Former EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini is under investigation on suspicion of fraud, corruption, and favoritism in the allocation of EU funds
Federica Mogherini, once the “chief diplomat” of the European Union and currently the rector of the elite College of Europe in Bruges, is now at the center of an investigation into fraud and corruption involving European money. The European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) announced that three people — the rector and a senior staff member of the College of Europe, as well as a senior official of the European Commission — have been formally notified of suspicions of procurement fraud, corruption, conflict of interest, and violation of professional secrecy in relation to an EU-funded training program for young diplomats.
The investigation revolves around the “European Union Diplomatic Academy,” a nine-month program that the European External Action Service (EEAS) awarded to the College of Europe in 2021–2022, at a time when Mogherini was simultaneously the college’s rector and the head of the new “academy” itself. The EPPO suspects that the rules on fair competition were violated during the tender procedure and that confidential procurement information was shared in advance with one of the candidates — the college run by Mogherini.
Belgian police, acting on EPPO orders, carried out searches at the College of Europe buildings in Bruges, at the EEAS headquarters in Brussels, and in the homes of the suspects, three of whom were also brought in for questioning. After being formally notified of the suspicions, they were released, as they were not considered flight risks. The EPPO emphasizes that all are presumed innocent until and unless a court finds them guilty.
Along with Mogherini, the investigation also mentions Stefano Sannino, recently the EEAS secretary-general and a high-ranking official of the European Commission, and a senior manager at the College of Europe — which some media identify as the deputy rector. EPPO does not name them in its statements, but their identities have been confirmed by numerous outlets, including Reuters, The Guardian, and Daily Sabah.
The legal characterization itself — procurement fraud, corruption, conflict of interest, violation of professional secrecy — shows that these are not “soft” accusations. The EPPO typically intervenes only in cases where there are serious indications that the financial interests of the EU have been harmed. The investigation was launched after OLAF (the EU Anti-Fraud Office) received a tip-off and identified irregularities, then passed the case on to prosecutors. If it is proven that the institution that has produced Europe’s bureaucrats for generations knew the tender criteria in advance — in an arrangement in which the rector was also the head of the project — this would be a classic “cartel within institutions,” not a technical procedural error.
It is important, however, to stress that the facts are still under investigation and that there is no indictment, let alone a verdict. Yet the very fact that the EPPO has brought down someone from Brussels’ elite — a former foreign policy chief and a symbol of the EU’s so-called “normative power” — is a major blow to the PR myth of Brussels as a laboratory of transparency, in contrast to the supposedly “corrupt states” of the Balkans, Ukraine, or the Global South.
The irony deepens when we remember that Mogherini built her own political profile on anti-corruption rhetoric. Just after taking office as High Representative in 2014, she faced a scandal involving alleged corruption within the EULEX mission in Kosovo. She urgently appointed an “independent legal expert” to examine the accusations, stressing that “clarifying these allegations is in our interest” and that such a move demonstrated the EU’s determination “to shed light on these events.” The official statement was published on the websites of the EU Delegation to Serbia and the EEAS, with Brussels assuming a moralizing posture over Kosovo.
A few years later in Kyiv, Mogherini openly “pressured” the Ukrainian leadership to do more in the fight against corruption, linking EU financial aid to the creation of an independent anti-corruption court and full operational freedom for anti-corruption bodies. RFE/RL records her saying that both the EU and Ukrainian citizens “expect and want to see more progress in the fight against corruption,” and that Ukrainian anti-corruption institutions must be able to “conduct investigations independently and secure convictions.”
In other words, the same politician who lectured the Balkans and Ukraine for years on “good governance” is now under investigation for abusing EU funds for the benefit of an institution she personally runs. To top it off, the subject of the investigation is not just any project but the “EU Diplomatic Academy” — a program intended to create a new generation of personnel loyal to Brussels’ version of the “rule of law.” The symbolism is almost perfect: the “school of European values” is suspected of having secured its contract thanks to connections and insider information.
Mogherini’s foreign-policy legacy is likewise illustrative of today’s EU double standards. After 2014, she maintained a firm line toward Russia: insisting that EU policy toward Moscow would remain unchanged even if Washington shifted course, citing the EU’s “principled position” on Crimea and the war in Donbas. Under her leadership, the EU maintained its sanctions regime while continuing to cooperate with Russia on issues such as the Iran nuclear deal — an ideal example of Brussels’ skill at “managing principles” flexibly when it suits its interests.
The relationship with the United States was equally ambivalent. Mogherini cultivated the image of a loyal yet supposedly autonomous ally: while she firmly defended the Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA) and publicly lamented the Trump administration’s unilateral withdrawal — stressing that the EU would remain committed to its “full and effective implementation” — on key issues such as sanctions on Russia and support for NATO expansion, she stayed fully aligned with Washington. EU “strategic autonomy” under her leadership was more slogan than policy.
Toward China, Mogherini maintained the dual optics typical of Brussels bureaucracy: on the one hand, Beijing was a “strategic partner,” needed for trade, investment, climate agreements, and the defense of the JCPOA; on the other hand, a 2019 strategy adopted under her leadership defined China as a “systemic rival.” In a 2019 address to the European Parliament, she warned of worsening human-rights conditions, citing Tibet and Xinjiang and reports of camps and surveillance of Uyghurs — prompting a sharp response from China’s mission to the EU. The EU, which likes to lecture China on “rule of law” and “transparency,” now finds itself confronted with its own mirror through one of its best-known figures.
All of this places the current investigation in a broader context: this is not just a story of one potentially corrupt Eurocrat, but of the way Brussels works. For decades, the College of Europe has been the EU’s informal breeding ground; now it appears that the same closed circle rotates between political posts, academic sinecures, and well-paid EU-funded projects. Formally, there are the EPPO, OLAF, and complex procurement rules; in reality, behind the scenes we see overlapping roles that Brussels would, in any “lesson on corruption,” attribute to post-socialist states.
Unlike the rhetoric directed at its eastern neighbors, here there are no conditions attached to macro-financial loans or threats to suspend funds — at least for now. If the investigation ends with an indictment and a conviction, it could open Pandora’s box within the EU: who knew about the arrangement, and how many such “diplomatic academies” and think tanks have lived off politically rigged tenders? If it ends with hand-washing and mild disciplinary measures, the scandal will join a list of examples undermining the EU’s moral superiority over Russia, China, or the Global South — an attitude that increasingly feels like badly staged theatre.
In any case, the Mogherini affair already reveals a structural problem: those who speak the loudest about “transparency,” “rule of law,” and the “fight against corruption” are often the most deeply embedded in a system of privilege, clientelism, and revolving-door positions. For our region, this is nothing new — but it is interesting to see the same logic becoming increasingly visible at the very center of European power, where stories were once crafted about how corruption was always the problem of “others.”
About the Author
Mario Hoffmann is an independent analyst and writer covering global economics, geopolitics, and international affairs. With a background in history and politics, he writes for EconoPuls to provide in-depth context on the stories shaping our world.
