JÁVORT Az EU-BA!

Támogasd Te is küzdelmünket a zöld és igazságos jövőért!

Lobbying transparency – New EU rules overdue; Greens/EFA launches new tool

The Greens/EFA group has urged the European Commission to stop delaying anticipated proposals setting out new rules on lobbying transparency. The group made the call today in the context of its launch of a new online tool for automatically making public any meetings MEPs hold with lobbyists (1). Commenting at the launch, Greens/EFA vice-president Julia Reda said:

“Given the legitimate public concerns about the undue influence of lobbying in the EU decision-making process, ensuring transparency about the engagement of EU institutions with lobbyists must be a top priority. It is regrettable that the Commission is dragging its feet in bringing forward new proposals on lobbying transparency. EU citizens have a right to know what groups are trying to influence the legislative process. A better overview over their stakeholder meetings also allows MEPs themselves to balance out disproportionally loud and well-funded interest groups. Our new tool enables this with as little bureaucratic burden as possible. Meetings between MEPs and lobbyists will be automatically published in a database that would be open to all. The tool is open to MEPs from all groups and we hope that as many as possible will use it.”

Hungarian Green MEP Benedek Javor added:

Despite years of rhetoric and a direct commitment by EU Commission president Juncker, we still have no binding lobbyist register for all EU institutions. The Commission is continuing to delay overdue proposals setting out new EU rules on lobbying transparency. We would urge the Commission to finally come forward with its proposals, notably for a binding register for all lobbyists wishing to access the EU institutions. Transparency is the only way to address citizens’ concerns about the EU decision-making process. With the EU behind other democratic systems when it comes to lobby transparency, like the US, it is high time this was addressed.”

(1) Full information and a link to the LobbyCal tool: http://www.greens-efa.eu/transparency-of-meetings-with-lobbyists-14895.html

 

ITCO intergroup pressures the European Parliament to ban salaried side jobs

The intergroup on Integrity, Transparency, Corruption and Organised crime calls for a revision of the Code of Conduct for Members of the European Parliament, in order to ban side jobs for MEPs. Under the current rules, MEPs can have various paid side jobs. The Volkswagen emission scandal, about which a debate in the European Parliament was held yesterday, illustrates that it is exactly the close bonds between the automobile industry and the European institutions that has enabled the widespread fraud with emissions.

The emission fraud scandal in the automobile industry should trigger a sharper focus on the tight relation between the car-industry and European institutions. So far, MEPs have been allowed to have side jobs, as long as they register these through their declarations of interest.

The code of conduct has a provision on conflicts of interest, which are defined as follows: a conflict of interest arises when a Member of the European Parliament has a personal interest that could improperly influence the performance of his or her duties as a Member. The Code of Conduct obliges members to disclose any actual or potential conflict of interest before speaking/voting in the plenary or when proposed as a rapporteur. Apart from that, MEPs can have as many side jobs as they want. This leads to the current situation that some MEP’s are involved in the car-industry. Currently the EP is revising its internal rules and, therefore, the ITCO intergroup proposes to ban paid salaried side jobs as soon as possible.

Dennis de Jong states in his capacity as co-chair of the intergroup: ”There is an urgent need to end the ties between the industry and members of the EP. We should start by implementing a ban on paid side jobs. This is the best possible guarantee against conflicts of interest arising”. Benedek Jávor as vice-chair of the intergroup highlights that: “Without transparent rules concerning the functioning of MEP-industry forums and a ban on paid side jobs for MEPs, European legislation will continue to be governed by industry priorities, even at the expense of the health of European citizens.”

Une protection européenne pour les lanceurs d’alerte

Lors d’une conférence organisée par Eva JOLY, une représentante de la Commission européenne a affirmé que la Commission n’avait aucune intention de faire une proposition législative sur la protection des lanceurs d’alerte au niveau européen dans un futur proche. Les députés écologistes ont décidé de rédiger une question écrite à la Commission européenne afin d’obtenir son positionnement officiel et pouvoir agir en conséquence.

