On Thursday 28 January, the European Parliament’s Committee on Constitutional Affairs (JURI) debated the functioning and modalities of an ‘EU ethics body’, which the von der Leyen Commission has promised to establish (see EUROPE 12338/7).
“If money can buy decisions and politicians, European citizens will turn away from Europe”, said Daniel Freund (Greens/EFA, Germany), rapporteur on this dossier. He felt that the post-2020 EU budget conferred “greater responsibility” to ensure that the distribution of financial aid is not subject to political influence. And he pointed to former Commission President José Manuel Barroso’s revolving door at Goldman Sachs and the fact that a third of MEPs in the 2009-2014 legislature have joined organisations registered in the European Transparency Register. Introduced after the ‘cash for amendments’ scandal, the European Parliament’s code of conduct has been breached 27 times, Freund also noted.
The rapporteur suggests that all existing competences in the field of ethics in public life should be attributed to “an interinstitutional body” responsible for supervising compliance with existing rules “on conflicts of interest, revolving doors, gifts, and transparency of lobbying activities” by “European Commissioners, MEPs and European officials”.
This European Ethics Committee would be composed of nine members: three appointed by the European Commission, three by Parliament, and three from among former Presidents of the EU Court of Justice, the European Court of Auditors, or former European Ombudsmen. It would be able to investigate alleged offences and take binding decisions following a two-stage procedure (first confidential, in direct contact with the alleged offender, and then a public procedure that could lead to sanctions).
Any decision of the committee could be challenged before the Court of Justice and the European Ombudsman.
The main political groups’ reception was generally favourable. Only Rainer Wieland (EPP, Germany) expressed reservations about the need for an independent body. He stressed the importance of respecting the “presumption of innocence” and rejected any sanction not based on a legislative text.
The S&D group supports the approach, said Włodzimierz Cimoszewicz (S&D, Poland), in favour of the creation of a “single body” that should be resolutely “independent”. The same goes for Damian Boeselager (Greens/EFA, Germany), who believes the committee will have to be able to adopt binding decisions.
Gilles Boyer (Renew Europe, France) considered the draft report to be “a good basis for work”. Nevertheless, he raised several issues: - agreeing on a common definition of ‘conflict of interest’; - Parliament’s acceptance of the obligation to relinquish jurisdiction; - the capacity of the future European committee to self-task and to pronounce sanctions.
On the composition of the future committee, Leila Chaibi (The Left, France) doubted whether a European ethics committee could act independently if it is composed of former members of the College of Commissioners or Parliament. On behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs, her counterpart from the same group, Manon Aubry, considered that the report should go further by specifying that the future body should “have access to all types of documents, both administrative and financial”. And she advocated for a direct capacity to refer matters to the committee by civil society.
Amendments to the draft report, to be tabled by 12 February, will be debated on 17 March, with a view to a vote by the Committee on Constitutional Affairs (AFCO) in June.
See the draft report: https://bit.ly/39qp4eD (Original version in French by Mathieu Bion)