COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Early-Detection and Exclusion System (EDES) - Panel referred to in Article 145 of the Financial Regulation Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 37th Annual Report on the protection of the European Union's financial interests and the fight against fraud - 2025
Date: 2026-07-28
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, 28.7.2026  SWD(2026) 247 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Early-Detection and Exclusion System (EDES) - Panel referred to in Article 145 of the Financial Regulation   Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 37th Annual Report on the protection of the European Union's financial interests and the fight against fraud - 2025   {COM(2026) 411 final} - {SWD(2026) 245 final} - {SWD(2026) 246 final} - {SWD(2026) 248 final} - {SWD(2026) 249 final} - {SWD(2026) 250 final} - {SWD(2026) 251 final}  
 
 
SWD REPORT ACTIVITY 2025 

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 ................................................................................... 9 

3.  COOPERATION WITH OLAF ....................................................................................... 11 

4.  ASSESSMENT OF REMEDIAL MEASURES .............................................................. 11 

5.  THE WORK OF THE CURRENT PANEL ..................................................................... 12 

6.  CASE LAW DEVELOPMENTS ..................................................................................... 13 

7.  OVERVIEW OF THE CASES REFERRED TO THE PANEL ...................................... 14 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
SWD REPORT ACTIVITY 2025 

1.  INTRODUCTION 

The Early Detection and Exclusion System (‘EDES’) is a system established by the Financial 

Regulation and operated 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 period of time. 

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  (EU,  Euratom)  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. EDES will be extended as of 1 January 

(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) 2025/2024 of 9 October 2025 on the rules of procedure of the panel referred to in 
Article  145  of  Regulation  (EU,  Euratom)  2024/2509  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council,  OJ  L, 
2025/2024, 10.10.2025. 

2 

 
 
SWD REPORT ACTIVITY 2025 

2028 to  certain  cases  involving shared management funds and funds disbursed under direct 

management with Member States. 

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 2025. 

2.  THE PANEL 

The  key  responsibility  of  the  Panel  is  to  issue  recommendations  on  the  adoption  of 

administrative measures (i.e. the exclusion and/or financial penalty and, where applicable, the 

publication of information related to these measures), following a request from an authorising 

officer responsible in any 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 members of EU staff. 

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 

(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 

 
 
SWD REPORT ACTIVITY 2025 

-  one representative of the requesting authorising officer. 

The Financial Regulation also provides for a standing high-level independent 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.  

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 a single non-renewable period of 

five years. 

In 2025, the Chair of the Panel was Ms Maria Isabel Rofes i Pujol, who is a former judge at the 

European  Union  Civil  Service  Tribunal.  The  Vice-Chair  was  Mr  Igors  Ludboržs,  who  is  a 

former Member of the European Court of Auditors. They were appointed in November 2021. 

One of the permanent members representing the Commission on the Panel in 2025 was Mr 

Olivier Waelbroeck, currently Principal Adviser responsible for ‘Legal Affairs, financial rules, 

controls and reporting’ in DG BUDG and previously Principal Adviser for Legal and Financial 

Issues, Rule of Law, Fraud Prevention and EDES. His alternate was 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 2025 was Mr Pierre 

Bischoff, currently Adviser for internal relations, DG ESTAT. His alternate was Rene Slootjes, 

Head  of  Unit  E3,  Implementation  and  enforcement  of  EU  law,  Secretariat-General  of  the 

Commission,  until  his  retirement  in  July  2025.  He  was  succeeded  by  Mr  Jean-François 

Salomon, Adviser for Procurement and Finance for the Directorate F, DG HR.  

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. 

(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 

 
 
SWD REPORT ACTIVITY 2025 

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 of 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 

first-hand informed of: (i) the facts and findings resulting 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 the 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’s 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.  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(7),    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 

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

5 

 
 
SWD REPORT ACTIVITY 2025 

that person or entity on the basis of a preliminary classification in law of the conduct. To do so, 

they must in most cases 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(8): 

-  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; 

incitement to discrimination, hatred or violence against a group of persons or a member 

of a group or similar activities that are contrary to the values on which the Union is 

founded  enshrined  in Article  2  TEU,  where  such  misconduct  has  an  impact  on  the 

person or  entity’s  integrity which negatively affects or concretely  risks affecting the 

performance of the legal commitment;  

- 

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; 

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

6 

 
 
SWD REPORT ACTIVITY 2025 

- 

- 

- 

- 

irregularity within the meaning of Article 1(2) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) 

No 2988/95(9); 

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;  

the creation or existence of an affiliate of an excluded entity as well as its beneficial 

owner; 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 

and findings established and performs an initial preliminary classification in law of the conduct 

in  order to  open the adversarial procedure with  respect  to the  rights  of 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  three  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 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). 

(9)  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.’  

7 

 
 
SWD REPORT ACTIVITY 2025 

Only  exceptionally,  where  there  are  compelling  legitimate  grounds  to  preserve  the 

confidentiality of an OLAF or EPPO investigation or of national judicial proceedings, the right 

to be heard may be deferred.  

