The European Parliament’s Committee on Constitutional Affairs (AFCO) postponed its vote on the draft report by Daniel Freund (Greens/EFA, Germany) on the creation of an EU Ethics Body until Wednesday 14 July.
This postponement was requested by the EPP Group representative, Rainer Wieland from Germany, and accepted as a sign of good cooperation by the rapporteur.
According to a parliamentary source, the EPP Group has been reticent about this project since the beginning of the parliamentary discussions. And the German Christian Democrat’s aim would be to run out the clock so that the plenary vote on the dossier takes place after the German parliamentary elections on 26 September.
“My understanding is that we have exhausted the discussion. On the things we disagree on, there seems to be no reconciliation. It’s time to take a vote”, Mr Freund told EUROPE on Tuesday 22 June. However, he said he was open to further discussions, if this would stabilise a strong majority of MEPs without emptying the text of its substance.
At the last meeting of the political groups’ negotiators, all of them, except the EPP Group, reportedly indicated their support for the negotiated compromise amendments. The ECR group does not seem convinced either.
At issue, in particular, is the rapporteur’s desire to grant the future EU Ethics Body the power to start an investigation on its own initiative and to conduct on-the-spot investigations based on the information it has collected or that it has received from third parties such as NGOs, journalists, whistleblowers and the European Ombudsman.
Based on Mr Freund’s original ideas (see EUROPE 12646/22), the compromise amendments envisage that the EU Body should consist of nine members. Three of them would be chosen by the European Commission, three by Parliament and the last three would be former judges of the Court of Justice, former members of the European Court of Auditors or former European Ombudsman.
These nine members should be elected by Parliament by a large majority.
In order to contribute to a culture based on the prevention of conflicts of interest, the Body would take a two-step approach when a breach is brought to its attention: - a confidential stage where it would make recommendations to stop the infringement and give the person concerned the opportunity to be heard; - in case of refusal to correct the infringement, a recommendation for a sanction would be published and the competent authority would have to decide on the follow-up within 20 working days.
In contrast, any decision on the conflicts of interest of candidate Commissioners before their Parliament hearing would remain the prerogative of Parliament’s Committee on Legal Affairs. However, the EU Ethics Body would be entitled to issue a prior, public and non-binding opinion.
See the compromise amendments: https://bit.ly/3qihERf (Original version in French by Mathieu Bion)