Next event: Commission response to text adopted in plenary 2018/02/21 more...
- Results of vote in Parliament 2017/09/14
- Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading 2017/09/14
- End of procedure in Parliament 2017/09/14
- Debate in Parliament 2017/09/11
- Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading 2017/03/30
- Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading 2017/03/21
- Amendments tabled in committee 2016/03/01
- Amendments tabled in committee 2016/03/01
- Committee opinion 2016/02/18
- Committee opinion 2016/02/05
- Committee opinion 2015/12/11
Progress: Procedure completed
Role | Committee | Rapporteur | Shadows |
---|---|---|---|
Lead | AFCO | GIEGOLD Sven ( Verts/ALE) | SCHÖPFLIN György ( PPE), LEINEN Jo ( S&D), UJAZDOWSKI Kazimierz Michał ( ECR), PAGAZAURTUNDÚA Maite ( ALDE), SCHOLZ Helmut ( GUE/NGL), CASTALDO Fabio Massimo ( EFDD), ANNEMANS Gerolf ( ENF) |
Committee Opinion | ENVI | CHILDERS Nessa ( S&D) | Mark DEMESMAEKER ( ECR), Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY ( ALDE), Benedek JÁVOR ( Verts/ALE), József NAGY ( PPE) |
Committee Opinion | INTA | LANGE Bernd ( S&D) | David BORRELLI ( EFDD), David CAMPBELL BANNERMAN ( ECR), Godelieve QUISTHOUDT-ROWOHL ( PPE), Marietje SCHAAKE ( ALDE) |
Committee Opinion | CONT | DEUTSCH Tamás ( PPE) | Benedek JÁVOR ( Verts/ALE), Dennis de JONG ( GUE/NGL), Miroslav POCHE ( S&D), Michael THEURER ( ALDE), Marco VALLI ( EFDD) |
Committee Opinion | LIBE | GUILLAUME Sylvie ( S&D) | Dennis de JONG ( GUE/NGL), Josep-Maria TERRICABRAS ( Verts/ALE) |
Committee Opinion | JURI | SVOBODA Pavel ( PPE) | Cecilia WIKSTRÖM ( ALDE) |
Lead committee dossier:
Legal Basis:
RoP 54
Legal Basis:
RoP 54Subjects
Events
The European Parliament adopted by 368 votes to 161 with 60 abstentions, a resolution on transparency, accountability and integrity in the EU institutions.
In view of the growing distance between the EU and its citizens, the EU institutions must strive for the highest possible standards of transparency, accountability and integrity.
Transparency Register and relations with interest representatives : Parliament proposed backing up the EU Transparency Register with a legislative act and to achieve a fully mandatory register for all interest representatives with an interinstitutional agreement.
It recalled the revision of the Rules of Procedure of 13 December 2016, according to which Members should adopt the systematic practice of only meeting interest representatives that have registered in the Transparency Register , and called for meetings between interest representatives and Secretary-Generals, Director-Generals and Secretary-Generals of political groups to be included.
Members welcomed the decision of its Bureau to request that its administration develop a template for all rapporteurs and draftspersons for opinions to produce a voluntary legislative footprint, setting out what interest representatives and organisations they have consulted.
The Commission should make all information on interest representation towards the EU institutions, declarations of interest, confirmed conflicts of interest and expert groups easily accessible to the public through an online one-stop shop. It should also publish meetings of all relevant Commission staff involved in the EU’s policy-making process with external organisations. The Council is called on to join the Transparency Register as soon as possible.
Parliament insisted that registered entities, including law firms and consultancies, should declare in the Transparency Register all clients on whose behalf they perform interest representation activities that fall within the remit of the Transparency Register. Declarations of registered entities should be checked each year.
Conflicts of interest : Members called on the EU institutions and bodies which still do not have a code of conduct to develop such a document as soon as possible. The Council, for its part, should introduce a specific code of ethics, including sanctions, which addresses the risks specific to national delegates.
The Commission is invited to address the ‘ revolving door ’ issue given that its effect can be detrimental to relations between the institutions and interest representatives. Members proposed to strengthen the restrictions on former Commissioners by extending the ‘cooling-off period’ to three years and making it binding for at least all activities falling within the remit of the Transparency Register. They stated that decisions on senior officials’ and former Commissioners’ new roles must be taken by an authority appointed as independently as possible of those affected by its decisions.