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 have 

been revised in 2025 to give effect to this new possibility. Concretely, this means 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 is not at the expense of the rights of defence. 

The revised Panel’s Rules of Procedure introduced further 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, as a novelty (this is limited to cases where the Panel does 

not  recommend  the  implementation  of  administrative  measures).  This  allows  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 regarding the person or entity, the 

Panel relies, inter alia, on: 

- 

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; 

-  non-final administrative decisions, which may include disciplinary measures taken by 

the  competent  supervisory  body  responsible  for  verifying  the  application  of 

professional ethical standards; 

- 

facts  referred  to  in  decisions  of  persons  and  entities  implementing  EU  funds  under 

indirect management(10); 

(10) 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. 

8 

 
 
SWD REPORT ACTIVITY 2025 

- 

information  sent  by entities implementing EU funds under shared management with 

Member States; and  

-  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 and findings 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 comprehensive description of the facts and findings established against the person or 

entity concerned; 

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

-  a comprehensive analysis of the conduct and its preliminary classification in law; 

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

concerned; 

-  an analysis of aggravating and mitigating circumstances; 

- 

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

-  an  evaluation  of  whether  publication  of  the  administrative  measure  is  necessary  to 

reinforce its deterrent effect. 

9 

 
SWD REPORT ACTIVITY 2025 

The  Panel  may  recommend  an  exclusion  from  participating  in  award  procedures  or  from 

implementing Union funds for a maximum of three or five years, depending on the type of 

misconduct(11).  

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 an exclusion 

in  cases  where  an  exclusion  would  be  deemed  disproportionate,  or  it  may  be  imposed  in 

addition to an exclusion in cases of systemic or recurrent misconduct. However, the 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(12) to reinforce its deterrent effect(13). 

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. 

(11) 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 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.  
(12)https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/eu-budget/how-it-works/annual-
lifecycle/implementation/anti-fraud-measures/edes/edes-database_en. 
(13) 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. 

10 

 
 
SWD REPORT ACTIVITY 2025 

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 for the protection of the financial interests of the Union. 

In  accordance  with  the  OLAF  Regulation(14),  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 EDES Panel. In 

fact, OLAF reports represented a key source of information in most Panel cases in 2025(15).  

Considering that all information collected by OLAF as part of its investigation is subject to 

strict rules of confidentiality and protection of personal data, as required by Article 10 of the 

OLAF Regulation, the information communicated to the person or entity during the adversarial 

proceedings must often be redacted before it is submitted to the Panel(16). 

This  rule  applies  mutatis  mutandis  to  information  stemming  from  the  EPPO  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. 

4.  ASSESSMENT OF REMEDIAL MEASURES  

According to the Financial Regulation(17), the authorising officer responsible, 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 collectively 

before adopting its recommendation. 

(14) 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). 
(15) Articles 138(9)(a) and 138(10) of the Financial Regulation. 
(16) Article 138(11) of the Financial Regulation. 
(17) Article 145(6)(e) of the Financial Regulation. 

11 

 
 
SWD REPORT ACTIVITY 2025 

Conversely,  where  an  exclusion  has  been  adopted,  the  Panel  can  be  called  to  revise  its 

recommendation  based  on  (new)  remedial  measures  taken,  following  a  request  by  the 

authorising officer responsible or by the person or entity concerned(18). 

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 remedial measures are deemed sufficient to demonstrate the reliability of the person or 

entity  concerned,  they  will  rule  out  the  exclusion,  and  the  recommendation  will  state  the 

reasons  for  reaching  this  conclusion(19).  However,  if  the  Panel  determines  that  the  remedial 

measures,  as  proposed,  do  not  meet  the  requirements  of  the  Financial  Regulation,  it  may 

consider them in the context of the proportionality assessment(20). 

5.  THE WORK OF THE PANEL IN 2025 

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 regarding unreliable 

persons and entities. 

(18) OLAF reports featured in 90% of the cases referred to the Panel in 2025. 
(19) In practice, most OLAF reports and information must be redacted. 
(20) Article 138(4) of the Financial Regulation. 

12 

 
 
SWD REPORT ACTIVITY 2025 

An example of the Panel's  work in  2025 concerns its  first  case based on facts  and  findings 

established  through  an EPPO  investigation,  which  led  to  a  judgment  finding  the  respective 

entity guilty of aggravated fraud in the context of a grant award procedure, prior to the issuance 

of the recommendation of the Panel. 

Throughout  the  reporting  period,  the  EDES  Panel  faced  a  significant  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. 

