European Ombudsman opens inquiry into European Commission 'cover-up' over Italy swindling foreign lecturers

 BRUSSELS – The European Ombudsman, Teresa Anjinho, has opened an inquiry into a complaint by David Petrie, the head of the association of foreign university lecturers in Italy, over the Commission’s bizarre decision to accept at face value the Italian Government’s mendacious claims to have compensated all foreign lecturers who have suffered discrimination in corrupt Italian universities, Ms Anjinho said.

 In a letter to the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, that was sure to be deeply embarrassing for the right-wing government of the prime minister, Giorgio Meloni, the Ombudsman said “I have received a complaint against the European Commission that concerns a subject that EU institutions have been dealing with for over 30 years, namely the discrimination on grounds of nationality of foreign-language lecturers in Italy. The matter has received much attention over time, in the press, academic literature and the European Parliament. The complainant is the chair of the Association of Foreign-Language Lecturers, which is, evidently, very involved in the matter.”

 The Ombudsman, a former Portuguese minister, added that “In 2011, the complainant lodged an infringement complaint with the Commission, which ultimately led to the initiation of court proceedings against Italy in 2023 (Case C-519/23). The Commission withdrew the court action in the summer of 2025.”

 “I have decided to open an inquiry into two issues that arise from the complaint:

 "a) Did the Commission keep the complainant appropriately informed after 19 September 2023 when the Commission said that it would keep him informed about new developments?”

 “b) The Commission withdrew the court action and closed the complainant’s infringement complaint, without first seeking his views. The Commission has stated to the complainant that the withdrawal was a matter of urgency, without, according to the information submitted, explaining what the urgency consisted of and how it prevented the Commission from first seeking the views of the complainant. What hindered the Commission from first seeking the views of the complainant? “

 Ms Anjinho in her letter set deadlines for the Commission to provide documentation over the apparent cover-up designed to keep happy the Italian Government. “I would appreciate receiving the Commission’s reply on these two issues within three months of the date of this letter. The complainant will receive a copy of this letter, as well as of the Commission’s reply. Both this letter and the Commission’s reply will also be published on the Ombudsman’s website.”

 “Moreover, I have decided that it is necessary to inspect the following documents:

 (i) all communications the Commission had with the complainant from July 2023, when it

 took the decision to bring the matter to court, until March 2025;

 (ii) all other documents related to the infringement procedure and the court action in the period July 2023 until September 2025, when the Court issued its order on the withdrawal;

 (iii) written documentation as to what is the internal procedure in the Commission for deciding whether a court action should be withdrawn and for deciding when it must be done as a matter of urgency.”

 “Please provide the documents within eight weeks of the date of this letter. If the Commission considers the documents to be confidential, they will not be disclosed to the complainant or any other person without the prior agreement of the Commission.”

 jp