On 28 October 2020, the EESC elected its new president, Austrian Christa Schweng. Together with the president, the EESC discussed the reform of the code of conduct, the changing role of her institution in the European decision-making process, the impact of the pandemic on her work and her expectations of the Conference on the Future of Europe. (Interview by Pascal Hansens)
Agence Europe - What are the main changes of the code of conduct (EUROPE 12647/28) you introduced and that has been voted last January?
Christa Schweng - So, it was to get a better clarity and a greater financial transparency, but also zero tolerance on harassment and stronger sanctions in case of non-compliance. We have strengthened the power of the ethical committee in this regard. For instance, the ethical committee, made of 6 people, plays a leading role in the investigation in case of possible breach of ethical standards by members and recommends a possible decision and penalties when appropriate. Members can also seek advice on potential conflict of interest from the ethical committee.
For the code of conduct we were inspired by other European institutions, like the European Parliament.. We also followed recommendations from the European Ombudsman and the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF).I think we have a code of conduct which is simply up to date.
You have been in this institution for 22 years now. Do you find that you are fairly heard by the EU institutions and by the European Commission currently?
There are things that we can improve and that we are going to work on. What we have not done enough is to sell our opinions to the EU institutions. Once we have an adoption at the plenary session, we often act as if the process is done. But it’s halfway through. And I think we need to see proactively Members of the European Parliament for instance.
The other thing is the moment where we tick in. Is it when the Commission has already prepared its proposal and put it on the table as it is foreseen in the treaties or could we kick in at an earlier stage in the decision-making process?
Often, EU institutions ask EESC for an opinion. It has been done by the Portuguese presidency and done by other presidencies in general and also by the European Parliament. But the Commission could ask us more often. Here I see ways to improve the implication of the EESC in the legislative process of the European Union. We could start feeding in the work program of the Commission.
We are also talking about the Conference on the Future of Europe (EUROPE 12656/30). Do you have the feeling that your institution has a fair role within this Conference?
From what we have seen so far, we are there in the executive board as observer just like the Committee of the regions ‘where appropriate’. And, of course, our understanding is that it’s always appropriate to observe what is going on there.
But this is only one part. To me, the Conference on the Future of Europe will also be to explain to our constituencies Europe a little bit better to the people back home. Because the distance between the European Union and the National level is perceived as getting bigger and bigger. And also, we need to listen what people would like to see at European level. And then reporting back that their feedback has been brought to the intention of the people taking decisions.
How would you coordinate this bottom-up approach with the Committee of regions?
This is not quite clear now., and still to be discussed. There is a difference. Because we are representing organised civil societies, they represent regions., We are complimentary and bring a different input to the EU policy process.
How did the pandemic change the internal functioning of your institution and in your day-to-day work?
I am spending an awful lot of time in front of my computer and not commuting. I think it’s basically true for all the members of the committee. I have been elected as president in the 28th of October, I have not seen my office from inside since then. I have not been in Brussels since then. I have in my cabinet people I have not met in person except through videoconferences.
On the other hand, we save lots of time in not spending time in airplanes - reducing CO2 footprint. But personal contact is really missing. What we can solve swiftly in a corridor through an informal talk can end up in a total chaos over a videoconference. Because our work is built on consensus and consensus is based on exchange and personal exchange. If you have the image and the sound, but not the body language, there is so much missing!
Once you are at the end of your mandate, on what would you like to be judged?
I would like to be judged on that the reputation and the image of the EESC have changed towards an institution that is on an equal footing with other advisory bodies that lives up on higher moral and ethical standards and where people are proud to be a member of and are proud to work for.