remedial measures unfolds in two primary steps: (i) the evaluation of 
the measures, which are scrutinised against the criteria outlined in Article 138(10) of the 
Financial  Regulation;  and  (ii)  the  assessment  of  their  sufficiency  in  demonstrating  the 
entity’s reliability. This case-by-case assessment, which is inherently contingent upon the 
circumstances of the misconduct at issue, considers various factors, including the evidence 
on  the  implementation  of  the  measures,  a  tangible  change  in  the  corporate  culture,  the 
management direction, as well as any independent evaluation performed on the measures.  

If  the  measures  are  deemed  sufficient  to  demonstrate  reliability  of  the  person  or  entity 
concerned, they will rule out the exclusion, and the recommendation will state the reasons 
for  reaching  this  conclusion (20).  However,  if  the  Panel  determines  that  the  remedial 

(18)  Articles 138(9), point (a), and 138(10) of the Financial Regulation. 

(19)  Article 138(11) of the Financial Regulation. 

(20) Article 145(6), point (e), of the Financial Regulation.  

11 

 
 
 
measures, as proposed, do not meet the requirements of the Financial Regulation it may 
consider them in the context of the proportionality assessment (21).  

6.  CASE LAW DEVELOPMENTS 

Two recent judgments of the General Court are noteworthy: 

• 

• 

In VC v. EU-OSHA (22), the General Court upheld the authorising officer’s decision 
to exclude an entity on the grounds of grave professional misconduct. The Panel 
had relied on the facts and findings contained in a decision of a national competition 
authority (NCA) fining the entity for participating in a public bid-rigging cartel. 
The decision had been appealed to the competent national court, which suspended 
enforcement  of  the  NCA  decision  pending  the  appeal.  The  General  Court 
confirmed that the Panel and authorising officer may rely on the facts or findings 
in NCA decisions, even if the enforcement of those decisions has been suspended. 
The  General  Court  also  confirmed  that  the  Panel  and  authorising  officer  have  a 
margin of appreciation in assessing remedial measures, such that the General Court 
may not exercise unlimited jurisdiction with respect to remedial measures, and that 
its  review  is  limited  to  reviewing  the  legality  of  the  authorising  officer’s 
assessment. The judgment is under appeal. 

In  TP  v  Commission (23),  the  General  Court  annulled  the  authorising  officer’s 
decision to exclude an entity on the grounds of serious deficiencies in complying 
with its main obligations in the implementation of a legal commitment financed by 
the Union budget. The Panel had relied on the facts and findings contained in an 
arbitration award which found two entities jointly and severally liable for a series 
of  defects  in  the  implementation  of  an  EU-funded  infrastructure  project.  The 
General Court held that unlike for other grounds such as grave professional conduct 
or  fraud,  a  final  judgment  cannot  not  automatically  give  rise  to  an  exclusion 
situation where the ground is that an entity has shown significant deficiencies in 
complying  with  main  obligations  in  the  implementation  of  a  legal  commitment 
financed  by  the  EU  budget.  Even  though  the  arbitration  decision  had  found  the 
entity  jointly  and  severally  liable  for  serious  contractual  breaches,  the  General 
Court found that the Panel and the authorising officer had an obligation to make a 
specific and individual assessment of the conduct of the entity concerned but failed 
to do so in this case. The judgment is under appeal. 

(21)  Article 138(4) of the Financial Regulation. 

(22)  Judgment of 2 October 2024, VC v EU-OSHA, T-126/23, ECLI:EU:T:2024:666. 

(23)  Judgment of 18 December 2024, TP v Commission, T-766/22, ECLI:EU:T:2024:908. 

12 

 
 
 
7.  OVERVIEW OF THE CASES REFERRED TO THE PANEL 

In  2024,  16  requests  for  recommendations  reached  the  Panel  through  its  permanent 
secretariat. Two of these cases involved reviews of prior recommendations following the 
submission of new evidence regarding remedial measures.  In addition, four requests for 
recommendations have already been received in the first five months of 2025.  

In  2024,  the  Panel  issued  8  recommendations.  One  further  case  was  withdrawn  after 
consideration of the observations submitted by the entity concerned. 

The table in Annex 1 presents an overview of the above-referred recommendations with a 
summary of: (i) facts and findings; (ii) where applicable, the preliminary qualification in 
law of the conduct; (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. 

Additional statistics regarding the Panel’s operations are provided in Annex 2. 

13 

 
 
 
Annex 1 – Summary of anonymised cases referred to the Panel under Article 145 of the Financial Regulation (24) 

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 2024/01 

Rec No 2024/02 

Wrongful conduct such as 
fraudulently misrepresenting 
information required for the 
fulfilment of selection criteria 
and performance of a contract 

Failure to disclose that 
employee was married to 
person with ability to influence 
award procedure. 

Rec No 2024/03 

Participation in a public 
procurement cartel 

Rec No 2024/04 

Rec No 2024/05 

Review of prior exclusion 
recommendation based on 
additional information 
regarding remedial measures 

Misrepresentations regarding 
eligibility criteria and 
(non)compliance with grant 
conditions 

(24)  Only finalised cases are included. 

Grave professional 
misconduct. 

19/01/2024 

No exclusion 

No 

N/A 

Grave professional 
misconduct. 

28/05/2024 

Exclusion for a 9- 
month period 

No 

21/10/2024 

Grave professional 
misconduct + sufficient 
remedial measures 

Grave professional 
misconduct 

18/06/2024 

No exclusion 

No 

15/10/2024 

Lift exclusion 

No 

N/A 

N/A 

Grave professional 
misconduct 

17/12/2024 

Exclusion for a 30-
month period 

No 

24/02/2025 

 
 
 
Rec No 2024/06 

Rec No 2024/07 

Rec No 2024/08 

Submission of unreliable 
information as regards the 
availability to work on full-
time projects during 
overlapping periods, and failure 
to disclose professional 
engagements under EU-funded 
contracts which should have 
been performed at the same 
time 
Review of prior exclusion 
recommendation based on 
additional information 
regarding remedial measures 

Using consulting contract to 
pay member of EU body for 
confidential information and 
providing misleading 
information about compliance 
with eligibility criteria. 

Grave professional 
misconduct 

19/12/2024 

Exclusion for a 3-
year period 

No 

19/02/2025 

Grave professional 
misconduct 

19/12/2024 

Active corruption & grave 
professional misconduct 

20/12/2024 

Maintain exclusion 
for recommended 
period 

Exclusion for a 4.5-
year period, 
financial penalty, 
registration of 
persons of interest 

No 

N/A 

Yes 

21/02/2025 

15 

 
 
Annex 2 – Additional statistics 

Number of cases (January - December 2024) 

Cases closed

Cases received

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Classification in law of Panel Recommendations (January - December 2024) 

13%

12%

75%

Grave professional misconduct (6)

Grave professional misconduct + sufficient remedial measures (1)

Active corruption & grave professional misconduct (1)

 
 
 
 
 
 
Recommended sanctions (January - December 2024) 

38%

12%

12%

12%

13%

13%

54 months exclusion

24 months exclusion

36 months exclusion

9 months exclusion

Maintain exclusion for recommended period

Lift exclusion & No exlusion

Cases in which publication was recommended in 2024 

Publication recommended

No

Yes

17