A group of 37 MEPs, led by Brando Benifei (S&D) and Anna Cavazzini (Verts/ALE), have formally questioned the European Commission about potential conflicts of interest in the appointment of Jim Hagemann Snabe, Chairman of Siemens AG, as Special Envoy for Industrial AI. The written parliamentary question, submitted on 10 June 2026, demands transparency on the selection process and safeguards to prevent undue influence by a single industrial actor over EU AI policy.
The Commission created the post on 3 June 2026 and immediately appointed Snabe, who reports directly to Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and Executive Vice-President Henna Virkkunen. His portfolio covers AI infrastructure, cloud services, semiconductors, foundation models, and industrial deployment, areas where Siemens has direct commercial interests. The MEPs argue that the interests of one company cannot be equated with Europe's diverse industrial ecosystem, which includes SMEs, start-ups, workers, and consumers.
The question cites the Staff Regulations and the Commission's Rules on Special Advisers, which require avoidance of conflicts of interest. The MEPs note that the Commission has asserted safeguards exist but has refused to provide details, and they reference a 2016 European Ombudsman decision that found maladministration in a previous special adviser appointment where checks were bypassed.
whether the Commission will publish the mandate, selection procedure, declaration of interests, and full conflict of interest assessment; and what safeguards, recusals, and transparency obligations will prevent privileged access and undue influence. The Commission is expected to reply within approximately six weeks, and its answer will signal its stance on transparency and ethics in high-level appointments.
The appointment could benefit Siemens by giving it privileged access to shape EU AI policy, potentially at the expense of competitors, SMEs, and start-ups that lack such access. Consumers and workers may be affected if policy tilts toward large industrial players rather than broader societal interests. The Commission's credibility on ethics and transparency is also at stake, as the Ombudsman's past criticism highlights systemic risks.