The European Ombudsman has opened a formal inquiry into the European Commission's decision to appoint Siemens chairman Jim Hagemann Snabe as its special envoy for industrial AI, after a coalition of transparency organisations argued his ongoing corporate role compromises the position's independence.

The appointment under scrutiny

Snabe was named to the unpaid envoy role with a mandate running until the end of March 2027. He is expected to produce a report covering AI infrastructure, frontier AI technologies and the adoption of industrial AI across the bloc. The position carries no salary but significant influence: the envoy's conclusions will feed directly into how the Commission shapes Europe's industrial AI strategy.

The problem, according to the complainants, is that Snabe continues to serve as chairman of Siemens, a company with a direct commercial interest in how the EU regulates AI. Transparency International, Corporate Europe Observatory, LobbyControl and the Good Lobby wrote to the Commission on 10 June to raise their concerns. They received no reply.

The ombudsman's decision to investigate gives the Commission a deadline of 29 September to respond substantively to the NGOs' complaints. The inquiry will examine whether the appointment process adequately assessed potential conflicts of interest.

Siemens and the AI Act exemptions

The conflict-of-interest allegation does not rest on Snabe's title alone. Siemens was among the most vocal corporate advocates for weakening parts of the EU AI Act before it was finalised. Specifically, the company pushed to exempt products already covered by the EU's machinery legislation from the AI law's additional requirements.

That exemption was granted. EU legislators agreed to the change in the summer of 2026, and it is now embedded in the final text. For a company like Siemens, which manufactures industrial equipment that increasingly incorporates AI-driven features, the carve-out reduces compliance costs and regulatory overlap. For the NGOs, it illustrates exactly the kind of policy outcome that a well-connected corporate chairman might be expected to favour.

The concern is structural rather than personal. Whether Snabe intends to bias his recommendations or not, his professional position means he sits on the board of a company that has already secured a favourable regulatory amendment from the institution he is now advising. The optics are difficult, and the ombudsman appears to agree they warrant examination.

European Tech Creators and access to von der Leyen

Siemens' lobbying footprint extends beyond the machinery exemption. The company is a founding member of European Tech Creators, a new Brussels coalition that also includes SAP, ASML, Mistral, Airbus, Ericsson, Nokia and BMW. The group has already met with Commission president Ursula von der Leyen and plans to seek meetings with her on a quarterly basis.

European Tech Creators presents itself as a voice for the continent's technology manufacturers, arguing that regulation must not hamper European competitiveness. Its membership spans semiconductors, software, telecoms equipment, aerospace and automotive manufacturing: an unusually broad industrial alliance by Brussels standards. Regular access to the Commission president is a privilege most interest groups do not enjoy.

The combination of Snabe's envoy role and Siemens' membership of this group creates what the complainants describe as a double channel of influence: one formal, through the envoy position, and one informal, through the lobbying coalition's direct line to von der Leyen.

The Commission's defence and its silence on documents

The Commission has pushed back against the criticism. It argues that Snabe's report will be publicly available and that his advice will be visible and accessible to all, making it, in the Commission's words, "subject to public scrutiny." The implicit argument is that transparency about his conclusions will be sufficient safeguard against bias.

This line of reasoning has not satisfied the NGOs, and the Commission's handling of the appointment has done little to build confidence. Both European Parliament lawmakers and journalists have requested access to documents related to how Snabe was selected. The Commission has refused to release them. Secrecy around the appointment process makes it harder to assess whether potential conflicts were properly evaluated before the decision was taken.

Why independence matters for this role

How the ombudsman process works

What happens next

People mentioned

Organisations

European Commission · European Ombudsman · Siemens · Transparency International · Corporate Europe Observatory · LobbyControl