JÁVORT Az EU-BA!

Támogasd Te is küzdelmünket a zöld és igazságos jövőért!

In solidarity with Népszabadság

GreensEFAabreviation-en

Questions about media freedom and pluralism in Hungary

By Greens/EFA MEPs Judith Sargentini and Benedek Jávor

The biggest Hungarian opposition daily newspaper Népszabadság was summarily shut down over the weekend of 8-9 October 2016. Journalists were told that their offices were being moved to another building and that they should put their things into boxes ready for the move. They were shown where their workstations would be in the new building, and the management had even announced plans for a small party on Sunday evening, for which it had already ordered the pizzas. Then, on Saturday, an unsigned letter from the management was delivered to each of them by courier letting them know that they have been suspended from work, and that they should not bother showing up because they would not be let into the building. Access to their workplace’s computer system, including to their mailboxes, was cancelled, and they were told not to talk about it to anyone. Employee representatives were not contacted by the management before or after the decision to close the paper, which is against the law. The online edition of the newspaper, nol.hu, was also shut down, along with its entire online archive. The publisher says the decision was made on economic grounds, but this is clearly a lie. After years of economic hardship, in 2015 Népszabadság started making a modest profit.

The far more likely cause of the closure is the fact that last week Népszabadság dug up a number of inconvenient facts about two high-ranking officials belonging to Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s inner circle – the head of the National Bank and former minister for economy, György Matolcsy, and Orbán’s propaganda minister, Antal Rogán. Although the paper’s publisher, Mediaworks Inc., is owned by the Austrian businessman Heinrich Pecina, foreign ownership is no guarantee of political independence in Hungary, as was amply illustrated by an earlier case involving the major online news outlet Origo.hu, then owned by the Hungarian subsidiary of Deutsche Telekom. In 2014, Origo.hu published a series of articles critical of the government that ended in the site taking János Lázár, the minister in charge of the Prime Minister’s Office, to court in order to gain access to a number of hotel bills he had accrued. The result of this was that the editor-in-chief of Origo.hu was abruptly forced to resign and the news outlet was eventually sold to a media company linked to oligarchs in the ruling party’s business network. Investigative journalism portal Atlatszo.hu and several other newspapers had in fact recently reported that a similar fate might be awaiting Mediaworks, too.

The Greens/EFA Group has consistently voiced its concerns about the developments in Hungary affecting press and media freedom and pluralism ever since a highly controversial media law was adopted in December 2010. It’s clear from the closure of Népszabadság that the emerging autocracy in Hungary is prepared to go far beyond regulatory measures to curb press freedom. Freedom of expression and press freedom may exist in the legal sense, and there are indeed news outlets and other media which are openly critical of the government, but the regime’s strategy is clearly to limit their reach as much as possible and cut off those that might have a major impact. Public service broadcasting, both radio and television, which in theory is supposed to set the standards of independent journalism, has been completely taken over by the government, and has become an instrument of shameless propaganda. The government and state-owned companies are also highly significant advertisers, diverting enormous amounts of public funds to pro-government media. One oligarch within the current regime, also acting as a government commissioner, recently bought the second biggest commercial TV station using public loans which he plans to pay back using public money spent on advertising; he immediately turned it into yet another channel of government propaganda. The aim is clear: to limit the press as much as possible in its role in defending and questioning democracy.

We stand in solidarity with the editors and staff of Népszabadság, and we will make sure that attacks on media freedom like this do not go unnoticed. We urge the political institutions and community of the EU to subject the Hungarian government’s compliance with the fundamental values of the European Union to further scrutiny.