Expert groups: Members stressed the need for a balanced composition of expert groups . They considered that a provision containing general criteria for the delimitation of economic and non-economic interests would help the Commission to pick experts representing interests with a better balance.
The Commission is called on to explore systemic safeguards with a view to avoiding conflicts of interest in the area of the regulation of industry products and policy enforcement.
Full access to documents in the legislative process : Members recalled their Commission and the Council in its resolution of 28 April 2016 in which it:
called for the scope of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 to be broadened to include all the European institutions it currently does not cover, such as the European Council, the European Central Bank, the Court of Justice and all the EU bodies and agencies; called for full compliance with the obligation by the institutions, agencies and other bodies to keep complete registers of documents ; considered that documents created in trilogues such as agendas, summaries of outcomes, minutes and general approaches in the Council; called for a common interinstitutional register , including a dedicated joint database on the state of play of legislative files for which works are under way as agreed in the Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-Making; called on the Commission to set up a register of all second-level legislation , in particular for delegated acts.
External representation and negotiations of the EU : Members welcomed the recent case law by the European Court of Justice, which reinforces Parliament's right to information on international agreements. They called on the Council, the Commission and the European External Action Service to genuinely commit to reaching an agreement with Parliament on improved cooperation and information sharing throughout the whole life cycle of international agreements.
The EU must take the lead in furthering the transparency of trade negotiations, not only for bilateral processes, but also for plurilateral and multilateral processes where possible.
Protection of whistleblowers and the fight against corruption : whistleblowers have too often found more prosecution than support even in the EU institutions. Stressing that effective whistleblower protection to be a key weapon in the fight against corruption, Parliament called on the Commission to propose an EU legislative framework for the effective protection of whistleblowers and to add to the Ombudsman’s remit her task of being a focal point for whistleblowers who find themselves victims of ill-treatment.
The resolution stated that persons convicted by a final judgment of corruption in the EU or companies led or owned by persons who committed acts of corruption or misappropriation of public funds for the benefit of their company and have been convicted by a final judgment on those grounds should, for at least three years, be effectively banned from entering into procurement contracts with the European Union and from benefiting from EU funds.
Lastly, Members believed that the data on budget and spending within the EU should be transparent and accountable through publication, including at the level of Member States as regards shared management.
The Committee on Constitutional Affairs adopted an own-initiative report by Sven GIEGOLD (Greens/EFA, DE) on transparency, accountability and integrity in the EU institutions.
In view of the growing distance between the EU and its citizens, the EU institutions must strive for the highest possible standards of transparency, accountability and integrity.
Transparency Register and relations with interest representatives : Members proposed backing up the EU Transparency Register with a legislative act and to achieve a fully mandatory register for all interest representatives with an interinstitutional agreement.
They recalled the revision of the Rules of Procedure of 13 December 2016, according to which Members should adopt the systematic practice of only meeting interest representatives that have registered in the Transparency Register , and called for meetings between interest representatives and Secretary-Generals, Director-Generals and Secretary-Generals of political groups to be included.
Members welcomed the decision of its Bureau to request that its administration develop a template for all rapporteurs and draftspersons for opinions to produce a voluntary legislative footprint, setting out what interest representatives and organisations they have consulted.
The Commission shall make all information on interest representation towards the EU institutions, declarations of interest, confirmed conflicts of interest and expert groups easily accessible to the public through an online one-stop shop.
The Council is called on to join the Transparency Register as soon as possible.
Members insisted that registered entities, including law firms and consultancies, should declare in the Transparency Register all clients on whose behalf they perform interest representation activities that fall within the remit of the Transparency Register.
Conflicts of interest : Members called on the EU institutions and bodies which still do not have a code of conduct to develop such a document as soon as possible.
The Commission is invited to address the ‘ revolving door ’ issue given that its effect can be detrimental to relations between the institutions and interest representatives. Members proposed to strengthen the restrictions on former Commissioners by extending the ‘cooling-off period’ to three years and making it binding for at least all activities falling within the remit of the Transparency Register. They stated that decisions on senior officials’ and former Commissioners’ new roles must be taken by an authority appointed as independently as possible of those affected by its decisions.
Members stressed the need for a balanced composition of expert groups . They considered that a provision containing general criteria for the delimitation of economic and non-economic interests would help the Commission to pick experts representing interests with a better balance.
The Commission is called on to explore systemic safeguards with a view to avoiding conflicts of interest in the area of the regulation of industry products and policy enforcement.
