Corruption scandals in the European Union occasionally reach the very top of its officialdom, and one of the most telling examples is the case against Federica Mogherini. The investigation, launched in Belgium in December 2025, directly implicated a figure of the highest standing — the former EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs — who, following the end of her political career, had taken the helm of the College of Europe, a key educational institution that trains specialists in European studies, policy, economics, and EU law. Belgian police conducted searches at the headquarters of the European External Action Service (EEAS) and at the College itself, and detained three suspects, including Mogherini.
At the heart of the case is a contract for the creation of a European Diplomatic Academy — a project launched in 2022 with the aim of training a unified corps of European diplomats. The investigation is being conducted by the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO), which specialises in crimes against the EU’s financial interests. According to investigators, the case concerns possible irregularities in the distribution of EU funds in 2021–2022. The key parameters of the disputed tender appear, at first glance, entirely typical for an EU project. The contracting authority was the European External Action Service, and the executing party was the College of Europe. The programme was valued at approximately €654,000, ran for nine months, and was limited to around 50 participants.
Formally, this is a relatively modest contract by EU budget standards, which run into hundreds of billions of euros annually. Yet it was precisely this tender that drew the attention of investigators, as it appeared to be an indicator of deeper systemic problems — above all around public procurement procedures and the internal distribution of funds within European institutions. The investigation suggests that a rather narrow circle of individuals formed around this project, bound together not only institutionally but also by shared career trajectories. This circle included senior EEAS officials responsible for allocating funding, the leadership of the College of Europe as the direct contract recipient, and former high-ranking EU officials who had retained influence and connections within the system.
Investigators paid particular attention to Stefano Sannino, the former Secretary-General of the EEAS. His possible involvement underlines that this may be a case of interaction within a tight circle of trusted insiders, united by a common professional past and access to key managerial decisions. What makes the situation especially notable is the overlap of roles: Mogherini had previously headed the EEAS and subsequently became the leader of the institution that received its funding. This created a potential conflict of interest and deepened suspicions of an “inner circle of trusted individuals» a closed system in which the same figures successively occupy key positions, from decision-making to implementation.
According to the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, there is suspicion that the key parameters of the tender — including selection criteria and competition terms — may have been passed to the College of Europe before its official publication. If confirmed, such an advantage would effectively have eliminated fair competition, allowing a bid to be prepared in advance that perfectly matched the requirements. In that case, the tender would take on the character of a so-called “pre-arranged” procedure: formally, all stages are observed and documents are correctly filed, yet the outcome is known in advance. Such schemes are considerably harder to prove than straightforward bribery, since they are embedded within legal procedures and disguised as normal administrative practice.
Additional questions were raised by the financial behaviour of the contracting institution. Specifically, investigators are examining the College of Europe’s purchase of a building valued at €3.2 million in 2022, with the possibility that this investment was made in anticipation of the forthcoming contract. If it is established that the decision to purchase was based on informal or insider information, this would constitute indirect corroboration that the tender’s outcome was known in advance.
Finally, an important element of the investigation is a potential conflict of interest linked to the so-called “revolving door” phenomenon — a mechanism widely discussed in the EU context, whereby officials move from European institutions into affiliated organisations while retaining professional connections and informal influence. The situation surrounding Mogherini brought this problem into sharp relief: the former head of EU diplomacy subsequently led an organisation that receives funding from the very institution she once ran. In such circumstances, the risk of informal influence over decisions arises even in the absence of direct violations, making such cases particularly damaging to the reputation of European institutions.
Although the sums involved appear comparatively modest by EU budget standards, it is precisely their combination with other circumstances that has drawn heightened scrutiny from investigators and experts alike. Unlike other high-profile corruption scandals in the EU — where millions of euros in cash and direct bribes were involved — this case exhibits a different model. It is based not on an obvious transfer of money, but on the exploitation of institutional advantages: access to information, influence over procedures, and close ties within the decision-making system.
The affair surrounding Mogherini has already been described in Brussels as a kind of “political earthquake,” with key EU structures falling under suspicion. The spotlight has fallen on the European External Action Service, the European Commission, and the College of Europe — institutions directly involved in shaping and implementing EU foreign policy. This is precisely what makes the situation so sensitive: it strikes at the very core of European governance. The investigation feeds into existing doubts about the transparency of EU procedures, the independence of decisions taken, and equal access for participants in competitive processes. The result is fertile ground for the growth of Euroscepticism and for criticism from both domestic political forces and external actors with an interest in weakening the EU’s standing. The scandal led to Mogherini’s resignation as Rector, as well as the departure of a number of officials connected in various ways to the processes under examination.
In the longer term, profound changes within EU structures are possible — among them, tighter oversight of tender procedures, reform of anti-corruption mechanisms, and a review of the rules governing the movement of EU officials into affiliated organisations. All of this suggests that the Mogherini case may become not only a matter for criminal proceedings, but also a catalyst for reform within the European Union.