Activities of Sven SIMON related to 2024/2008(ACI)
Plenary speeches (2)
Interinstitutional Body for Ethical Standards (debate)
Interinstitutional Body for Ethical Standards (A9-0181/2024 - Daniel Freund) (vote)
Shadow reports (1)
REPORT on the conclusion of an Agreement between the European Parliament, the Council, the European Commission, the Court of Justice of the European Union, the European Central Bank, the European Court of Auditors, the European Economic and Social Committee and the European Committee of the Regions, establishing an Interinstitutional Body for Ethical Standards for Members of Institutions and advisory bodies mentioned in Article 13 of the Treaty on European Union
Amendments (38)
Amendment 1 #
Proposal for a decision
Citation 3
Citation 3
- having regard to Article 132 of the Treaty of the European Union,
Amendment 3 #
Proposal for a decision
Recital -A (new)
Recital -A (new)
-A. whereas the rule of law is of paramount importance for the functioning of the Union; whereas all acts of the Union require a legal basis in the Treaties; whereas there is no such legal basis for an interinstitutional ethics body;
Amendment 4 #
Proposal for a decision
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas the independence, transparency and accountability of EU institutions are of the utmost importance for their democratic legitimacy and for fostering citizens’ trust; whereas the European Parliament today ranks amongst the most transparent legislatures in the world;
Amendment 5 #
Proposal for a decision
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas there is a need to address the shortcomings stemming fromof the implementation of the current ethics framework, whi as existing rules were not enforced in incidents such ias fragmented across the EU institutions, bodies,‘Qatargate’; whereas under the current Treaties every EU institution is responsible for its own rules on standards in public offices and agencies, with different rules, procedures and levels of enforcementharmonisation of some of these rules is desirable;
Amendment 6 #
Proposal for a decision
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas Parliament propos’s negotiation mandate is defined, in its resolution of 16 September 2021, and reiterated, in its subsequent resolutions of 16 February 2023 and 12 July 2023, to set up an ambitious, genuine and independent ethics body;on strengthening transparency and integrity in the EU institutions by setting up an independent EU ethics body1a and its subsequent resolutions of 16 February 2023 on the establishment of an independent EU ethics body1b and 12 July 2023 on the establishment of the EU ethics body1c; whereas that mandate to support the set up of an ethics body fully includes the Council and the European Council; _____________ 1a OJ C 117, 11.3.2022, p. 159._ 1b Texts adopted, P9_(2023)0055. 1c Texts adopted, P9_TA(2023)0281.
Amendment 7 #
Proposal for a decision
Recital C a (new)
Recital C a (new)
Ca. whereas the term “ethics” is legally undefined and may lead to a misinterpretation of the role of the body in the future; whereas precedent in Member States establishes more appropriate terms such as “standards in public office”;
Amendment 8 #
Proposal for a decision
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas the Commission presented its proposal for the establishment of an interinstitutional ethics body on 8 June 2023, putting forward a standard-setting body mainly lacking capacin line wityh to examine individual cases and potential breaches of ethical ruleshe Treaties, however retaining the questionable term “ethics body”;
Amendment 10 #
Proposal for a decision
Recital E a (new)
Recital E a (new)
Ea. whereas the conclusion of the Agreement does not reflect the mandate; whereas Parliament needs to consider its position in light of the draft Agreement;
Amendment 11 #
Proposal for a decision
Recital F
Recital F
F. whereas an interinstitutional ethics body willbody for standards in public office has the potential to contribute to strengthening trust in Union institutions and their democratic legitimacy, as well as to building an institutional culture based on the highest ethical standardsclearly defined rules that are enforced;
Amendment 12 #
Proposal for a decision
Recital G
Recital G
G. whereas Parliament’s current ethical rules in its Rules of pProcedure provide for many standardised written declarations including declarations of private interests, declarations of assets, declarations on awareness of conflict of interests for office holders, rapporteurs, shadow-rapporteurs and participants in an official delegation or interinstitutional negotiations, declarations of scheduled meetings with interest representatives, also when delegated to their assistants, declarations of input by the rapporteurs on their files, declarations of attendance at events organised by third parties, declarations of gifts and declarations of intergroups or informal groupings on external financial support; whereas the scope of these declarations needs to be streamlined in the next legislative term;
Amendment 13 #
Proposal for a decision
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. WelcomeRejects the Agreement allowing for strong common ethical standards and for individual cases to be examined by the independent experts at the request of an institution or an advisory body that is a party to the Agreement regarding any declaration of their Memberss it constitutes an attack on the functioning of the Parliament; calls for the defence of parliamentary independence; questions the independence of the third-party experts referred to in the agreement; expresses grave concern concerning the potentially chilling effects on the rule of law if this agreement is taken as an example at national level;