6.  CASE LAW DEVELOPMENTS  

One recent judgment of the General Court is noteworthy: 

In Lattanzio KIBS and Others v Commission(21) , the General Court upheld the authorising 

officer’s  decision  to  exclude  the  entity.  It  clarified  the  meaning  of  a  ‘final  judgment’ 

establishing ‘that the person or entity is guilty’, the notion of ‘conduct’ in the context of 

considering the time that has elapsed, as well as the concept of ‘persons who have powers 

of  representation,  decision  or  control’  regarding  an  entity  that  is  to  be  excluded.  The 

authorising  officer  had  relied  on  the  facts  and  findings  contained  in  a  judgment  of  the 

District Court of Milan as being a final judgment establishing that the persons in question 

were guilty of corruption. The General Court confirmed that the authorising officer may 

rely on a final judgment, such as that of the judgment of the District Court of Milan, which, 

without giving a formal ruling on the guilt of the persons or entities accused, nevertheless 

establishes the acts of corruption that may be attributed to them. The General Court also 

(21) Judgment of 23 July 2025, Lattanzio KIBS and Others v Commission, T-113/24, OJ C, C/2024/2956.  

13 

 
 
SWD REPORT ACTIVITY 2025 

upheld that the  notion of ‘persons of power  and control’ must  be interpreted broadly  to 

include  anyone  who  actually  exercises  decisive  influence  of  the  entity  regardless  of  the 

formal  title  or  shareholding.  Relating  to  the  time  which  has  elapsed  since  the  relevant 

conduct, the General Court confirmed that it must be interpreted as considering not only 

the  time  when  the  criticised  conduct  occurred,  but  also  the  time  of  the  ‘finding’  of  that 

conduct, as set out in particular by the French version of the same provision. The judgment 

is under appeal. 

7.  OVERVIEW OF THE CASES REFERRED TO THE PANEL 

In 2025, 11 requests for recommendations reached the Panel through its permanent secretariat. 

The  Panel  issued  9  recommendations.  Two  cases  have  been  withdrawn:  one  following 

clarifications on the administrative measures foreseen in the Financial Regulation which were 

not aligned with the referral, and one following insolvency proceedings. 

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 classification in law 

of the conduct; (iii) the recommended administrative measures 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. 

14 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex 1 

Recommendation 
number 

Facts 

Classification in 
law (exclusion 
grounds) 

Date of the Panel 
recommendation 

Recommended 
measures 

Recommended 
publication 

Date of the decision of the 
authorising officer 
responsible 

Rec No 2025/01 

Rec No 2025/02 

Rec No 2025/03 

Rec No 2025/04 

Rec No 2025/05 

  Rec No 2025/06 

Personal involvement of CEO 
in forgery of invoices. 

/ 

19/3/2025 

 Registration of the     
 CEO in the EDES   
 Database as Person of   
 Interest 

/ 

N/A 

Disproportionality of exclusion 
due to remedial measures 
following the former violation 
of accounting standards. 
Production and presentation for 
reimbursement of false expense 
claims.  

 Grave professional 
  misconduct. 

 Grave professional 
  misconduct. 

28/3/2025 

No exclusion 

No 

N/A 

18/6/2025 

Exclusion for an 18-
month period  

  Yes 

Declaration of costs for 
projects that never occurred.  

 Fraud. 

4/7/2025 

Exclusion for a 42-
month period 

No 

13/08/2025 

15/10/2025 

Submission 
of reimbursement claims for 
non-eligible expenditures. 

Grave professional 
  misconduct. 

4/8/2025 

Exclusion for a 36-
month period 

  Yes 

  6/10/2025 

Submission 
of reimbursement claims for 
non-eligible expenditures 
and use of an irregular 
electronic system for 
recording and approving 
time records. 

 Fraud and grave professional 
  misconduct. 

26/8/2025 

  Exclusion for an 18-    
  month period 

  No 

  28/11/2025 

15 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
  
 
  Rec No 2025/07 

  Rec No 2025/08 

  Rec No 2025/09 

Proposing the same expert 
for several EU projects 
while knowing about 
conflicting timelines and 
places and misrepresenting 
the Expert’s availability. 

Establishment of the 
duration of exclusion 
following a final national 
judgment on the 
misapplication of EU funds 
qualified as fraud. 

Misrepresentation regarding 
eligibility criteria in the 
declaration on honour, and 
in reply to requests for 
clarification.  

 Grave professional 
  misconduct. 

 30/10/2025 

  Exclusion for a 24-  
  month period 

 Yes 

  8/12/2025 

 Fraud. 

25/11/2025 

  Exclusion for a 54-   
  month period 

 Yes 

 19/12/2025 

 Grave professional 
  misconduct. 

9/12/2025 

  Exclusion for a 30-  
  month period 

 Yes 

 13/03/2026 

16 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
 
  
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex 2 – Additional statistics  

Number of cases (January-December 2025)

Cases closed

Cases received

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

*Each decision of exclusion can be based on more than one ground. 

17 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Recommended sanctions (January - December 2025) 

54 months

No exclusion

42 months

36 months

18 months

30 months

24 months

No exclusion

18 months

24 months

30 months

36 months

42 months

54 months

Cases in which publication was recommended in 2025

4

5

Yes

No

18