Full access to documents in the legislative process : Members recalled their Commission and the Council in its resolution of 28 April 2016 in which it:
called for the scope of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 to be broadened to include all the European institutions it currently does not cover, such as the European Council, the European Central Bank, the Court of Justice and all the EU bodies and agencies; called for full compliance with the obligation by the institutions, agencies and other bodies to keep complete registers of documents ; considered that documents created in trilogues such as agendas, summaries of outcomes, minutes and general approaches in the Council; called for a common interinstitutional register , including a dedicated joint database on the state of play of legislative files for which works are under way as agreed in the Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-Making; called on the Commission to set up a register of all second-level legislation , in particular for delegated acts.
External representation and negotiations of the EU : Members welcomed the recent case law by the European Court of Justice which reinforces Parliament's right to information on international agreements.
While welcoming the recent efforts by the Commission to increase the transparency of trade negotiations, Members believed, nevertheless, that the Council and the Commission should still improve their working methods to cooperate better with Parliament as regards access to documents, information and decision-making for all issues and negotiations related to common commercial policy.
The EU must take the lead in furthering the transparency of trade negotiations, not only for bilateral processes, but also for plurilateral and multilateral processes where possible.
Protection of whistleblowers and the fight against corruption : whistleblowers have too often found more prosecution than support even in the EU institutions. Members considered that effective whistleblower protection to be a key weapon in the fight against corruption. Therefore, they reiterated their call on the Commission to propose, by June 2016, an EU legislative framework for the effective protection of whistleblowers.
The report called for the EU to advance its application for membership of the Council of Europe Group of States against Corruption (GRECO) as soon as possible. It stated that persons convicted by a final judgment of corruption in the EU or companies led or owned by persons who committed acts of corruption or misappropriation of public funds for the benefit of their company and have been convicted by a final judgment on those grounds should, for at least three years, be effectively banned from entering into procurement contracts with the European Union and from benefiting from EU funds.
Members believed that the data on budget and spending within the EU should be transparent and accountable through publication, including at the level of Member States as regards shared management.
Documents
- Commission response to text adopted in plenary: SP(2017)780
- Results of vote in Parliament: Results of vote in Parliament
- Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading: T8-0358/2017
- Debate in Parliament: Debate in Parliament
- Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading: A8-0133/2017
- Amendments tabled in committee: PE578.566
- Amendments tabled in committee: PE578.568
- Committee opinion: PE569.503
- Committee opinion: PE571.698
- Committee opinion: PE569.667
- Committee opinion: PE557.227
- Committee opinion: PE560.864
- Committee draft report: PE567.666
- Committee draft report: PE567.666
- Committee opinion: PE560.864
- Committee opinion: PE557.227
- Committee opinion: PE569.667
- Committee opinion: PE571.698
- Committee opinion: PE569.503
- Amendments tabled in committee: PE578.566
- Amendments tabled in committee: PE578.568
- Commission response to text adopted in plenary: SP(2017)780
Activities
- Jan Philipp ALBRECHT
Plenary Speeches (0)
- Miguel ARIAS CAÑETE
Plenary Speeches (0)
- Georgios EPITIDEIOS
Plenary Speeches (0)
- Christofer FJELLNER
Plenary Speeches (0)
- Ana GOMES
Plenary Speeches (0)
- Jo LEINEN
Plenary Speeches (0)
- Monica MACOVEI
Plenary Speeches (0)
- Notis MARIAS
Plenary Speeches (0)
- György SCHÖPFLIN
Plenary Speeches (0)
- Monika SMOLKOVÁ
Plenary Speeches (0)
Amendments | Dossier |
183 |
2015/2041(INI)
2015/10/01
ENVI
69 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Is concerned
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 b (new) 1b. Welcomes the Commission's announcement of a review of the classification of expert group members in the Register of expert groups; considers that this exercise should bring the categorisation of members into line with that applied in the Transparency Register;
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 b (new) 1b. Understands that though strict criteria to ensure the independence of expert groups is of great importance, access to the best available expertise must at all times take precedent in order to ensure truly science based policy making;
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 b (new) 1b. Calls on the Commission to ensure public access to information on lobbying activities, in order to improve the transparency and integrity of the decision- making process in the EU institutions; believes that public access to information on lobbying activities is an essential right for EU citizens and necessary for due democratic practice;
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Calls on the Commission to ensure that the membership of expert groups and similar entities providing it with advice is accurately and consistently balanced and categorised as to the nature of the interests represented by members, in line with the European Ombudsman’s recommendations in the context of own-initiative inquiry OI/6/2014/NF; calls on the Commission in particular to ensure that comprehensive declarations of interests for current and new members of expert groups are published, particularly for experts appointed in their personal capacity;
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Calls on the Commission to ensure that the membership of expert groups and similar entities providing it with advice is accurately and consistently balanced, with due regard to participants level of expertise and up-to-date experience of the issues under discussion, and categorised as to the nature of the interests represented by members, in line with the European Ombudsman’s recommendations in the context of own-initiative inquiry OI/6/2014/NF;