(Photo source: MTI – Zoltán Balogh)

Transparency register – Progress on lobby transparency but many loopholes remain

Today, Frans Timmermans, Vice-President of the European Commission, presented the proposal for a new Inter-Institutional Agreement between the European Commission, European Parliament and the European Council, relating to the transparency register for lobbyists. Rapporteur for the Transparency Report of the European Parliament (1) and Greens/EFA finance and economic spokesman Sven Giegold commented:

 

“The European Commission’s proposals are an important step towards greater lobby transparency in the European Union. It is right that the European Parliament and the Council presidencies should make their contact with lobbyists transparent. Lobby transparency would make a crucial contribution to strengthening the confidence of citizens in the European Institutions. The conservatives of EPP and liberals of ALDE must drop their resistance in the European Parliament and allow the measures to proceed.

 

“However, the Commission’s proposals stop halfway. Only Commissioners and Director Generals are currently included, while lobbying of other senior staff and heads of units in the EU agencies would remain in the dark. Lobby transparency will remain empty words for the permanent representations of the member states in Brussels, not to speak of the governments in their capitals. Unfortunately, the proposal also lacks a legislative footprint, which would make transparent for any new EU legislation which lobbyists have lobbied which MEPs, Member States and Commission. We need the rules to be extended and a legislative footprint to make the transparency register as comprehensive as possible.”

 

Green transparency spokesperson Benedek Javor added:

 

“The Greens/EFA group has already taken important measures towards greater transparency through our Lobbycal project, free software that makes meetings with lobbyists transparent, including information about the subjects discussed. Many Members of our group use it already and I would encourage others to follow this example. By taking steps towards greater transparency in our work, we can help foster greater trust in politicians at a time when it is at a low. The European Council is of particular concern as it is currently the least transparent of the three institutions: we hope the Member States will step up to the challenge and deliver the transparency and accountability that citizens expect, and deserve.”

 

(1)  The report sets out proposals for greater lobbying transparency and stricter rules on the integrity of Members of the European Parliament. Under pressure from the conservatives in the European Parliament, the vote has been postponed.

 

 

Additional information:

 

The proposal of the European Commission:  http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/rep/1/2016/EN/1-2016-627-EN-F1-1.PDF

And the corresponding annex: http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/rep/1/2016/EN/1-2016-627-EN-F1-1-ANNEX-1.PDF

Memo by Commission explaining their proposal: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-16-3181_en.htm

Sven Giegold’s draft report on transparency, accountability and integrity: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+COMPARL+PE-567.666+01+DOC+WORD+V0//EN&language=EN

Blockade by Conservatives against the voting of the transparency report in Parliament: http://www.sven-giegold.de/2016/conservatives-blocking-lobby-transparency-and-moves-to-sanction-conflicts-of-interest-in-the-european-parliament/

A Vintage train for Orbán’s hometown – Benedek Jávor demands investigation

A ”tourist attraction” vintage railway was built in Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s hometown of Felcsút, at a cost of €2 million for 30 passengers per day.

 

 

Benedek Jávor has turned to OLAF [European Anti-Fraud Office] as well as the European Commission’s Regional Directorate to investigate the matter of the unused Felcsút small-gauge railway. 80% of the €2 million was covered by EU funds, and according to Benedek Jávor, this investment does not serve the interests of Hungarian taxpayers or the EU.

This hobby project of the Prime Minister travels between Vikor Orbán’s hometown of Felcsút (a town with 1,700 inhabitants, and the location of the 3,500-seat Puskás football stadium) and Alcsút, a small neighbouring village. The train is said to go from nowhere to nowhere.

The early application submitted for EU funds suggested that 2,500-7,000 passengers would use the line daily. As Mr. Benedek Jávor told the Telegraph: “The Hungarian government intentionally reported false data, as it was crystal clear even at the time of submitting the application that the estimated numbers are totally absurd and unrealistic. This is cheating and fraud which should be investigated by EU bodies.” Benedek Jávor asked for the documentations of original applications, which were not initially provided.

Later, Hungarian state secretary, Nándor Csepreghy, provided documents that 27 to 28 passengers would use the train line daily. If this is the original documentation, then, it is still unclear how it was possible to finance such a project. Benedek Jávor has asked various ministries to provide information on the expected pay-off time of the project. He has not received concrete answers yet.

