Activities of Isabel GARCÍA MUÑOZ related to 2020/2133(INI)
Shadow opinions (1)
OPINION on strengthening transparency and integrity in the EU institutions by setting up an independent EU ethics body
Amendments (12)
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Stresses that transparency, accountability and integrity are key components in promoting ethics principles within the EU, and are essential to protect the EU budget from fraud and corruption, and to maintain democratic legitimacy; recalls that corruption has serious financial consequencesunethical behaviours have negative financial consequences, may result in reputational damage to the image of the EU and its institutions, and constitutes a serious threat to democracy, the rule of law and the public investmenterest; recallmarks that conflicts of interest can significantly damage the EU’s financial interests and decision-making processthe Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development defines public integrity as the alignment of, and adherence to, shared ethical values, principles, and should therefore be prevented and condemnednorms for upholding and prioritising the public interest over private interests in the public sector;
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Recalls that the European Court of Auditors (ECA) identified serious weaknesses in this regard in its 2019 audit on the ethical frameworks of the EU institutions, which concludes that improvements need to be made throughassessed the ethical frameworks of the Parliament, the Council and the Commission and published its findings in the special report 13/2019; notes that the ECA concluded that the audited institutions had established adequate ethical frameworks; notes with concern that the ECA also identified some weaknesses in this regard and recommends improvements that could be made in terms of harmonisation, awareness raising and strengthening of EU ethics rules; shares the ECA’s concern about the absence of a common EU ethical framework governing the work of Member States’ representatives in the Council;
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. Highlights that the ECA states that there should be effective institutional frameworks, and clear procedures and channels in place for facilitating the reporting of wrongdoing and corruption, as well as that whistleblowers acting in good faith must be protected from retaliation;
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Emphasises that the high level of fragmentation in the ethics legECA identified many areas where is advisable to have harmonised approaches to handling ethical issues; recalls that the ECA stated that the ethical frameworks and the lack of oversight have prevented the proper implementation of codes of conduct in EU institutions; believes that the current self-regulatory approach is not fit for purpose and cannot guarantee integrityre appropriately supported by investigative and sanction mechanisms; believes, however, that the current self-regulatory approach should be reviewed in the interest of a greater effectiveness; recalls that the ECA states that the ethical frameworks cannot be effective without appropriate control systems as well as that the level of control should reflect the level of risks and take into account the administrative burden created by such controls; underlines the need to enhance the integrity of the EU institutions and restore public trust;
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. EncouragesReflects on the creation of an Independent Ethics Body (IEB) common to all EU institutions; welcomacknowledges the fact that the Commission has made it a priority, and is committed to supporting the IEB’s effort to establish a common ethical framework at EU level; remarks that improving and harmonising the existing ethic frameworks and their effective implementation don’t rely exclusively upon the creation of the IEB; considers it to be of utmost importance, prior to the elaboration of a legislative proposal to create an IEB, to perform a thorough cost-benefit analysis and an impact assessment, including different scenarios competence-wise; highlights that the objective is to protect the EU budget from unethical behaviours while maintaining the highest standards of ethics and integrity among a diverse and large number of EU institutions and bodies, and contemplates a range of options to reach this objective;
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Sees high potential but also important risks for the EU institutions to transfer administrative decision-making competences to the IEB based on a new harmonised ethics framework that it will establish, which, which nevertheless should include common rules on the publication of declarations of interests, avoidance of conflicts of interest and revolving doors, acceptance of gifts and entertainment, protection of whistle- blowers and victims of harassment, transparency of lobby meetings, public procurement and meeting calendars of senior staff, and use of transparent bank accounts for public funds, while taking into consideration the different work performed by the institutions as well as the risks inherent to their members’ specific duties;
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Believes that empowering the IEB with the current internal ethics functions of the EU institutions willthe IEB could concentrate expertise, create synergies and hence improve the implementation of ethics rules; is confident that this transfer of competence will represent considerable savings for the EU budget without requiring a transfer of competences;
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Underlines that the IEB shcould be in charge ofprovide knowledge and guidance about prevention, monitoring, investigation and enforcement of the ethical framework for the protection of the EU’s financial interests; highlightscontemplates the possibility that the IEB shwould be able to takerecommend disciplinary measures and impose financial sanctions in order to avoid abuse of the EU budget linked to unethical behaviour; calls for the IEB, as the case may be, to assess the implementation and compliance of ethics rules by the EU institutions and publish an annual report on its findings;
Amendment 28 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. HighlightWarns that tasks transferreding tasks to the IEB can go beyond those currently exercised by the institutions; calls for the IEB to assess the implementation of ethics rules by the EU institutions and publish an annual report on its findingould create a serious breach of the Treaties;
Amendment 33 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Calls for the IEB to lead by example on transparency by publishing all drecisionommendations, annual reports and spending in a machine- readable open data format available to all citizens; strongly recommends that any software developed for upholding the ethical standards in EU public administration should be made available under a free and open-source software licence and should be shared with any institution in Europe wishing to use it; calls for a close cooperation with the European Data Protection Supervisor on this regard;
Amendment 35 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. WelcomesConsiders that the creation of the IEB, as the case may be, should be accompanied by the signing of an interinstitutional agreement (IIA) between EU institutions to set up the IEB; emphasises the importance of the Council, including the Member States’ representatives working in the Council, joining the IIA in view of the ECA’s and European Ombudsman’s repeated requests to enhance the institution’s working ethics and transparency; recalls the obligation of the Council to deal with high-level conflicts of interest, revolving doors and lobby transparency rules;
Amendment 39 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Stresses the importance of enhanced mutualhaving a clear division of tasks and a close cooperation between the IEB and EU bodies such as the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO), the European Ombudsman, the European Court of Auditors (ECA), the IEB if applicable and others within their respective mandates, and of such cooperation generating a steady information exchange.; warns that the public trust cannot afford adding the IEB to the EU institutions and bodies without giving full reassurance in terms of opportunity and efficacy;