JÁVORT Az EU-BA!

Támogasd Te is küzdelmünket a zöld és igazságos jövőért!

Forests at the heart of Sustainable Development

Join us for a high-level conference on Forests at the heart of Sustainable Development this Thursday, the 7th of February 2019, 9.00 – 12.30, European Parliament room A1G-3

organized by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nation (FAO) and myself, together with MEPs Heidi Hautala (Greens/EFA); José Inácio Faria (EPP); Sirpa Pietikäinen (EPP) and Jo Leinen (S&D) with input of the IUCN, FERN, WWF, the World Bank and others. Programme available here.

 

The global goals for sustainable development to combat hunger, to stabilize our climate, to ensure a decent life for all. So much talk about it. But how to deliver on them?

Our answer is: Do protect the forests.

The aim of our event is to demonstrate how import forest are in the struggle to achieve SDGs and to show the other side of the coin: how deforestation jeopardizes all the benefits, including efforts to improve governance, accountability and equality.

We come together not just to pile up an amount of concern, but we address the core issues and take a close look at the possible ways forward, see how both the obvious and the more hidden deforestation risks to SDGs could be tackled.

Welcome coffee available at 8.30. Keynote speeches from Karmenu Vella, European Commissioner for Environment, Maritime Affairs and Fisheries and Maria Helena Semedo, FAO Deputy Director-General for Climate and Natural Resources and video message from Phil Hogan, European Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development.

Light lunch to be served at 12.30. Detailed programme below.

The event will be webstreamed.

 

Letter to Commissioner Vella asking for a proposal for an Ivory Ban

 

 

Commissioner Vella
Environment, Maritime Affairs and Fisheries

 

European Commission
Berlaymont
Rue de la Loi 200
1000 – Brussels

Brussels, 2 May 2018

 

On a Proposal for an Ivory Ban

 

 

Dear Commissioner Vella,

 

We are turning to you to draw your attention to the growing concern related to ivory trading. Since the implementation in EU law of CITES in 2015, the trade in ivory has somewhat diminished. However, elephant and rhino species continue to be in serious danger, as the level of poaching remains high. This situation is exacerbated by the fact that international criminal organisations have found in wildlife trafficking a lucrative business, as the risk of getting caught and the consequent penalties are relatively low and the economical return is significantly higher.  The shared feeling is that, despite the actions taken in the past, this still represents a huge concern and that only a tough measure would help eradicating this practice.

Given these considerations, we feel that the time is ripe for the next step from the Commission: a proposal on total ban on ivory import/trade. The Parliament has been advocating for such a ban for a long time, most recently in the resolution on „EU action plan against wildlife trafficking” voted with a large majority on 24 November 2016. Moreover, the issue was raised during the last informal ENVI council on the 5th March 2018 and the report on the outcome of the discussions seems to suggest an a priori openness from the Council also.

The EU should pave the way for other countries to follow as it did so many times before and we count on your leadership on this issue.

We are looking forward to working with you on this matter and to promptly ensure the welfare and conservation of the affected species.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Benedek Jávor and Catherine Bearder

MEPs for Wildlife

 

 

 

Co-signatures:

 

ADINOLFI Isabella (EFDD)

AFFRONTE Marco (Greens/EFA)

ALBIOL GUZMAN Marina (GUE/NGL)

ANDERSON Martina (GUE/NGL)

ANDERSSON Max (Greens/EFA)

ARIMONT Pascal (EPP)

AUSTREVICIUS Petras (ALDE)

BACH Georges (EPP)

BILBAO BARANDICA Izaskun (ALDE)

BOYLAN Lynn (GUE/NGL)

BRANNEN Paul (S&D)

CARTHY Matt (GUE/NGL)

CASA David (EPP)

CASTALDO Fabio Massimo (EFDD)

CHRYSOGONOS Kostas (GUE/NGL)

COUSO PERMUY Javier (GUE/NGL)

CRAMER Michael (Greens/EFA)

CSÁKY Pál (EPP)

DATI Rachida (EPP)

DE MONTE Isabella (S&D)

DURAND Pascal (Greens/EFA)

FLACK John (ECR)

