Brussels, 11/10/2012 (Agence Europe) - Out of the four EU agencies selected by the Court of Auditors as the subject of an analysis on their policies and procedures for the management of potential conflict of interest situations, none, in 2011, adequately managed the situation, a special report (No 15/2012) from the Court of Auditors states. The long-awaited report was published on Thursday 11 October. The four agencies in question, which take decisions that are vital for the safety and health of consumers are: the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), the European Food Safety Agency (EFSA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA).
Igors Ludborzs, a member of the European Court of Auditors, told the press that the picture is very mixed. None of the four agencies manages conflicts of interest sufficiently well. The weak points and the failings vary from one agency to the next. Also, procedures, when they exist (as is the case for EMA, EFSA and ECHA), are not correctly implemented. He goes on to concede that the Court of Auditors was not able to take into account reforms operated in the meantime and is not able to take a stance on the situation currently prevailing in those agencies, but he gives his assurance that the Court will not stop there. He said they will take up the challenge and present another report in two years' time.
In the meantime, to get things back on an even keel, the Court recommends that the four agencies: - filter the candidates according to conflicts of interests before they are appointed; coherently define and apply clear and objective criteria for the assessment of declarations of interest; set in place policies and procedures relating to gifts and invitations applicable to the agency as a whole (this is valid for AESA, ECHA and EFSA); define clear, transparent and coherent policies and procedures applying to the whole agency on abuse of confidence; improve the transparency of declared interests during meetings and in scientific decision making processes; organise complete and compulsory training on conflict of interest; and resolve problems raised after the cessation of one's functions, in coordination with all appointment authorities concerned.
On the subject of personnel employed, the Court of Auditors recommends there be an annual declaration of interest and, possibly, a specific declaration if personnel are to take part in decision making in which their impartiality could be doubted. Regarding the EU institutions, it suggests that a comprehensive regulatory framework be developed for the management of conflict of interest situations, taking as a reference the guidelines of the OECD and existing best practice.
The examples of bad management of conflict of interest situations highlighted in the report are not a “witch hunt” but an illustration, said Ludborzs. He explained that they wish to show that the procedures and policies applied are not adequate for management of conflicts of interest and abuse of confidence situations. He went on to say that the EU, its institutions and its member states are going through a crisis - a crisis that is not only economic and financial but also related to confidence. It is better, he said, to acknowledge that there is a problem rather than pretend there is no problem.
The audit, which was completed in October 2011, closely examined the policies and procedures of the agencies in these matters regarding experts, personnel, the management board and the appeal committee. It answers a request by the European Parliament which expressed alarm at the allegations of cases of conflicts of interest, especially at the EFSA. Given that there is no exhaustive EU regulatory framework allowing minimum and comparable requirements to be imposed on all EU agencies, the Court of Auditors has taken as a definition of conflict of interest the definition set out in the OECD guidelines on the matter, “a conflict of interest involves a conflict between a public duty and private interests of a public official, in which the public official has private-capacity interests which could improperly influence the performance of their official duties and responsibilities” (AN/transl.jl)