Eva JOLY, membre de la Commission Libertés civiles, a souhaité réagir :

« Nous souhaitons mon collègue et moi-même obtenir la confirmation officielle par la Commission européenne des propos tenus par sa représentante affirmant qu’aucune législation ou programme de protection des lanceurs d’alerte ne serait proposé par la Commission européenne. Si tel est le cas, si la Commission s’obstine à refuser aux lanceurs d’alerte un statut européen les protégeant, ce serait pour moi une erreur absolue. Leur garantir une protection devrait être une priorité démocratique. On pourrait alors légitimement se demander si Jean-Claude Juncker, le Président de la Commission, n’aurait pas un problème avec les lanceurs d’alerte pour ne pas vouloir les protéger.
 
J’ai une conviction : dans ce Parlement, les lobbyistes sont plus forts que nous. Mais j’ai aussi une certitude : seule la société civile mobilisée peut arrêter tout cela et peut faire le changement.

Rarement une décennie à venir n’a été aussi importante pour notre avenir, pour l’avenir de la démocratie. Nous avons une énorme responsabilité en tant que membre du Parlement et de la société civile. L’avenir de nos démocraties, si nous ne laissons pas toute leur place aux contre-pouvoirs, dont les lanceurs d’alerte font partie intégrante, est tout à fait inquiétant.
 
J’attends donc avec impatience la réponse de la Commission et je souhaite qu’elle présente rapidement une proposition législative visant à mettre en place un programme européen efficace et complet de protection des lanceurs d’alerte.
 »

Pour Benedek JAVOR, Porte-parole du groupe des Verts sur la transparence :

« Jean-Claude Juncker a affirmé au début de son mandat que cette Commission serait la Commission de la transparence et qu’il comptait coopérer étroitement avec le Parlement Européen. La déclaration de la Commission lors de la conférence d’ignorer les demandes répétées du Parlement européen pour un standard minimum de protection des lanceurs d’alerte ne remet pas seulement en question la crédibilité de Monsieur Juncker et de sa commission. Elle envoie également un très mauvais signal aux potentiels lanceurs d’alerte sur l’engagement Européen à protéger ceux qui agissent dans l’intérêt général. »

La conférence « Un statut européen pour les lanceurs d’alerte » où sont également intervenus Julian Assange de Wikileaks et Sarah Harrison de la Fondation Courage est consultable en ligne et en intégralité ici : http://greenmediabox.eu/en/ct/93-A-European-statute-for-whistleblowers

photo: Holly OcchipintiCC BY

A European statute for whistleblowers

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Democracy in our time faces serious challenges. I won’t attempt to take stock of them now, but one of the challenges to mention would surely be the credibility of the democratic ideal. While authoritarian ideologies are on the rise even on the European periphery, the question whether democracy can live up to the ideals that make it preferable to other forms of government is urgent.

Corporate influence on governance and corruption are at the top of the list of phenomena that undermine the credibility of democracy. I come from a country in which, after the fall of the Communist regime when we tried to make a new start with democracy, we ran into problems that soon led to disillusion and disenchantment. Besides the inability of democratic governments to deal with the social crisis that emerged from the transformational crisis of the economy, corruption was the factor that contributed most to the deterioration of social trust, the decay of trust in fairness, in the accountability of power, in the rule of law, and ultimately in democracy itself. Now my country is taking an authoritarian turn. It should be taken as a warning signal. Democracy is not bulletproof. Its institutions cannot themselves sustain their own legitimacy. Democracy is also a stance on the norms of social cooperation, and it is only if this stance is shared by the large majority that democracy is in the safe. So corruption is not just a criminal matter. It is a failure of social cooperation that is potentially destructive of the democratic ideal.

It is partly because in most cases corruption is the business of the people of power. This is obvious in the case of political corruption, but it equally applies to other cases, too. Even at a normal workplace, if a corrupt transaction is to take place, it requires at least one player who is entrusted with responsibility and discretional power to make decisions. Corruption is an abuse of this power and trust. If corruption is relatively scarce, then it is an irregularity, a disturbance in the normal flow of social cooperation. If corruption is widespread, then it is a general experience about how the people in charge exercise their power.

