Commission slams Ombudsman’s ‘incorrect’ Selmayrgate report

Günther Oettinger rejects the idea the rules were manipulated ‘in any way.’

The European Ombudsman never spoke to Martin Selmayr or his predecessor about the German’s lightning-quick appointment to the European Commission’s top civil service post, according to Human Resources Commissioner Günther Oettinger.

In a letter sent to Emily O’Reilly, and obtained by POLITICO, in response to the ombudsman’s scathing report about Selmayr’s promotion to Commission secretary-general, Oettinger sought to “clarify” several “incorrect findings.” He wrote that the Commission “firmly rejects the observation made by the Ombudsman that it would have manipulated the rules in any way.”

The Commission “rejects the observation” that it “created an artificial time constraint” for the appointment of its new secretary-general. Both European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker and Selmayr, his head of cabinet at the time, “tried, until the very last day, to convince the former secretary-general to stay on,” Oettinger said. It was only on February 20, the day before Selmayr’s promotion was put to and approved by the College of Commissioners, that the retirement of Alexander Italianer (the then secretary-general) was communicated to Juncker, he added.

“These facts could have been confirmed by the former secretary-general and by the former head of Cabinet of the president,” Oettinger wrote. “The Commission notes that the European Ombudsman did not hear these two persons who could have explained and confirmed these facts.”

The letter also “contests and regrets” the wording of the Ombudsman’s press release that sought to “publicise” its report.

“The press release uses a statement that is not found in the actual recommendation and which yet made all the headlines: ‘The maladministration arose due to the Commission not following the relevant rules correctly either in letter or in spirit,'” Oettinger wrote. “It is only the European Court of Justice or the General Court that could rule on the respect of the relevant rules in case a Commission decision was legally challenged, which was not the case.”