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Calls on the Commission to en
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Calls on the Commission to ensure that the membership of expert groups and similar entities providing it with advice is accurately and consistently balanced and categorised as to the nature of the interests represented by members
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Calls on the Commission in particular to review its 2002 "communication on general principles and standards for consultation of interested parties";
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Welcomes the Commission's commitment to introducing new provisions on conflicts of interest of individuals appointed as members of expert groups in a personal capacity; stresses the need for all experts to submit a declaration of interests for publication on the expert groups register;
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Is concerned
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Calls on the Commission to make minutes of expert group meetings available to the public on their website and further calls for all members of such expert groups who often have key influence on legislative matters to submit declarations of interest;
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 b (new) 2b. Calls on the Commission to ensure balanced participation in consultations by reflecting the diversity of stakeholders and providing better conditions including financial support when adequate for small stakeholders to participate;
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 b (new) 2b. Regrets that the Council as a key institution of influence in the EU legislative process has yet to adopt any form of a lobbying register, calls therefore on the Council to come forward as soon as possible with a mandatory lobbying register;
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 c (new) 2c. Call on the European Institutions and Agencies to refrain from inviting unregistered lobbyists to its hearings and other official events;
Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 c (new) 2c. Highlights the need for independent experts in the EU agencies such as the European Food Safety Authority and for greater importance to be placed on eliminating conflicts of interests within the panels of such agencies;
Amendment 25 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 d (new) 2d. Praises the European Parliament's Research Service for the high quality of their work; highlights the need for more resources for it and to further guarantee its administrative independence at the service of the public interest;
Amendment 26 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 d (new) 2d. Calls on the European Parliament to consider creating an open database of MEPs' declarations of interest which is searchable to allow for greater transparency and scrutiny by civil society;
Amendment 27 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 e (new) 2e. Calls on the EU institutions to establish or amend minimum 'cooling-off periods' for senior EU officials including MEPS before former public and elected officials can work in lobbying positions that may create or be seen to create conflicts of interest to avoid 'revolving door' situations; and calls in the meantime, for the publication of senior EU officials including MEPs who have left their institutions to work for private interests;
Amendment 28 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Calls on the Commission to issue and disseminate timely public calls for applications for the selection of all expert group membership, to be contingent on registration in the Transparency Register, and to ensure compliance with the OECD Guidelines on Managing Conflict of Interest in the Public Service and due diligence in the screening thereof on a yearly basis;
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Calls on the Commission to issue and disseminate timely public calls for applications for the selection of all expert group membership in order to ensure that selection process is most transparent and inclusive, to be contingent on registration in the Transparency Register, and to ensure compliance with the OECD Guidelines on Managing Conflict of Interest in the Public Service and due diligence in the screening thereof;
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Is concerned at the misleading registration practices of
Amendment 30 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Calls on the European institutions to set up a publicly accessible internet repository for all position papers submitted by stakeholders; calls on the European institutions to include an obligation for all registered lobbyists to simultaneously submit a copy of all position papers they communicate to members or staff of the institutions to this repository;
Amendment 31 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Notes that in order to ensure factual balanced participation special efforts should be made when publishing call for applications to reach the different relevant expertise sectors, be it from the scientific field or civil society;
Amendment 32 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Holds the view that the requisition of extremely specific technical expertise is not valid ground to obviate a call for applications;
Amendment 33 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Calls for the Commission to monitor the independence of experts throughout the performance of their duties, given that new economic interests could emerge during that time;
Amendment 34 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Calls on all EU institutions and their staff to refuse access to unregistered lobbyists and further calls for the EU Commission's TTIP negotiating team to be included in any such provisions;
Amendment 35 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 b (new) 3b. Calls on the President of the Commission to extend the new transparency measures for Commissioners and Director-generals to other senior EU officials heavily involved in the legislative process who meet regularly with relevant stakeholders, such as Heads of Unit;
