Ref. Ares(2015)4024597 - 30/09/2015
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
DIRECTORATE-GENERAL
HUMAN RESOURCES AND SECURITY
Director-General
Brussels,
3 0 SEP. 2015
Ms Vicky Cann
CEO
Rue d'Edimbourg 26
1050 Brussels
By email:
vicky ©corporateeurope.org
Subject:
Complaint: Joao Pacheco
Dear Ms Cann,
I refer to your letter of 7 July 2015 addressed to the Secretary-General of the Commission,
Ms Catherine Day, concerning your access to documents requests 2013/5780 and your
confirmatory application related thereto, 2015/1490, 2015/2510, 2015/2698 and 2015/2701.
In your letter you allege maladministration by the Commission in relation to these requests,
which all concern post-service activities of Mr Joao Pacheco.
I shall reply to your points in the order in which you raise them.
Point 1
You state that in your view, the Commission should not, at the outset, have authorised Mr
Pacheco's original request to set up a consultancy as it is clearly closely connected to the
areas of work he covered when he was in a senior position in DG Agriculture before leaving
the service. In this respect, you refer to his Linked-In profile.
Mr Pacheco retired on 1 September 2013. He received an authorisation to exercise the
activity as private consultant, as you state, coupled with the condition that any specific
projects dealing with agriculture should be notified separately to the Commission. I would
like to underline that Mr Pacheco, as anyone else, enjoys a right to work, as explicitly
provided for m Article 15 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The
Commission, in the context of Article 16 of the Staff Regulations, must carefully balance
the right to work against the legitimate interests of the institution. The Commission
concluded at the time that it was proportionate to allow Mr Pacheco to set up his private
consultancy, but subject to the clear and explicit condition that any project related to
agriculture would have to be notified separately so as to be evaluated on its own merits.
Commission européenne/Europese Commissie, 1049 BiuxeHes/Brussei, BELGIQUE/BELGIË - Tel. +32 22991111
Office: SC11 • Tel. direct line +32 229-+32 (0)2 2 9 57206
Commission européenne, 2920 Luxembourg, LUXEMBOURG • Tel. +352 43011
Irene.Souka® ec.europa.eu
In this respect, the solution you propose, i.e. "a three-year cooling-off period on Mr Pacheco
undertaking any consultancy work on agriculture or other topics related to his recent time at
DG Agriculture", is in my view clearly disproportionate. As you are aware, the sole fact of
taking up an occupational activity after leaving the service in the domain of a staff member's
previous responsibilities does not m itself constitute or lead to a conflict of interest. On the
contrary, the principle of proportionality requires that each case be evaluated on its own
merits. Let me add that a cooling-off period of three years as you propose is well beyond
what is provided for in the Staff Regulations, which limits the obligation to inform the
institution of any occupational activities after leaving the service to two years.
Point 2
You further consider, insofar as Mr Pacheco's work with Allen F. Johnson Associates (AFJ)
is concerned, that the Commission should not have made a distinction between the
partnership that was entered into between Mr Pacheco and AFJ, and the required
notification, under Article 16, of specific projects. You recall that Mr Pacheco was actually,
on the AFJ website, referred to as "Director of European Market".
On the one hand, I have to remind you that the published information was subsequently
corrected. Hence, Mr Pacheco no longer appears as "Director of European markets" on
the AFJ's website.
On the other hand, I have to underline again that the application for authorisation by Mr
Pacheco to set up his own private consultancy after his retirement received, in principle
and after assessment, the approval from the Appointing Authority, included "establishing
partnerships with other consulting firms" (in the field of consulting, including on
international trade in agriculture).
Therefore the partnership between Mr Pacheco (JSPacheco International consulting) and
AFJ takes place in this specific context, subject to the condition that he would require
prior authorisation on each project he intended to start in the domain of agriculture. For
the time being the Appointing Authority is not aware that such projects would be
underway in the context of this partnership.
Therefore, I cannot share your conclusions.
Point 3
In point 3, you ask for further information about the appropriate measures that the
Appointing Authority has taken regarding Mr Pacheco by Decision of 5 December 2014.
In this respect I cannot but repeat that you are requesting information relating to personal
data that cannot be disclosed for data protection reasons.
Point 4
In point 4 you contend that as regards Farm Europe, formally launched on 29 April 2015 in
Brussels, Mr Pacheco is in breach of the Staff Regulations since he did not apply for
authorisation of his activity in Farm Europe. The Commission is looking into this.
Point 5
In concluding, you mention that you have faced "significant delays" in this case, referring to
the Ombudsman's draft recommendations. You formally request that the Commission "open
2
the files relating to Mr Pacheco's revolving doors moves so that the Ombudsman's office
can inspect and assess the decision-making in this case."
In this regard, I refer to the fact that the proceedings which you asked to be informed of
have been conducted thoroughly and this necessarily takes time. The Commission has
replied to your questions regarding Mr Pacheco four times in 2014 and 2015.1 take note of
your request as concerns the Ombudsman, but this is a matter that falls solely within the
Ombudsman's discretionary powers.
If you are not satisfied with this answer, you may apply to the Secretary General of the
European Commission to review the outcome of your complaint. You may also lodge a
complaint directly with the European Ombudsman, under Article 228 TFEU.
Yours sincerely,
Irene SOUKA
3