Greens’ letter to Commissioner Moscovici calling for the prohibition of patent boxes

Dear Commissioner Moscovici,

On behalf of the Greens / EFA group, we would like to draw your attention on patent boxes, an important mechanism identified by the Commission itself as a risk to facilitate aggressive tax planning in Europe.

Patent or innovation boxes are a type of preferential tax regime, specific to the European Union and multiplying among Member States. Currently, 12 countries grant or are preparing to grant patent boxes or equivalent schemes(1), which could facilitate tax avoidance rather than genuinely encouraging the promotion of R&D in these countries. As you know, the allocation of intellectual property rights is key for tax matters but unfortunately is not always linked to where real economic activity takes place.

In 2014 the Code of Conduct for Business Taxation Group found all existing patent boxes harmful and agreed that, in order to address this problem, these preferential regimes should be based on the OECD “modified nexus approach”. This means that there must be a direct link between the tax benefits and the underlying research and development activities.

In its June 2015 Action Plan on Corporate Taxation, the Commission committed to carefully monitor how Member States implement the modified nexus approach and whether their patent box regimes are in line with the new approach. The Commission also took the commitment that if, within 12 months, Member States are not applying this new approach consistently, it will prepare binding legislative measures on this issue(2).

As the deadline of June 2016 is now ending, we would like to ask you, as Commissioner for taxation, to provide us with the outcome of your monitoring. It has been brought to our attention that several countries are delayed in the implementation of the modified nexus approach. Furthermore, despite a general commitment in 2014 to do so, France now claims that it will not rollback its patent box scheme as mentioned in the latest ECOFIN conclusions(3).

As recently reconfirmed by the report of the TAX2 Special Committee(4), investigating the Luxleaks scandal, we urge you to come forward with a binding legislative proposal on patent and innovation boxes. As Greens, we believe that patent boxes should be gradually phased out and prohibited in the next five years. Your services, as well as the OECD or the IMF, seem to confirm that patent boxes are not the right tool to foster R&D in Europe(5). We call on you to propose this new legislative proposal under Article 116 of the Treaty as Member States have been consulted since 2013 on the matter but such consultation did not result in an agreement fully eliminating the distortion of competition created by patent box schemes.

1 The following countries are: Belgium, Cyprus, France, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain and the United Kingdom. 2http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/resources/documents/taxation/company_tax/fairer_corporate_taxation/com_ 2015_302_en.pdf

3 Report of the Code of Conduct Group to ECOFIN, 13 June 2016, 9912/16 FISC 97 ECOFIN 558
4 http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/news-room/20160621IPR33011/MEPs-call-for-tax-haven-black-list-patent- box-rules-CCCTB-and-more
5 https://ec.europa.eu/futurium/en/system/files/ged/28-taxud-study_on_rnd_tax_incentives_-_2014.pdf

Brussels, 30 June 2016

The fight against corporate tax avoidance has increased considerably in the EU over the past years and we congratulate the Commission for the leadership it has taken on this matter. Taking a bold move on patent boxes would send a strong signal to Member States that the Commission remains committed to close harmful tax regimes in Europe to ensure a fairer corporate tax system.

Yours sincerely,

Max Andersson, Sweden Margrete Auken, Denmark Pascal Durand, France
Bas Eickhout, the Netherlands, Sven Giegold, Germany

Heidi Hautala, Finland
Maria Heubuch, Germany Yannick Jadot, France
Benedek Javor, Hungary
Eva Joly, France
Philippe Lamberts, Belgium Ernest Maragall, Spain
Michel Reimon, Austria
Michèle Rivasi, France
Molly Scott Cato, United Kingdom Bart Staes, Belgium
Joseph-Maria Terricabras, Spain Ernest Urtasun, Spain

Press release: Luxembourg Leaks trial – Regrettable verdict a wake-up call on whistleblower protection