There is an important consequence of this fact. If corruption is the business of the people of power, then those who stand up against it by exposing particular cases to law-enforcement or to the public are in danger. Even in countries in which corruption is perceived to be the rule rather than the exception, particular corrupt deals are usually made in secrecy. The latency of corruption is the bottleneck that prevents authorities to stand up against it, or in some case, it is the excuse for them to turn a blind eye. Secrecy is maintained in part by the ability of powerful people to crush the lives of those who would want to expose their wrongdoings. The extent to which a society comes to the aid and protection of the people who come forward and blow the whistle nevertheless, is a measure of a society’s democratic stance on social cooperation.

We are not doing particularly good in this respect. Legal provisions for whistleblower-protection are scarce in most EU countries. Very few member states have a comprehensive legislation providing for safe and accessible procedures for whistleblowers, and effective guaranties that would protect them against the retaliation and vengeance of those who they have crossed. About half of the member states have partial legislation on the subject providing legal protection to employees who come forward to report wrongdoings they witness at their workplace. In some EU countries the legal protection of whistleblowers is next to none.

If it is true that whistleblower protection is an issue that is central to the quality and credibility of democracy, then it is a proper subject for agreements and conventions that set international standards on such matters. The United Nations Convention against Corruption of 2003 is the first legal instrument that is global, adopts a fairly comprehensive approach to corruption, and is binding to its parties at least in some of its provisions. Regrettably, the protection of whistleblowers is not among the Convention’s binding provisions. Similar is the situation at the European level. There are EU policies, including binding legislation, on several aspects of corruption, but not on whistleblower protection. In October 2013, the last Parliament clearly expressed its wish to change this. In its resolution about the final report of the CRIM Committee it called on the Commission to draft a directive on the subject. The last Commission, however, declined. In this year’s Report on the protection of the EU’s financial interest, the Parliament restated its call for EU legislation on whistleblower protection. This is part of the reason we are here.

In most cases whistleblowers speak out because they feel moral obligated to protect the public interest. They do so at great personal cost. They risk their jobs, careers, often the peace and normality of their personal lives, and sometimes their safety and possibly even their lives. By blowing the whistle they usually unleash an enemy that is powerful and has every resources to use the law against them. It should be clear that the law and the society stands by their side.

If there is a progress is achieved in this matter, it is usually because of the activism and endurance of NGOs that are pushing for it. I am honoured to welcome the representatives of some of these NGOs here today. Our goal is to create a platform that influences European law-making. I pass the floor to you in the hope that it will work.

 

Whistleblower protection

It is difficult to imagine corruption without the contribution of players who have the ability to abuse resources – mostly public resources – for the purpose of generating a private; only people with some kind of power in their hands are able to act as such. In order to prevent those powerful people from misusing public money we need people to counter them. Today, we cannot talk about a serious anti-corruption policy without meaningful protection for these brave men and women.

Whistleblowers play an important role in a democracy ensuring vital information in the public interest is brought to light. The level of the extent to which legal means and guarantees that serve to protect whistleblowers as well as the level of specially protected reporting channels are shockingly uneven when it comes to the different Member States. In view of the anomalies of different regulations, the weakness of national institutions, and recent atrocities and lawsuits brought against whistleblowers, it is high time that whistleblowers were guaranteed protection minimum across Europe.

The resolution voted by the EP in March on the report on the fight against fraud has demanded the Commission to propose legislation to this end and stop stalling.

Strasbourg, 29th April 2015

Benedek Jávor MEP

ITCO Press Release

EP-Intergroup on Transparency, Integrity, corruption and organised crime: European Institutions need to take immediate action to implement the recommendations of Transparency International in its report on lobbying in Europe.