Amendment 15 #
Proposal for a decision
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Underlines the fact that the final decision-making powerat a publication onf implementation remains with the relevant authorities of the institutions or bodies; notes that any consultation of the independent experts on an individual cnvestigations and suspicions even in cases where no conflict of interest hase begins with a request of a party to the Agreement aen established is pregards its own membersjudicial;
Amendment 19 #
Proposal for a decision
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. RegretNotes that the European Council decided not to join the ACouncil decided to join the Agreement only in enforcement mechanisms; points out an inter- institutional power imbalance arising from this; calls on Parliament to refuse to sign the Agreement and to resume the negotiations until all institutions fully take part in an interinstitutional agreement;
Amendment 20 #
Proposal for a decision
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. RegreHighlights the unwillingness of the Council not to allow an extension of the scope of the Agreement to at least the representatives at ministerial level of the Member State holding the Presidency of the Council, by arguing that there is no legal basis in the Treaties to adopt common minimum standards applying to the representatives of Member States; is of the opinion that Members of the Council, like Members of the European Parliament, could be bound by the rules set by the Council pursuant to its power of self- organisation, which would prevail in the event of a conflict with national rules; underlines, in this context, that representatives of the Member States gathered in the Council act in their capacity as Members of the Council when adopting EU legal acts; commits to seeking a legal clarification as to whether the Council could bind its Members by common minimum standards;
Amendment 24 #
Proposal for a decision
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Is of the opinion that theExpresses grave concern at the inclusion of so-called independent experts, which shall be appointed by consensus of the parties to the Agreement, shall have professional experience specifically in the areas of ethics, integrity and transparency, in addi in the event of the ratification tof the requirements outlined in Article 5(2) of the Agreement referring to an impeccable record of professional behaviouAgreement; calls for the introduction of a confirmatory vote in Parliament for andy expterience in high-level functions in European, national, or international public organisationsnal experts prior to them taking up their office;
Amendment 25 #
Proposal for a decision
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Emphasises the essential role of the independent experts in examining individual cases at the request of a party to the Agreement; is of the opinion that each partyunderlines a potential conflict of interest of NGO representatives sendrving a small random sample of cases to the independent experts would be highly beneficial for the purpose of developing or updating an ethical standards de facto judges in a trial by public opinion of elected Parliamentarians;
Amendment 27 #
Proposal for a decision
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
Amendment 28 #
Proposal for a decision
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Believes that the reasoned recommendation of the independent experts, without prejudice to the General Data Protection Regulation and personal rights, should be made public by the institution or body, together with the decision of the competent authority who should provide an explaRequests that the independent experts sign a non-disclosure agreement including a sworn affidavit under Belgian law prior to taking office and underlines that any breach of confidentiality shall result in termination iof the recommendations are not fully followedoffice as well as criminal liability;
Amendment 31 #
Proposal for a decision
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Remains committed to constructively engaging in the review of the Agreement which is to be conducted three years after its entry into force in order to improve and enhance the ethics body, as provided for in Article 21 of the Agreementannually; calls for a confirmatory vote by Parliament whether to remain party to the Agreement 12 months after its entry into force;
Amendment 34 #
Proposal for a decision
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. ADoes not approves the conclusion of the Agreement annexed hereto and calls for its renegotiation;
Amendment 35 #
Proposal for a decision
Paragraph 10 a (new)
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10a. Calls to establish a body for standards in public office instead; notes that such a body should have the authority to set standards for all institutions and to guide Members and institutions in implementing those standards;
Amendment 36 #
Proposal for a decision
Paragraph 10 a (new)
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10a. Asks for the body to be renamed the “Standards for Public Office Commission” in line with precedent in Member States;
Amendment 37 #
Proposal for a decision