A Luxembourg court today ruled that ‘Luxembourg Leaks’ whistleblowers Antoine Deltour and Raphaël Halet were guilty of stealing documents, revealing business secrets and violating trade secrets (1). Criticising the verdict, Green transparency spokesperson Benedek Javor MEP, who was in Luxembourg for the verdict today, said:

“This deeply regrettable verdict should be a clear wake-up call on the need to finally recognise and protect the crucial role performed by whistleblowers in democratic systems by shedding light on vital information in the public interest. The vital information revealed by the ‘Luxembourg Leaks’ whistleblowers threw the spotlight on the tax avoidance practices of multinational corporations, leading to investigations in the EU Parliament and elsewhere, as well as legislative proposals to close the loopholes that made this tax avoidance possible. There can be absolutely no doubt that Antoine Deltour, Raphaël Halet and Edouard Perrin were serving the public interest. To punish them for their actions is the opposite of what a rational legal system in a democracy should be doing. We will support them ni their appeal.

“This trial has driven home the precarious situation of whistleblowers even in modern democratic states. The only way to ultimately resolve this is by providing clear legal protection for whistleblowers. The European Parliament has called on the EU Commission to propose EU legislation to this end on a number of occasions and there is a clear legal basis for such a framework under the EU Treaties. Only last month, our group outlined a prototype for how such an EU law should look (2) and we are now again urging the Commission to act on this and bring forward a proposal.”

(1) The Luxembourg court delivered a guilty verdict to Antoine Deltour and Raphaël Halet. Antoine Deltour was sentenced to 12 months in prison with a €1500 fine and Raphaël Halet was sentenced to 9 months with a €1000 fine. In addition to the fine, they have clearly faced an arduous 2-year ordeal and the loss of their jobs. Journalist Edouard Perrin, who was also on trial, was acquitted.

(2) The Greens/EFA proposals for an EU whistleblower directive can be found at: http://www.greens-efa.eu/whistle-blowers-directive-15498.html

 

Below is a video from the Greens’ Twitter account, in which Mr. Jávor explains the situation:

 

EU energy rules – Parliament calls for greater ambition ahead of upcoming review

EU energy rules

Parliament calls for greater ambition ahead of upcoming review

PRESS RELEASE – Brussels, 23 June 2016

The European Parliament today adopted two reports setting out its assessment of how the EU’s laws on energy efficiency and renewable energy are being implemented. The Greens welcomed the votes, which called for more ambition, ahead of reviews of the legislation expected to be presented by the European Commission before the end of this year. Commenting after the votes, Green energy spokesperson Benedek Javor said:

“The European Parliament has today set down a marker ahead of the forthcoming reviews of the EU legislation on energy efficiency and renewable energy. If the EU is to take its responsibility in delivering on the Paris UN climate deal, it will have to increase the ambition of its energy and climate goals. This would also bring clear economic benefits and create sustainable jobs in Europe. The EP has today sent out a strong call to increase the ambition of the EU’s energy targets and to ensure proper binding rules for meeting these targets.

“Crucially, MEPs have highlighted that the frontline in delivering on the EU’s energy and climate goals must be energy efficiency and saving. They have called for the EU’s 2030 energy efficiency target to finally be made binding and to be increased to 40% (up from the 27% suggested by Council). This is essential for delivering European energy security, reducing our energy imports as well as tackling the problem of energy poverty.

“Parliament has also called for a strengthening of the 2030 EU renewable energy target to 30% (up from the 27% suggested by Council) and for this to be delivered through binding national binding targets. This is the model that proved successful in the expansion of renewables to date.  The current overall ‘headline target’ for 2030 is little more than an aspirational goal, with no binding provisions on individual EU member states. This is a major step back for the promotion of renewables, which undermines the economic and employment creation potential of the sector, and which must be addressed. MEPs also called for the creation of clear rights for those who generate and consumer their own renewable energy, whilst strengthening the role of local and regional authorities in the energy transition, which is crucial to its success.

