Prosecutors investigate the EUs executive branch over the sale of buildings to Belgium 2 years ago. 

Detected Manipulations & Suggested Changes

Anonymous sources

Use of unnamed or vaguely described sources, which can limit verifiability and context.

“The Financial Times, citing ‘two people familiar with the operation,’ reported that Belgian police conducted searches of different commission premises on Thursday, including the EU executive branch's budget department.”

3 suggestions

Provide more detail on the nature and role of the anonymous sources if possible (e.g., ‘two officials involved in the investigation who requested anonymity because they are not authorized to speak publicly’).

Clarify why anonymity is necessary (e.g., to protect an ongoing investigation or the sources’ positions).

Balance the anonymous claim with an explicit note that it could not be independently confirmed by the outlet publishing this article, if that is the case.

Selective use of sources / Unbalanced reporting (mild)

Relying mainly on institutional or one-sided sources without including potentially relevant independent or critical perspectives.

The article quotes the European Commission’s assurances that the sale ‘followed established procedures and protocols’ and that it is ‘committed to transparency and accountability,’ and notes EPPO’s refusal to give details. There is no independent expert, watchdog, or opposition voice to contextualize whether such assurances are typical, contested, or credible.

3 suggestions

Include a brief comment from an independent legal expert, transparency NGO, or academic on how such investigations typically proceed and whether the Commission’s statements are standard practice.

Add context on why the investigation was opened (if known and verifiable), or explicitly state that the reasons have not been disclosed.

Clarify that the article does not have access to the investigation file and that no wrongdoing has been established, to avoid any implied exoneration or implied guilt.

Omission of key information (contextual, mild)

Leaving out contextual details that could help readers better understand the significance of the investigation.

The article notes that prosecutors have opened an investigation into the sale of 23 buildings for around 900 million euros but does not explain what potential issues are being examined (e.g., possible over/under-valuation, conflict of interest, procurement concerns), even at a high level, if such information is publicly available.

3 suggestions

If publicly available, briefly describe the general nature of the suspected irregularities or the legal basis for EPPO’s involvement (e.g., ‘possible misuse of EU funds’ or ‘alleged irregularities in the valuation process’).

If such information is not available, explicitly state that authorities have not disclosed the grounds of the investigation, to make the limitation clear to readers.

Add a short explanation of EPPO’s mandate (e.g., that it investigates crimes affecting the EU budget) to help readers understand why this body is involved.