Paragraph 10 b (new)
Paragraph 10 b (new)
10b. Calls on the President not to sign the Agreement unless the Council either joins the agreement as a full member or is no longer a party to the agreement at all;
Amendment 38 #
Proposal for a decision
Paragraph 10 c (new)
Paragraph 10 c (new)
10c. Insists that the secretariat of the body be hosted by the European Parliament;
Amendment 39 #
Proposal for a decision
Paragraph 10 c (new)
Paragraph 10 c (new)
10c. Stresses that the body should set clearly-defined legal rules instead of vaguely defined ethical standards; calls for the renegotiation of the Agreement to this end;
Amendment 40 #
Proposal for a decision
Paragraph 10 d (new)
Paragraph 10 d (new)
10d. Insists that the appointment of independent experts should not be renewable;
Amendment 41 #
Proposal for a decision
Paragraph 10 e (new)
Paragraph 10 e (new)
10e. Calls on the Parties to renegotiate the agreement to ensure that the body provides for the harmonisation of standards instead of the investigation of individual cases;
Amendment 42 #
Proposal for a decision
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Instructs its President to signissue a letter with the intention of re-negotiating the Agreement with the President of the Council, the President of the Commission, the President of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the President of the European Central Bank, the President of the Court of Auditors, the President of the European Economic and Social Committee and the President of the Committee of the Regions and arrange for its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union;
Amendment 43 #
1. The European Parliament, the Council of the European Union, the European Commission, the Court of Justice of the European Union, the European Central Bank, the European Court of Auditors, the European Economic and Social Committee and the European Committee of the Regions (‘the Parties’) establish by this Agreement an interinstitutional framework for cooperation on ethical standards setting up an interinstitutional body for ethical standards (‘the Body’) for the members of the Parties.
Amendment 44 #
1. The European Parliament, the European Commission, the Council of the European Union, the European Commission, the Court of Justice of the European Union, the European Central Bank, the European Court of Auditors, the European Economic and Social Committee and the European Committee of the Regions (‘the Parties’) establish by this Agreement an interinstitutional framework for cooperation on ethical standards setting up an interinstitutional body for ethical standards in public office (‘the Body’) for the members of the Parties.
Amendment 45 #
(ba) the members of the Council of the European Union in relation to the exercise of their Union mandate;
Amendment 46 #
5. The term of the independent experts shall be 3 years, renewable once. If an independent expert ceases office before the completion of the 3-year term or if the Parties decide by consensus to revoke the appointment of an independent expert, the Parties shall appoint by consensus a new independent expert for 3 years.
Amendment 47 #
6. For purely administrative purposes, the independent experts shall receive the status of Special Adviser from the Commission and shall be administratively attached to the Commission. TheyThe independent experts shall be reimbursed the travelling and accommodation expenses they incur when carrying out their duties. They shall receive a per diem allowance per day of work calculated on the basis of the remuneration of a Union official in grade AD12.
Amendment 48 #
1. If deemed to be particularly relevant by a Party, either for cases which require specific consideration or for the purpose of developing or updating an ethical standard, the Party may consult and submit questions to the independent experts on the compliance of declarations of interests or any other standardised written declarations, or elements or drafts of such declarations, of its own members with the common minimum standards developed by the Body and reflected by the Party in its internal rules. Pending agreement on common minimum standards such questions may be referred to the independent experts based on other relevant standards applicable to the Party.
Amendment 49 #
1. The Body shall assess the necessity for an update of common minimum standards where one or more members of the Bodthe Body unanimously considers that a review is necessary.
Amendment 50 #
8. The self-assessment and the report shall be made public on the website of the Bodavailable only to Parties and subject to confidentiality.
Amendment 51 #
2. The Secretariat shall be formally hosted inat the CommissionEuropean Parliament in Brussels and operate under the coordination of the official who, within the Party chairing the Body, is responsible for the ethical rules for the members of that Party, or an official specifically designated for that purpose by the Party chairing the Body (‘the coordinator’). The coordinator shall represent the Secretariat and shall oversee its day-to-day work, in the common interest of the Parties.
Amendment 52 #
2. The website shall, in particular, contain the following: (a) the composition of the Body, and the calendar of its meetings and the meeting agendas; (b) the common minimum standards; (c) the self-assessments and reports referred to in Article 10(1) and (6), respectively;deleted (d) all the applicable rules of all Parties in the areas covered by the common minimum standards.