“Commission must now take these votes on board and ensure its proposals for reviewing the current legislation reflect the call for greater ambition.”

(1) The Greens last year outlined their proposals on what Europe’s energy union should look like. The paper and a short overview can be found at: http://www.greens-efa.eu/a-green-energy-union-13369.html

 

(Image source: greens-efa.eu)

MEP Benedek Jávor’s message on strengthening Roma participation in politics

Mr. Benedek Jávor’s message on the political participation of Romas was given on the occasion of the European Roma Information Office’s conference titled “Strengthening Roma Political Participation”. The conference was held 10th of June, 2016; Mr. Jávor’s video message can be watched below.

 

(Image source: erionet.eu)

Belarusian Nuclear Power Plant – Security Challenge for Entire Europe

European Parliament’s agenda for June 6 was focused on the question of safety and security of Belarusian Nuclear Power Plant. This construction implemented by Russian energy concern “Rosatom” in Ostrovec, Belarus, less than 20 kilometres from the European Union external border, is followed by multiple accusations for failing to conform with international environmental standards, such as set by United Nations Aarhus and Espoo Conventions, as well as to provide response on inquiries submitted by its nearest neighbour Lithuania on the safety and security of the project.

‘The issue is of utmost importance for people all over Lithuania and entire Europe, as the Ostrovec project is rapidly being implemented and the threats it pose are becoming more and more tangible. With this European Parliament’s plenary debate we ask for the issue of unsafe Belarusian NPP to finally appear on the Commission’s agenda. We urge the Commission to finally wake up from ignorance of threat, appearing at the very border of the EU and use all levers available to start impacting Belarus, a non-democratic country, to stop breaching international conventions and international nuclear security practices in building Ostrovec NPP. We need a strong message, political will and dedicated efforts of the Commission in order not to sacrifice the health and security of European citizens in exchange for unclear political gains’, – notes Bronis Ropė, Lithuanian member of the Greens / European Alliance Group at the European Parliament.

Despite multiple violations of international conventions and protests of neighbouring countries and civil society, Belarusian authorities take all opportunities to declare that Ostrovec NPP will be the cheapest and fastest built nuclear power plant. The commissioning of first reactor is expected in 2018, with the second following in 2020.

‘The plan to build two new reactors in Belarus, close to the Lithuanian border poses a great risk to citizens of the EU, but also to the citizens of Belarus that still suffer from the aftermath of the Chernobyl catastrophe 30 years ago. The plans of Belarusian government to build these reactors under immense time pressure and at extremely low costs raises additional concerns. International conventions to include neighbouring states are not respected and there are serious doubts regarding the safety of the project. The EU-Commission has to use all possible avenues to make sure that international conventions will be respected and that Belarus will take part in the EU-stress tests and will accomplish IAEA SEED mission for the site in its full scope in order to ensure that international nuclear safety standards are applied’ – underlines Rebecca Harms, co-president of the Greens / EFA at the European Parliament.

It is noteworthy the so far ambiguous role of the European Commission. EU climate action and energy commissioner Miguel Arias Cañete is known for assuring the conformity of Belarusian NPP to international stress test requirements in his reply to MEP Ropė’s request in December 2015. However in April 2016 the Commission, answering to another similar question, posed by three green MEP’s – Rebecca Harms, Bronis Ropė and Claude Turmes, has indicated that such stress tests are not conducted yet only planned, meanwhile announcing its reluctance apply pressure to Belarus on this issue.

Monday’s plenary debate shall encourage the Commission to take into more serious account the threats posed by the Ostrovec NPP to the health and security of the citizens of the European Union. Close involvement of the EU institutions rather than efforts of single Member State is expected to have tangible results on halting the construction of Belarusian NPP until its safety and security will be ensured in line with the international conventions and corresponding standards.