EICKHOUT Bas (Greens/EFA)

ECK Stefan (GUE/NGL)

EPITIDEIOS Georgios (NI)

EVANS Jill (Greens/EFA)

EVI Eleonora (EFDD)

FARIA Jose Inacio (EPP)

FLANAGAN Luke Ming (GUE/NGL)

FOSTER Jacqueline (ECR)

FRUNZULICA Doru (S&D)

GERBRANDY Gerben-Jan (ALDE)

GERINGER DE OEDENBERG Lidia Joanna (S&D)

GILL CBE Neena (S&D)

GODDYN Sylvie (ENF)

GRIESBECK Nathalie (ALDE)

GRIFFIN Theresa (S&D)

HÄUSLING Martin (Greens/EFA)

HAZEKAMP Anja (GUE/NGL)

HOWARTH John (S&D)

JAAKONSAARI Liisa (S&D)

JAMES Diane (NI)

JOLY Gro Eva (Greens/EFA)

KADENBACH Karin (S&D)

KONEČNÁ Kateřina (GUE/NGL)

KYENGE Cécile Kashetu (S&D)

KYLLÖNEN Merja (GUE/NGL)

KYRKOS Miltiadis (S&D)

LALONDE Patricia (ALDE)

LEINEN Jo (S&D)

MARCELLESI Florent (Greens/EFA)

MARTIN David (S&D)

MAYER Alex (S&D)

MCCLARKIN Emma (ECR)

MCINTYRE Anthea (ECR)

MICHEL Louis (ALDE)

MIRANDA Ana (Greens/EFA)

MITROFANOVS Miroslavs (Greens/EFA)

MIZZI Marlene (S&D)

MONTEL Sophie (EFDD)

NAGY József (EPP)

NI RIADA Liadh (GUE/NGL)

OMARJEE Younous (GUE/NGL)

POC Pavel (S&D)

POSPÍŠIL Jiří (EPP)

POST Soraya (S&D)

PIETIKÄINEN Sirpa (EPP)

PUNSET Carolina (ALDE)

RADEV Emil (EPP)

REIMON Michel (Greens/EFA)

RIES Frédérique (ALDE)

ROCHEFORT Robert (ALDE)

RODRIGUES Liliana (S&D)

RODRÍGUEZ-PIÑERO Inmaculada (S&D)

ROPÉ Bronis (Greens/EFA)

SOLTES Igor (Greens/EFA)

SZANYI Tibor (S&D)

TAMBURRANO Dario (EFDD)

TAYLOR Keith (Greens/EFA)

TRÜPEL Helga (Greens/EFA)

UJHELYI István (S&D)

URTASUN Ernest (Greens/EFA)

VAIDERE Inese (EPP)

VAJGL Ivo (ALDE)

VAN BREMPT Kathleen (S&D)

VANA Monika (Greens/EFA)

VAUTMANS Hilde (ALDE)

WARD Julie (S&D)

WISNIEWSKA Jadwiga (ECR)

ZOANĂ Maria Gabriela (S&D)

 

 

 

Photo credits to: http://www.shahrogersphotography.com/detail/1597.html

 

Backtrack in Strasbourg as MEPs Compromise on Energy Efficiency

The European Parliament has abandoned its long-held 40% energy efficiency target at the final hurdle, after political groups opted on Wednesday (17 January) to back a binding 35% goal for 2030 instead.

MEPs decided to choose the safe option and agree on one position ahead of talks with the Commission and member states but it meant downgrading its efficiency ambitions.

But they were able to preserve an all-important energy savings goal of 1.5% under Article 7 of the draft report and include the transport sector for the first time. EU climate chief Miguel Arias Cañete welcomed the result, pledging to help secure an “ambitious agreement” in talks with the member states.

German Socialist MEP Martina Werner said the outcome was “a big disappointment, as the Parliament has given up of its ambitious 40% target for the first time” but was hopeful that the result still shows that the institution is “serious about the energy transition”.

The result is a double-edged sword as it represents two milestones: the Parliament’s first shift to 35% and the EPP group’s first commitment to moving up from its previously rigid 30% position.

