Investigators examine potential irregularities in the transfer of 23 EU-owned buildings to a national wealth fund as scrutiny over financial governance intensifies

Belgian federal police have searched offices of the European Commission as part of an expanding investigation into the sale of a portfolio of public properties to a national wealth fund, a move that places one of the European Union’s most powerful institutions under rare direct scrutiny by domestic law enforcement authorities.

The operation follows reporting by the Financial Times that the European Public Prosecutor’s Office is examining whether the disposal of 23 Commission-owned buildings complied fully with EU financial regulations, transparency obligations, and internal governance procedures governing the management of public assets.

Officials close to the matter said investigators are reviewing documentation related to valuation methods, competitive bidding procedures, and the internal approvals that preceded the transactions, with particular attention to whether the agreed sale prices reflected prevailing market conditions at the time of transfer.

Neither prosecutors nor Commission representatives have issued public statements detailing the scope of the searches, and both sides have declined to comment substantively while the inquiry remains ongoing, citing confidentiality requirements attached to active investigations.

According to individuals familiar with the property strategy, the buildings were transferred to a state-backed investment vehicle in what was presented internally as a long-term rationalization of the Commission’s real estate portfolio, aimed at streamlining office space and reducing structural costs following shifts in working patterns across EU institutions.

The Commission has in recent years emphasized efficiency, sustainability, and fiscal prudence in managing its physical footprint, arguing that consolidating premises and divesting surplus properties aligns with broader administrative reforms and environmental targets designed to modernize the bloc’s governance infrastructure.

However, the scale of the disposal and the involvement of a national wealth fund have now prompted closer examination of whether competitive safeguards were sufficient and whether all procedural steps required under EU financial rules were strictly observed throughout the negotiation and approval process.

The European Public Prosecutor’s Office, established to investigate crimes affecting the financial interests of the European Union, has steadily expanded its remit and visibility, and the current probe underscores its institutional independence even when inquiries concern central EU bodies rather than member state administrations.

Legal specialists note that searches of EU institutional premises by national police authorities are uncommon but legally permissible under established cooperation frameworks, particularly when investigations involve potential intersections between European financial regulations and domestic jurisdictional competence.

Within the Commission, senior officials have signaled internal cooperation with investigators and have reassured staff that due process must take its course, while also stressing that no conclusions should be drawn before the competent authorities complete their assessment of the evidence collected.

Transparency advocates argue that large-scale asset disposals by EU institutions demand heightened disclosure and robust audit trails given the symbolic and financial significance of publicly owned buildings in the European quarter and beyond, especially at a time when trust in institutions is under constant public scrutiny.

Market observers are also watching closely, noting that national wealth funds have become increasingly active players in European real estate markets and that transactions involving supranational institutions require meticulous documentation to avoid any perception of preferential treatment or procedural opacity.

At this stage, no formal accusations have been announced and no charges have been filed, and individuals familiar with the matter caution that property transactions of this complexity often involve layered financial modeling and extensive legal vetting that can appear opaque without necessarily constituting wrongdoing.

The optics of uniformed officers entering Commission premises have nonetheless resonated across Brussels, reinforcing the political sensitivity of the case and highlighting the determination of oversight bodies to pursue potential irregularities irrespective of institutional stature.

As European institutions seek to project unity and integrity amid geopolitical uncertainty and economic pressure, the investigation carries reputational implications that extend beyond the immediate question of 23 properties and into the broader debate about governance standards within the European project.

Whether the probe ultimately reveals administrative lapses or confirms procedural compliance, its outcome will shape discussions about asset management, oversight mechanisms, and accountability structures inside the European Commission for years to come, ensuring that the stewardship of public resources remains firmly in the spotlight.

For now, the inquiry continues behind closed doors, with investigators reviewing documents and officials maintaining silence, leaving Brussels to confront an uncomfortable reminder that even at the heart of the European Union, financial governance is subject to scrutiny and the rule of law remains paramount.