Frequently asked questions about whistleblowers and whistleblower protection

Draft directive for the protection of whistle-blowers across Europe:

A Greens/EFA Transparency and Democracy initiative

 

  1. What are whistleblowers and why should we protect them?

In a world in which transparency is not always the norm and in which institutionalised secrecy still allows some to act against the public interest with no fear of being caught or brought to justice, whistleblowers are essential for the protection of our democracies. Several scandals that have hit the news – such as the Panama Papers, SwissLeaks, LuxLeaks, or even cases of sexual abuse in Central Africa – would have probably remained unknown without the courage of the brave men and women who chose to speak up and defend the public interest. Since there is no strong legal protection, whistleblowers often risk their careers, their reputations and their privacy. The pressures they face as a result of their disclosures, which include criminal and civil proceedings, are a clear sign that our democracies have not yet developed satisfactory legal instruments to protect those who disclose information in the public interest. Furthermore, the soon-to-be-adopted trade secrets directive has expanded protections for business’ trade secrets and hence has made even more urgent the need to ensure adequate levels of protection for whistle-blowers across the EU. Finally, wrong-doing often occurs across borders, and often negatively affects the internal market.

 

  1. Why action at EU level rather than national level?

Protection of whistleblowers in Europe is very uneven. Where protection exists, provisions tend to be scattered across different laws, with some member states having regulated some level of protection in anti-corruption laws, others in public service laws, and again others in labour, criminal and sector-specific laws, leaving significant legal loopholes and gaps. As a consequence, whistle-blowers across EU Member States enjoy uneven levels of protection, or in six countries[1], no protection at all.

In addition, the public interest in whistle-blower disclosures extends beyond the national level. There is a general European public interest which cannot be reduced to the sum of the particular interests of a given Member State. For example, the LuxLeaks scandal could be considered an example of this: although the authorities in Luxembourg might believe that there is a public interest in keeping their “sweetheart” tax deals secret, it is hard to argue that this public interest is the same for the other Member States, who are losing tax revenue as a result. For this reason, a collection of national pieces of legislation to protect whistle-blowers will never ensure that, within the EU, those who have the courage to disclose information of public interest are properly protected.

  1. Is the EU competent to legislate on the protection of whistleblowers?

Yes, the EU has several possibilities to provide protection to whistleblowers, as shown by the fact that European legislation already covers those who reveal sensitive public interest information when it comes to the fight against money laundering or against market abuse, so as to protect the functioning of the internal market.

In addition, articles 151 and 153(2)(b) TFEU provide a clear and unambiguous basis for EU legislative action which would empower employees to report wrongdoing by setting up a framework that provides for legal certainty and a which establishes a common minimum level of legal protection for workers throughout the Union. After all, although the hardships a whistle-blower might have to face are multifaceted, they almost always start at the workplace and have consequences on a whistle-blowers’ future career prospects too. In choosing this legal basis, we have ensured that the Directive would apply to all sectors of activity, thus covering both the public and private sectors.

 

  1. Who would be protected?

This directive seeks to protect all whistleblowers, defined as any worker or contractor who discloses, attempts to, or is perceived to disclose information or supporting evidence that is in the public interest or that is related to a threat or prejudice to the public interest, of which he or she has become aware in the context of his or her work-based relationship. By using a broad definition of “worker” (any person employed by an employer, including trainees, apprentices and former employees) we are able to cover a wide range of cases, including for example the case of Edward Snowden, who was a contractor for the US National Security Agency.

 

  1. Does the intention behind the protected disclosure matter?

As recommended by the Council of Europe and the UN, and as included in the Irish whistle-blower law, we believe that the personal intentions behind the disclosure of information are not relevant. Instead, we focus on the information itself, and on whether its exposure is in the public interest. In this way, controversies over whether or not selling the information counts as a public interest disclosure are avoided – this is relevant for example to the Swissleaks case involving Hervé Falciani who reportedly offered the information on HSBC’s clients in return for a fee. Since the information itself was beneficial to the public interest, he would be covered by this draft directive.