Wednesday’s vote was difficult to call before MEPs arrived in the hemicycle as the S&D, helmed by Czech MEP Miroslav Poche, and the EPP, under the guidance of German counterpart Markus Pieper, were unable to compromise on the fundamental aspects of the file.

After the vote, the EPP man was happy that his colleagues had rejected the “out-of-this-world” 40% target and said the agreed text is “a good start” with which to enter trilateral negotiations, an opinion shared by Greens/EFA shadow Jávor Benedek.

The Hungarian MEP called on climate chief Cañete after the vote to support the Parliament’s freshly adopted position and help convince the member states to back “at least” 35%.

@javorbenedek: “@MAC_europa ambitious outcome in the context of the leaked @IPCC_CH report could only mean to endorse the #EPlenary position of at least 35% – negotiations need to take the planet first!”

Poche thanked his colleagues for granting him a “strong mandate” after 485 MEPs voted in favour, with only 132 rejecting the text and 58 abstaining.

Poche, who replaced his predecessor Adam Gierek in December, will now represent the Parliament in the upcoming negotiations, where he will have to convince the member states that they should increase their 30% position.

No adjusting

During the period between November’s energy committee vote and this week, Pieper was insistent on adding a so-called adjustment mechanism, which would alter the targets in line with changes to the economy, as his price for supporting 35%.

But Socialist lawmakers, including Vice-President Kathleen Van Brempt, were adamant that the idea was “pointless” and it was  rejected in the final text.

Werner explained that “ambitious efficiency targets do not jeopardise our economy. On the contrary: energy efficiency boosts the competitiveness of European industries.”

Silver-lined disappointment

But some environmental groups were left non-plussed by the Parliament’s willingness to abandon 40%, a figure that its energy and environment committees, as well as numerous resolutions, have all consistently backed in the past.

Friends of the Earth Europe campaigner Clémence Hutin said: “Today’s position falls short: when it came to the crunch, MEPs folded and opted for a disappointing 35%”. She blamed the EPP for bringing down the level of ambition and denounced its role as “deplorable”.

But European Environmental Bureau energy expert Roland Joebstl was more upbeat, insisting that the inclusion of the transport sector in the energy savings mix would make it “part of the energy efficiency success story”.

Until now, waste and pollution from transport was discounted from efficiency plans but the Parliament will now have the chance to argue its case for including the sector during member state talks later this year.

But the EPP claimed victory in a smaller detail of the report, which would have, according to Pieper, imposed “unrealistic renovation rates of public buildings”. Instead, the focus will remain on central government buildings.

No drama elsewhere

A report on the update of the Renewable Energy Directive (REDII) by Spanish MEP José Blanco López passed as expected just before the EED vote, with the Socialist lawmaker securing a strong mandate for further negotiations.

492 MEPs voted in favour, with only 88 against and 107 abstaining.

Despite calls from environmental groups in the lead-up and a recent fall in renewable energy prices, lawmakers stuck with a non-binding 35% target. Proposals for a 40% target or a binding 35% goal both fell through.

Industry group Solar Power Europe said the agree target showed the EU is an “energy champion” and called on the Parliament to fight its corner in trilogue. Wind and ocean power counterparts WindEurope and Ocean Energy Europe also praised the result for upping the Commission’s initial proposal.

The EU executive initially came out with just 27% but has recently conceded that a higher target could be “affordable“, acknowledging that lower prices and the Paris Agreement have changed the game.

In a more controversial aspect of the vote, lawmakers backed a ban the use of palm oil as a biofuel, while agreeing to freeze other crop-based fuels at their current levels.

After the efficiency drama, it was the turn of the energy union governance vote, which yielded a number of encouraging results, including plans for net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, as well as a carbon budget, a proposal which had looked at risk before the vote.

