Recognising conflicts of interest

1. Regulatory Concept & Core Standards

In this video we will work through a concrete decision: recognise how personal connections affect impartiality. The aim is to explain the criterion used and apply it to a workplace situation. We will start with the concept, move to the procedure and finish with a case to solve. A conflict can exist without actual corruption. Distinguish KVS public-function requirements from private organisational policy. This course accounts for the 19 July 2026 changes to connected persons and restrictions. It assumes no universal statutory euro limit for gifts.

Family, financial and other personal connections can affect a decision or raise impartiality concerns. KVS section 7 defines connected persons for public functions, including 2026 amendments. A broader internal policy must not be presented as the exact statutory list.

Apply the following rule: TÕRTKS section 2 covers work-related information about EU-law breaches in listed fields, including procurement, EU financial interests, data protection and EU restrictive measures. It does not automatically cover every employment dispute or corruption concern. KVS section 6 contains separate corruption-reporting protection that must be assessed on its own conditions.

2. Practical Implementation & Procedure

Identify the decision role and connection. Check current sections 7 and 11 for public functions. Separate legal restriction from risk-management choice and seek independent assessment if needed. Before moving on, turn this procedure into a sequence you could explain to a colleague. Identify the first check, the action that depends on its outcome and the record that allows the decision to be reconstructed. Follow the sequence on screen and identify the point where an error would change the result.

3. Case Study & Compliance Action

A committee member has a family connection to a bidder. Before evaluation, the exact relationship, role and applicable restriction are assessed and addressed. Now read the case carefully. Separate established facts from information you would still need to confirm. Do not add motives or events that have not been described. This distinction matters when choosing a response proportionate to the information available.

The exercise is as follows: Does a conflict always prove corruption? Choose an answer and write one sentence explaining it. During the pause, compare your choice with the criteria we have just considered. Also think about the material you would retain to explain the decision later.

No. It identifies a risk or legally restricted situation requiring handling. Establishing a particular offence is separate.

One mistake to avoid is: equating a conflict with guilt.

Now apply the national rule to a second decision. A report is automatically called protected because it contains the word corruption. What check is missing?

Check the work-related connection, facts and TÕRTKS sections 2,3 and 13. Assess KVS section 6 separately where relevant. A form label does not confer every right. Identify an appropriate alternative route and limit disclosure if another procedure applies.