Response by Vazil Hudak to the article of 5 December 2024 on EUobserver.com by Mark Martin “The European Investment Bank has a chronic 'revolving doors' problem”.
Although the article has already been amended by EUobserver following Vazil Hudák's request for correction, and some incorrect and false information has been removed, it still contains false and misleading statements about Hudák. Hudák is therefore interested in removing the false and misleading impression that the article continues to create about his person.
Following are key misinterpretations contained in the article:
• There is currently no investigation held against Hudák. In fact, there was only one investigation carried by OLAF, which was closed without further action in October 2024.
• Hudák started working for the two companies mentioned in the article — Budapest Airport and Inobat, only after the expiry of the cooling-off period following the departure from the EIB and thus did not breach any EIB rules.
• Hudák never misused his position as the EIB vice president to influence financing of a particular company or individual. As regards the two cases mentioned in the article: Inobat never received any financing from EIB; the loan to the Budapest Airport was pre-approved by the EIB’s internal decision-making process that includes approvals by several departments within the EIB as well as by the EIB management committee as a collegiate decision-making body composed of EIB’s president and vice presidents.
More detailed explanation is provided below:
1. The article published on 5 December 2024 entitled “The European Investment Bank has a chronic 'revolving doors' problem” states that “Over the past few months, two investigations have exposed how former European Investment Bank vice president Hudák had in multiple cases joined the leadership of companies for which he had either helped arrange or even approve loans while working at the bank”
This statement is untrue and misleading.
Firstly, there is currently no investigation into Hudák´s actions referred to in the article and the only investigation previously conducted found no violation and was closed without further action in October 2024.
Secondly, Hudák only actively joined and started working for the referred companies after the expiry of the cooling-off period following his departure from the EIB and thus did not breach any EIB rules.
Finally, Hudák joined only one company that received a loan from the EIB, and this loan, like all other loans approved by Hudák as EIB vce-president, was pre-approved by the EIB's internal decision-making process. Hudák could not influence the EIB's decision-making process on loan applications (i.e. he couldn't help arranging loans), nor could he sign anything that hadn't been approved by several departments within the EIB including the EIB management committee.
2. The article published on 5 December 2024 entitled ”The European Investment Bank has a chronic 'revolving doors' problem” states that "In one instance, he (Hudák) was appointed board member of Budapest airport — after he had signed a €200m loan for a controversial expansion project.“
This statement is untrue and misleading. As explained above, Hudák only signed loans that had been pre-approved by the EIB's internal decision-making process and could not influence the decision-making process on loan applications from his position within the EIB (i.e. he could not help arranging loans).
3. The article published on 5 December 2024 entitled ”The European Investment Bank has a chronic 'revolving doors' problem” states that “In both cases, according to business registries in Slovakia and Hungary, he (Hudák) was in the process of joining the companies during his 12-month cooling-off, without even seeking the approval of the EIB’s Ethics and Compliance Committee.“
This statement is untrue and misleading.
Hudák did not work as an active member of the board of directors of Budapest Airport or at Inobat during the 12-month cooling-off period. Hudák also communicated the requirement for an approval of the EIB's Ethics and Compliance Committee to the Budapest Airport prior to his appointment as a member and did not, nor did he attempt to, circumvent the approval by EIB's Ethics and Compliance Committee. Therefore, while he was in the process of joining the companies during his 12-month cooling-off period, he only joined both companies and started working for them after the cooling-off period had expired.“
4. The article published on 5 December 2024 entitled ”The European Investment Bank has a chronic 'revolving doors' problem” states that “Not only has the EIB failed to condemn Hudak’s blatant violation of EIB´s Management Committee Code Conduct, for example, it has continued to forge ahead in a similar way in other cases.”
This statement is untrue and misleading.
As follows from previous statement, Hudák did not violate EIB´s Management Committee Code Conduct as he only started working for the mentioned companies after the cooling-off period had expired.
5. The article published on 5 December 2024 entitled ”The European Investment Bank has a chronic 'revolving doors' problem” contains further misleading allegations about Hudák's violation or taking advantage for personal interest, which are misleading and untrue as explained in the previous paragraphs.