Article from EURACTIVE

originally published by Sam Jones on Jan. 17, 2018

MEPs’ joint call to the European Commission for the protection of media freedom and investigative journalism

MEPs call on European Commission to Protect Investigative Journalists and Stand for Media Freedom 

 

MEPs David Casa (EPP), Ana Gomes (S&D), Monica Macovei (ECR), Maite Pagazaurtundúa (ALDE) Stelios Kouloglou (GUE) and Benedek Jávor (Greens) have joined forces to push for EU legislation that will address and end “SLAPPs” – lawsuits intended to intimidate and silence investigative journalists and independent media by burdening them with exorbitant legal expenses until they abandon their opposition. According to the MEPs, the practice is abusive, poses a threat to media freedom and has no place in the European Union.

SLAPP was used, for instance, against investigative journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia and is now being used against Maltese media houses by firms associated with government corruption and the Panama Papers scandal that are threatening legal action in the United States.

David Casa, Ana Gomes, Monica Macovei, Maite Pagazaurtundúa, Stelios Kouloglou and Benedek Jávor stated:

“In Malta we have seen that firms like Pilatus Bank and Henley & Partners that employ these practices, using American litigation, have succeeded in having stories altered or deleted completely from online archives. And investigative journalists are prevented from reporting further on corrupt practices out of fear of further legal action. But this is not just a Maltese problem. In the UK, Appleby, the firm associated with the Paradise Papers, is using similar tactics against the Guardian and the BBC.

The cross-border nature of investigative journalism as well as the tendency to pursue legal action in jurisdictions outside the EU that only have a tenuous connection with the parties justifies and requires an EU response”.

The MEPs are calling on EU Commissioner Frans Timmermans to propose an EU Anti-SLAPP Directive that will include:

 

  • The ability for investigative journalists and independent media to request that vexatious lawsuits in the EU be expediently dismissed and claim compensation;
  • The establishment of punitive fines on firms pursuing these practices when recourse is made to jurisdictions outside the EU;
  • The setting up of a SLAPP fund to support investigative journalists and independent media that choose to resist malicious attempts to silence them and to assist in the recovery of funds due to them;
  • The setting-up of an EU register that names and shames firms that pursue these abusive practices.

“We are committed to the protection of investigative journalists and media freedom across the EU and will pursue this issue until Anti-SLAPP EU legislation is in place”, the MEPs stated.

Thomas Gibson from the Committee to Protect Journalists stated: “SLAPP is a serious threat to journalism and media freedom. These sums of money are in no way proportionate.  Independent journalists in Malta already face enormous challenges and restrictions.  Critical journalism must not be stifled. In addition to pushing for full justice of the murder of Daphne Caruana Galizia, the Commission needs to address the climate in which investigative journalists work in the country.”

Jodie Ginsberg, CEO of Index on Censorship, said: “Having a media that is free to investigate corruption and abuse of power – and free to publish the results of those investigations – is fundamental to democracy. These vexatious law suits – deliberately aimed at preventing journalists from carrying out such work – must be stopped.”

Environmental Liability Directive (ELD)

ELD is a key piece of legislation aiming to establish a framework of environmental liability based on the ‘polluter-pays’ principle and to prevent and remedy environmental damage.

Note: The ELD has recently undergone a REFIT evaluation to check whether the legislation is fit for purpose. A (long overdue) implementation report based on Member States reporting has also been published. This provided the basis of the current work of the Parliament. I am providing remarks as rapporteur of the ENVI opinion to the JURI’s work on the implementation report on ELD (ENVI was associated committee under Rule 54)

As both the Commission report and the JURI Committee has highlighted, despite some improvements the directive has shown ‘incompleteness’ and thus limited effectiveness.

The implementation still varies significantly from one Member State to another.

We have a patchwork of liability systems (also due to the interplay with existing laws) which in my opinion can undermine common standards and expose some Member States or regions to greater risk of environmental disasters and the financial consequences thereof.

As it is clear from the ENVI opinion, better implementation of the directive (incl. the via improving the information base and  providing more trainings and assistance to MSs a key pillar of the Commission’s action plan and multiannual work programme) is needed, but not sufficient.

We should remaining challenges in a systemic manner and revise the directive in the near future in the light of the recent REFIT exercise.

A revision would allow us to extend the scope and the applicability of the directive by making operators of all activities strictly liable for all environmental damage they cause (=removing the limitation in Annex III).

In this context, the INI report rightly calls on the Commission to impose liability for damage to human health and the environment in the future and for the removal of certain exemptions.

