BETA

8 Amendments of Daniel BUDA related to 2020/2133(INI)

Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
1. Notes that there is no widely accepted European Union definition of conflict of interest and that no guidelines for its applicability have been clearly established; points out that within the EU institutions different legislative measures aimed at preventing conflicts of interest accordingly contain varying definitions of the term ‘conflict of interest’; believes therefore that the term should be understood to mean a conflict between the public duty - implying professional and official accountability - and private interests of a public official, in which the public official has private- capacity interests which could improperly influence the performance of their official duties and responsibilities; notes, however, that a definition of this kind has an evolving nature with the widest implications and that full transparency does not necessarily guarantee the absence of any conflict of interest, nor does it guarantee that public trust will be won or increased;
2020/11/25
Committee: JURI
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Notes the multitude of existing legal approaches to the meaning and applicability of the concept of conflict of interest; draws attention to the pressing concern of the EU institutions to optimise the effectiveness of standards and rules governing ethics and transparency, giving less attention to the implications and importance of conflicts of interest; expresses its concern in this connection regarding the uncertainty surrounding the appropriate regulatory mechanism, the unpredictable effectiveness of deterrents and sanctions, the dubious efficacy of existing regulations and the need to introduce other political, behavioural and economic instruments;
2020/11/25
Committee: JURI
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
2. Is of the opinion that the examination of Commissioner-designates’ declarations with a view to inferring a conflict of interest is of fundamental institutional and democratic importance and should be undertaken with the utmost attention, commitment and sense of responsibility, by means of a fully objective and independent interpretation focused on documenting the technical implications;
2020/11/25
Committee: JURI
Amendment 27 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Stresses the need for full compliance with the rules on confidentiality, privacy and personal data protection in verifying the implications of a conflict of interest;
2020/11/25
Committee: JURI
Amendment 30 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
5. Considers that, given the sophisticated and complex nature of this responsibility, the establishment of a possible conflict of interest should be de- politicised and performed in an objective, independent and systematic way with the assistance of a body with the relevant expertise and experience;
2020/11/25
Committee: JURI
Amendment 38 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
6. Considers that for proper expertise to be acquired, the future ethics body should have a permanent, independent and collegiate structure, and that its composition could be based either on specific institutional positions, such as that of the President of the Court of Justice, or on the nomination of experts by each EU institution;deleted
2020/11/25
Committee: JURI
Amendment 48 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
7. Recommends therefore that, while fully keeping its competence on the matter, the Committee on Legal Affairs decide on the existence of a conflict of interest after having received a non- binding recommendation by such an independent expert advisory body;deleted
2020/11/25
Committee: JURI
Amendment 58 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
8. Believes furthermore that this future advisory body could also be entrusted with the broader task of examining conflicts of interest within the EU institutions and agencies in general, playing, in a complementary and balanced way, a preventive role via awareness raising and ethical guidance powers on the one hand, and a compliance role on the other.deleted
2020/11/25
Committee: JURI