The newly established Intergroup of the European Parliament on Transparency (ITCO) welcomes the report issued today by Transparency International on ´lobbying in Europe`. Co-chair Dennis de Jong (GUE/NGL): The report of TI shows that at the moment it is not possible for the public to know which lobbyists have contributed to EU-legislation. So far, the European institutions refused to introduce a ´legislative footprint´, i.e. a survey of lobby contacts that have been influential during the drafting of legislative proposals. I urge both the European Commission and the European Parliament to take steps immediately, so that the citizens are fully informed with respect to the influence of lobbyists on legislative proposals by the Commission and on legislative reports of the EP.´

ITCO-Bureau Member Benedek Javor (Greens) adds: ´I fully agree with TI that only a mandatory transparency register will work. At the moment, we only have a voluntary register without proper oversight mechanisms. The idea of the Commission to conclude a new inter-institutional agreement with regard to the transparency register may sound positive, but TI rightly points out that we need formal legislation in order to set up a mandatory register. An inter-institutional agreement does not suffice in this respect´.

Co-Chair Elly Schlein (S&D) emphasises: ´Whereas the situation in the EU-institutions needs to be improved, the situation in Member States is often even worse. Only a few Member States have a better score than the European institutions. European co-operation with regard to transparency, integrity and equality of access needs to be stepped up, so that everywhere in the European Union democracy is strengthened´.

ITCO-Bureau Member Monica Macovei (EPP): ´Corruption and lack of transparency go hand in hand. Conflicts of interest are a source of corruption and undermine people’s trust. Measures should be taken to prevent conflicts of interests and to address them, whenever they may occur. That holds not only for the EU-institutions themselves, but also for Member States. And definitely, the transparency register should be mandatory´.

Transparency International’s report can be found here.

15 April 2015

European Parliament Intergroup on Integrity, transparency, corruption and organised crime is disappointed with the EIB’s new transparency policy

The European Parliament Intergroup on Integrity, transparency, corruption and organised crime (ITCO) is disappointed with the new transparency policy of the European Investment Bank, which is weaker than its original policy. This is particularly worrisome as it happens on the eve of the implementation of the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI), in which the EIB plays a crucial role.

The intergroup acknowledges that improvements have been made since the first draft of the new transparency policy was published in July. De Jong: ”Contrary to the original proposal, the EIB now admits that Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 on access to documents applies to documents relating to its administrative tasks. Any other solution would have been a clear violation of Art.15 TEU. However, a lot of problematic issues still remain unsolved.”

A serious flaw in the new transparency policy is the vagueness that surrounds the publication of information on EIB projects. Still not all projects have to be published on the website. De Jong: ”It is in the interest of the EIB itself to inform citizens about its projects, since they often have a direct impact on society. Mere summaries do not suffice. Moreover, whenever there are indications that projects do not deliver value for money, or worse, that there have been irregularities, such as fraud, corruption or abuse of the projects for tax evasion, citizens want to have full access to the documents concerned. Cases of maladministration and corruption should not be covered-up, more secrecy is not what people want.”

Elly Schlein, co-president of the Intergroup on ITCO adds: ”it is important that more people have access to information. With the EFSI about to start, the EIB cannot choose for a less transparent policy. People have a right of information concerning all activities of the EIB, including the support to companies operating in the developing countries”.

 The intergroup is committed to address the problems raised by this new policy. De Jong: ”we will certainly address this issue in the context of EFSI, but also as part of the budget discharge of the EIB in the Budgetary Control Committee. Moreover, we shall write a letter to the board of directors of the EIB explaining in detail which articles of the new transparency policy of the EIB have to be amended. We trust that the EIB will not ignore our requests.”

12.03.2015

The bureau of the intergroup on integrity, transparency, corruption and organised crime
Dennis de Jong (co-president)
Elly Schlein (co-president)
Ana Gomes
Monica Macovei
Benedek Jávor
Marian Harkin
Ignazio Corrao
Timothy Kirkhope

Transparency and anti-corruption

EU rules on whistleblower protection must be prioritised

The European Parliament today adopted a report on the fight against fraud. The report included a clear call on the European Commission to bring forward a legislative proposal on the protection of whistleblowers. After the vote, Green transparency spokesperson Benedek Javor said:

DPP_0268“It is high time that whistleblowers were guaranteed protection across Europe. MEPs today delivered a clear message to the EU Commission that it must propose legislation to this end and stop stalling. Whistleblowers play a hugely important role in a democracy, ensuring vital information in the public interest is brought to light, and they deserve protection for fulfilling this role. The LuxLeaks case is just the latest example of this. The precariousness of whistleblowing must end.