I also welcome the call for rethinking of the financial security system.

This would imply

  • (preference for) a high-level, mandatory environmental liability insurance for operators
  • differentiated ceilings for activities with different risk factors
  • the creation an EU-wide fund to bear the cost of relevant measures beyond the mandatory security (in case of large-scale disasters).

I also stress that the proper involvement of inspection bodies is key. In this context, the Commission should further develop inspection support capacity at EU level and help Member States strengthen their national bodies.

 

Let me highlight one more message: we urgently need EU legislation on the minimum standards for implementing the Aarhus’ Conventions access to justice pillar.


You can watch my speech here.

 

 

 

 

 

EU Budget Parliament takes step in the right direction

The European Parliament today voted on the 2017 budget and the revision of the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF), backing several amendments from the Greens/EFA Group.

 

Among these are the freezing of 20% of the pot in the EU Commission’s budget from which former EU commissioners are paid a transitional allowance for three years: this money will not be released until the EU Commission submits a new code of conduct.

 

Greens/EFA Group budget spokesperson Indrek Tarand said:

 

“The European Parliament has taken some steps in the right direction. The majority of MEPs have asked for more money for programmes such as LIFE, Erasmus, and the implementation of the Paris Climate Agreement. All of these are concrete projects that will benefit EU citizens.

 

“It is positive that we were able to ensure more money is made available for responding to the major political challenges we face, such as tackling the root causes that force people to flee their countries, and the integration of refugees in EU member states.  But it is clear that the new money is not sufficient. If we really want to fight the root causes of migration, we need to deliver further financial means. The governments of the EU Member States now have a duty to take up the parliament’s demands and make more money available for the EU budget.”

 

Green transparency spokesperson Benedek Jávor added:

 

“The decision to partially freeze the remuneration of former commissioners is only right and proper given the recent scandals involving ex-Commissioners Kroes and Barroso. The Commission’s ethics system is in need of urgent reform, yet they continue to insist that everything is fine. Now, the European Parliament is using its powers to effect change – if the Commission wants us to lift this budget reserve, it will have to strengthen its Code of Conduct first.”

Parliament takes step in the right direction

The European Parliament today voted on the 2017 budget and the revision of the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF), backing several amendments from the Greens/EFA Group.

 

Among these are the freezing of 20% of the pot in the EU Commission’s budget from which former EU commissioners are paid a transitional allowance for three years: this money will not be released until the EU Commission submits a new code of conduct.

 

Greens/EFA Group budget spokesperson Indrek Tarand said:

 

“The European Parliament has taken some steps in the right direction. The majority of MEPs have asked for more money for programmes such as LIFE, Erasmus, and the implementation of the Paris Climate Agreement. All of these are concrete projects that will benefit EU citizens.

 

“It is positive that we were able to ensure more money is made available for responding to the major political challenges we face, such as tackling the root causes that force people to flee their countries, and the integration of refugees in EU member states.  But it is clear that the new money is not sufficient. If we really want to fight the root causes of migration, we need to deliver further financial means. The governments of the EU Member States now have a duty to take up the parliament’s demands and make more money available for the EU budget.”

 

Green transparency spokesperson Benedek Jávor added:

 

“The decision to partially freeze the remuneration of former commissioners is only right and proper given the recent scandals involving ex-Commissioners Kroes and Barroso. The Commission’s ethics system is in need of urgent reform, yet they continue to insist that everything is fine. Now, the European Parliament is using its powers to effect change – if the Commission wants us to lift this budget reserve, it will have to strengthen its Code of Conduct first.”

Why we need to fight discrimination together? – Turning words into action to address anti-Semitism, intolerance and discrimination

Allow me to start my speech with recalling the words of the German Pastor Martin Niemöller who was opposing the Nazis’ Aryan Paragraph and the Nazis’ state control of the churches for which he was taken into Dachau concentration camp. He survived the war and became a vocal pacifist and anti-war activist and campaigner of the nuclear disarmament.

He said the following:

“First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.”

