On Thursday 16 September, the European Parliament endorsed the position of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs on the establishment of a European ethics committee, but without the support of the Christian Democrats (377 votes in favour, 87 against, 224 abstentions). This body would be responsible for issuing recommendations in cases of conflict of interest involving persons who hold positions in the institutions and bodies of the European Union (see EUROPE 12763/23).
Composed of nine members, the committee could initiate its own field investigations on the basis of information it has collected and/or received from whistleblowers, journalists or civil society. When an offence is brought to its attention, it would act in two stages: – a confidential stage where it makes 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.
The EU’s ethics rules are “pretty good”, but the problem is their day-to-day application, rapporteur Daniel Freund (Greens/EFA, Germany) told a few journalists ahead of the vote.
He cited the case of former EU Commissioner Günther Oettinger, who was able to register his lobbying company in the European Transparency Register before the end of the ‘cooling off period’, during which a former EU Commissioner cannot use his EU address book (see EUROPE 12439/18), and the case of Adam Farkas, a former executive director of the European Banking Authority who joined the financial lobby AFME (see EUROPE 12550/19).
The ethics committee will initially only issue public recommendations, because, according to Mr Freund, there is not a majority in Parliament to allow the future entity to take decisions itself. “It’s a start”, noted the rapporteur, himself a former member of Transparency International.
Abstention of the EPP group
In the final vote on the report, the EPP group abstained. It does not reject the creation of an ethics committee at European level per se, but it believes that the entity as envisaged by MEPs would encroach on the prerogatives of the European Parliament.
“Everyone who holds an official public office must observe high ethical standards. This is why an independent ethics committee can provide important guidance on these issues”, said Rainer Wieland (EPP, Germany) in a statement. While acknowledging some improvements in the content of the report compared to the original text, he justified the abstention of the Christian Democrats: “In all democracies, it is the central role of Parliaments to scrutinise and approve the government. An ethics body cannot take this right away from Parliament. It may assist the European Parliament with non-binding confidential proposals, but the approval process of the European Commission must remain in the hands of the European Parliament”. He described the report as a frontal attack “on the separation of powers”.
The EPP group’s three amendments, which insisted on Parliament’s competence to assess the declarations of financial interest of the European Commissioners-designate, were rejected.
According to Mr Freund, the Christian Democrats’ abstention is aimed at “avoiding reputational damage “, especially in the run-up to the German parliamentary elections.
The European Ethics Committee will be based on an institutional agreement. On the basis of Parliament’s position, the rapporteur will start discussions with the EU Commissioner for Values, Věra Jourová, who supports Parliament’s position, and the Slovenian Presidency of the EU Council, which is silent on the issue. On the other hand, France, which will hold the EU Council Presidency in the first half of 2022, is said to be very keen on the issue.
Once an interinstitutional agreement is finalised, a single vote of approval will be needed in Parliament.
See the ‘Freund’ report: https://bit.ly/3El80Ea (Original version in French by Mathieu Bion)