 

  1. How/to whom can the whistleblower provide the information?

According to our proposal a protected disclosure can be made by any means available to the whistleblower. By not requiring the whistleblower to go through a specific reporting channel (except for where the information concerns national security or classified material), we avoid situations in which the whistleblower should disclose information to people or organizations that already know about the potential scandal, which could create a risk that the information is never actually reported.

In the directive also include a requirement that the employer or relevant authorities must acknowledge receipt of the whistle-blowers’ alert and must inform them within 30 days of any action taken as a consequence of the disclosed information.

 

  1. What protection does the directive provide for whistleblowers?

Protections include exemptions from criminal proceedings related to the protected disclosure, exemptions from civil proceedings and disciplinary measures, and prohibitions of other forms of reprisal, including inter alia dismissal, demotion, withholding of promotion, coercion, intimidation, etc.

Furthermore, the directive foresees that there the whistle-blower must be granted anonymity and confidentiality in their protected disclosure.

 

  1. What happens if a whistle-blower reveals trade secrets or information related to national security?

The Directive protects whistle-blowers who disclose trade secrets as well as confidential information related to national security, though a specific procedure is envisaged for the latter.

In case of an overlap or clash between the whistle-blower protection directive and the trade secrets directive, the provisions to protect whistle-blowers must be complied with. The same is true where the information relates to national security issues. Thus, protection of trade secrets may not be invoked to the detriment of the whistle-blower concerned, even if the information revealed is not actually illegal in itself. In this way we can be sure that the directive would also protect people like Antoine Deltour, currently on trial following the LuxLeaks revelations.

 

  1. What will you do next?

The European Parliament’s latest call for legislation to protect whistle-blowers established, in the TAXE special committee report, a deadline of June 2016 for the European Commission to react. We plan to continue to campaign so that the European Commission finally proposes legislation to protect whistle-blowers across the EU. We already have broad cross-party support on the matter, as shown by the numerous European Parliament resolutions that called on the Commission to propose specific legislation.

[1] Spain, Greece, Finland, Slovakia, Bulgaria and Portugal

Press release – Whistleblower protection Greens present draft EU law as Deltour trial continues

The Greens/EFA group in European Parliament are presenting a draft for a new EU directive on whistleblower protection. The draft directive, which has been launched coinciding with the trial of Luxembourg Leaks whistleblower Antoine Deltour, aims to provide the basis and further impetus for a proposal to this end from the European Commission. Outlining the draft directive, Green MEP and transparency spokesperson Benedek Javor said:

“The Panama Papers leak has once again underlined the essential role performed by whistleblowers in shedding light on vital information in the public interest, just as the ongoing trial of Luxembourg Leaks whistleblower Antoine Deltour has driven home the precarious situation of whistleblowers even in modern democratic states. Whistleblowers serve a crucial role in ensuring transparency and accountability and it is a scandal that they are very often hung out to dry, with no protection, once they have revealed information in the public interest.

“We believe there needs to be a basic level of protection for whistleblowers across Europe. Whistleblowers face uneven levels of protection in the EU, with no protection at all in some member states. The European Parliament has called on the EU Commission to propose EU legislation on the protection of whistleblowers on a number of occasions and there is a clear legal basis for such a framework under the EU Treaties. In the absence of an initiative to this end from the Commission, this draft directive on whistleblower protection aims to provide the basis and further impetus for such a proposal. We want to work to build a broad consensus around this legislation with a view to ensure whistleblowers can finally have a basic level of protection across Europe.”

The draft directive and a summary can be found at:http://www.greens-efa.eu/whistle-blowers-directive-15498.html

The Greens/EFA group will host a conference on whistleblower protection tomorrow in the European Parliament at which the draft directive will be outlined. More details: http://www.greens-efa.eu/the-right-to-speak-out-15199.html