The European Ombudsman has launched an inquiry into whether the European Commission followed proper procedures when it appointed Jim Hagemann Snabe, chair of the Siemens supervisory board, as a special envoy for industrial artificial intelligence. The move has been challenged by multiple civil society organisations which say the appointment raises conflict-of-interest concerns.
Who was appointed and what will the role do?
Jim Hagemann Snabe serves as chair of the supervisory board at Siemens. He was appointed to the special envoy post on a pro bono basis, with a mandate running until the end of March 2027. His remit includes preparing reports on issues such as AI infrastructure, leading-edge AI technologies and the deployment of AI in industrial applications. The European Commission has defended the appointment, noting that the envoy’s reports will be public and therefore subject to external scrutiny.
NGOs raise conflict-of-interest concerns
Transparency International, Corporate Europe Observatory, LobbyControl and Good Lobby jointly filed objections to the appointment. The organisations say Snabe’s role at Siemens could undermine the independence and impartiality expected of an EU special envoy. They sent their concerns to the European Commission on 10 June and say they did not receive a reply.
Why Siemens’ involvement is sensitive
Siemens has been an active lobbyist in Brussels on matters related to EU AI regulation. The company backed an amendment that would have removed certain machinery from the scope of some obligations in the EU’s AI regulation; that easing was adopted by EU lawmakers during the summer and is now part of the new rules. In addition, Siemens is a member of a new Brussels lobby group, European Tech Creators, whose members include SAP, ASML, Mistral, Airbus, Ericsson, Nokia and BMW. The group has already met with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and plans quarterly consultations with her office.
Transparency questions persist
The Commission has refused requests to release several documents related to Snabe’s appointment to Members of the European Parliament and to Politico. That refusal has intensified questions about how transparently the decision was made. The Ombudsman has given the Commission until 29 September 2026 to respond to the NGOs’ complaints and to explain its handling of the appointment.
Wider context
The controversy sits against a broader backdrop of concern about Europe’s position in the global AI race, including commentary in The Wall Street Journal noting the scale of AI investments elsewhere and the implications for European competitiveness.
Next steps
The ombudsman’s inquiry will assess whether the Commission complied with EU standards on transparency and conflict-of-interest safeguards when making the appointment. The outcome and any disclosure of related documents may affect public and legislative confidence in how the Commission manages expert appointments and industry interaction.