“The report also set out a number of other important recommendations to tackle fraud and corruption in the EU, including VAT fraud. It includes a call to finally establish a European public prosecutor’s office to ensure the EU has the resources to properly investigate and clamp down on fraud and corruption, notably of EU funds. Tackling fraud with regard to EU funds is crucial for the credibility of the EU funds and member states and the Commission must redouble their efforts to this end.”

Benedek Javor is hosting an event on Anti-Corruption Day

Benedek Javor is hosting an event on the occasion of the international Anti-Corruption Day. 

Here you can read his opening speech:

Ladies and Gentleman,

Let me greet you with the warmest welcome, and with great respect for your interest in defending the public interest against corruption, and for the work you do for it in your respective fields, as scholars, activists, lawmakers or otherwise. This day, December the ninth, has been international anti-corruption day for more than a decade, since the United Nations Convention against Corruption has been passed in 2003. The Convention is the first legal instrument that is global, adopts a fairly comprehensive approach to corruption, and is binding to its parties at least in some of its provisions. Sadly, the protection of whistleblowers, the brave people who risk their jobs, careers, often the peaceful and normal operation of their personal lives, and sometimes their safety and possibly even their lives, to uncover corrupt deeds, usually of powerful people, is not among the Convention’s binding provisions. The Convention only suggests to its parties that they consider adopting provisions to protect whistleblowers in their respective national legal systems. Similar is the situation at the European level. There are EU policies, including binding legislation, on several aspects of corruption, but not on whistleblower protection. In October 2013, the last Parliament clearly expressed its intention to change this, in its resolution in which it adopted the final report of the CRIM Committee, and called on the Commission to draft a directive on the subject. The last Commission, however, declined. This is part of the reason we are here now.

Democracy is in crisis, at least in some of the EU member states. I, for one, come from country which is currently taking an authoritarian turn, partly because the decay has reached the moral foundations of democracy. Corruption contributed greatly to this situation. At the core of the democratic ideal there are ideas about equality, fairness, the accountability of power, and the rule of law. Corruption is not just a criminal activity causing material loss to the economy and to public revenues. Corruption, especially if it is widespread in the power-structure, hollows out these core ideals and undermines the credibility of democracy.

Corrupt dealings are done in secrecy. So corruption is not just a matter for law-enforcement, because in many cases it is invisible to law-enforcement authorities until somebody decides to break the secrecy. The secrecy is maintained by the powerful people involved in corruption in great part by the potential threat they might mean to those who, in possession of inside information, would uncover their secrets. The ability of powerful people to crush the lives of those who might want to uncover their wrongdoings is at the heart of corruption. So whistleblower-protection is not just a policy area among many others related to corruption, it is a tool without which effective anti-corruption policy is impossible.

Yet, the legal provisions for whistleblower-protection are surprisingly scarce in many EU countries. Very few EU countries have a comprehensive legislation providing for safe and accessible procedures available for whistleblowers, and effective guaranties that would safeguard them against the retaliation and vengeance of those whose corrupt deeds they reported. About half of the member states have some partial legislation on the subject providing legal protection to employees who come forward to report wrongdoings they witnessed. In some EU countries the legal protection of whistleblowers is next to none.

Whistleblowers speak out, because they feel it is their moral obligation. They do so at great personal cost. As it is reflected in a collection of really heart-breaking stories of the lives of whistleblowers who followed their moral instincts published in Guardian just about two weeks ago, even in countries like the UK, which is among the few EU countries where the legal framework for whistleblower protection can be regarded as well-developed, whistleblowing might have devastating consequences on both the professional careers and personal lives of those who undertake it. Whistleblowers are seldom given credit for what they have done for the public good. By blowing the whistle they usually unleash an enemy that is powerful and has every resources to use the law against them. They do so, because they care for what is right and what is wrong. It should be clear that the law and the society stands by their side.

If there was a progress in some member states in this respect, it was, to a large extent, because of the activism and endurance of NGOs that are active in this field. I am proud that I can be a partner in your work, and I hand over the floor to experts and representatives in the hope of a fruitful cooperation towards our shared objectives.