 

Although, there is no war in Europe at the moment, and hopefully we will never see those days coming back, there are signs of reminiscence of that era. Yet, solidarity, mutual understanding and compassion is diminishing. Fear, anger and hatred is spreading instead.

We must all stand up against it until we can. Furthermore, since the second world was Europe and particularly the EU has been a guarantee of human rights and a forerunner on anti-discrimination and equal treatment, regardless of race, religion of sexual orientation. Even in its weakened position the European Social Model, the welfare system of the member states has been able to move forward the cause of equal access to all services, while much work still remains to be done.

More specifically, the integration and help of vulnerable groups from various backgrounds however has been taking a particularly worrying trend recently. We are amongst the wealthiest nations on Earth and we are capable of helping them financially, socially and emotionally. However, there are countries which are simply not willing to participate, to share solidarity either on European level or on national level.

 

For example my own country Hungary is not willing to follow the European model of integrating asylum seekers. The number of voluntarily integrated asylum seekers is zero. There is a nationwide campaign against the so called “forced colonization” of migrants organized by Brussels. The campaign and the referendum on the subject altogether cost much more for the taxpayers and the country than the integration of the approximately 1300 refugees Hungary supposed to accept.

It is clear that the government would be able to finance the refugees, but they rather play the Anti-Brussels and the Anti-refugee cards.

In the meanwhile the Government breaks the internal social contract as well. They silently but strongly incite hatred against those Hungarians who have been living in Hungary for at least 600 years: the Roma. The government is two faced in its relations with the Jewish communities as well. On one hand they acknowledge the loss of the Hungarian Jews on the other they deny the role of the governments and the citizens played in their discrimination and their ghettoization and extermination.

In order to stop the spreading of such thinking we should fight all kinds of discrimination together.

We must not allow people to believe that simplified answers exist for the problems of today’s society and the future of Europe cannot be the culture of isolation. Isolation from refugees, from Roma, from non-Christians and from those who migrate from one EU country to another in searching for a better life or decent work. Europe has been the melting pot of different cultures and different habits since the very beginning of its history. Diversity is the driving force that makes Europe not only survive struggles but also serves as the engine of development.

Solidarity between people facing different forms of exclusion is essential: Roma and asylum seekers, members of different religions, workers and unemployed people must act together. Any type of discrimination aims nothing else but to find those tiny disparities between these groups that can create misunderstanding, jealousy and even hate. What really threatens European culture is not Roma, refugees, LBTQIA people or different religions, but exactly this kind of thinking.

To have the Europe we want we all need to work together in order to secure peace and prosperity. I wish you a fruitful discussion during the event.

Risks and Responsibilities in EU Nuclear Projects Case study: Paks II

Dowload  Risk and respons in EU nuclear projects_flyer

Watch the video of the event

 

8:15- Welcome coffee served inside the room

8:30- 8:40 Opening

Victor Bostinaru, Vice-President of the S&D Group for Foreign Affairs

8:40-9:00 Introduction and state of play

Benedek Javor, MEP

Contribution from MEPs Jo Leienen and Dan Nica

9:10-9:40 Financing

*Financial viavility of nuclear, recent changes

Stephen Thomas, Emeritus Professor of Energy Policy, Business School University of Greenwich

*Financing of Paks II and financing concerns with Fennovoima

András Perger, Greenpeace

*Moderator: Victor Bostinaru, Vice-President of the S&D Group for Foreign Affairs

9:50-10:30 Impact on the environments and safety concerns

* Nuclear safety and waste management

Marin Constantin, senior researcher ICN Pitesti, chief editor, Journal of Nuclear Research and Development

*Russian nuclear boomerag to Europe,  Safety concerns, Leningradskaja 2

Oleg Bodrov, physicist, ecologist, expert of the International NGO Decommission Network

*Risks of incidents, analysis based on the EIA of Paks II

Oda Becker, a physicist and independent expert on nuclear plants

Moderator: Heidi Hautala, Vice-Chair of the Greens/EFA

10:30-10:50 Exchange of Views with the European Commission

10:50-11:00 Q&A, Concluding remarks

MEPs Victor Bostinaru, Benedek Jávor

 

(click on links to see the presentations of the speakers)

 

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