Amendment 36 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 c (new) 3c. Calls on the European Parliament to publish a list of all external visitors who are signed in by MEPs and their offices; requests that this list be published on the European Parliament's website in an accessible and searchable format;
Amendment 37 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 d (new) 3d. Calls on the EU institutions, in an effort to address the opacity of the complex negotiation and decision-making procedures in the legislative process to publish the negotiating positions of the three EU institutions which are used in trilogues to allow for public scrutiny of the process;
Amendment 38 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Highlights that the EU's research policy general objective of establishing public-private partnerships between companies and academia conflicts with the need of regulators in the EU for independent research on industry products; calls on the Commission to explore systemic safeguards to avoid conflicts of interests on industry products regulation and policy enforcement;
Amendment 39 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Finds the overall level of disclosure of expert group proceedings and deliberations lacking; calls on the Commission to ensure that more detailed information is made available in a timely and aggregated fashion, particularly as concerns sub-groups;
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Urges the Commission to make sure consultations contain open questions leading to substantial policy discussion instead of merely seeking to confirm already chosen policy directions or options;
Amendment 40 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Encourages the Vice-President of the Commission in charge of Better Regulation, Inter-Institutional Relations, the Rule of Law and the Charter of Fundamental Rights to maintain his pledge and come forward with proposals before the end of 2015 to make the transparency register legally mandatory and to ensure that there are proper sanction mechanisms for organisations which do not comply with the rules;
Amendment 41 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 b (new) 4b. Calls on the Commission to address the current structural conflict of interests in the public risk assessment of regulated products, namely that these products' assessment is largely or solely based on studies performed by applicants or third parties paid by them, while independent research is all too often disregarded or dismissed; insists that producers should still provide studies, with cost-sharing between large companies and SMEs based on relative market share to ensure fairness, but that all assessors are obliged to fully take into account peer-reviewed independent science in their assessment;
Amendment 42 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Urges all the relevant EU institutions to implement Article 5.3 of the World Health Organisation Framework Convention on Tobacco Control in accordance with the recommendations contained in the guidelines thereto; urges the Commission to publish the assessment on the PMI agreement and agreements with other tobacco companies and an impact assessment on the implementation of the World Health Organisation Framework Convention on Tobacco Control;
Amendment 43 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Urges all the relevant EU institutions to implement Article 5.3 of the World Health Organisation Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, which stipulates that the Parties must act to protect tobacco control policies from commercial and other vested interests of the tobacco industry, in accordance with the recommendations contained in the guidelines thereto;
Amendment 44 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Urges all the relevant EU institutions to implement Article 5.3 of the World Health Organisation Framework Convention on Tobacco Control in accordance with the recommendations contained in the guidelines thereto; is disappointed with the recently published yet heavily redacted exchange of emails between the European Commission and the tobacco company British American Tobacco;
Amendment 45 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Is convinced that the PMI agreement should not be negotiated before a public and transparent debate is held following the publication of the assessment of the PMI agreement; calls on the Commission to explore existing alternatives;
Amendment 46 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Considers that, in the absence of an overdue impact assessment by the Commission, a renewed Anti-Contraband and Anti-Counterfeit Agreement with the tobacco industry is an inadequate instrument to address illicit tobacco trade, particularly in light of article 15 of the Tobacco Products Directive and the Protocol to Eliminate Illicit Trade in Tobacco Products, adopted by the Parties to the World Health Organisation's Framework Convention on Tobacco Control;
Amendment 47 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 b (new) 5b. Highlights the need for Agencies to base their decisions on the best available evidence; reminds that scientific rigour is ensured by transparency and reproducibility of the results;
Amendment 48 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 b (new) 5b. Stresses the need for a tracking and tracing system for cigarette counterfeiting that is independent from the tobacco industry, in line with Article 8.2 of the WHO Protocol to Eliminate Illicit Trade in Tobacco Products, particularly in the absence of any referrals of seized contraband for independent laboratory assessment, given the vested industry interest in deeming seizures counterfeit under the terms of the Anti-Contraband and Anti-Counterfeit Agreement, with the attendant loss of customs revenue in the Union;
Amendment 49 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 c (new) 5c. Insists that all the data used by any Agency to reach any given scientific conclusion is made publicly available in a machine readable format so as to enable scientific scrutiny and constant progress; insists that while individual privacy must be respected, commercial confidentiality clauses and trade secrets legislation must not be allowed to impair the disclosure of data; calls on the Commission to closely monitor the proper implementation of data disclosure;
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Calls on the Commission to establish compulsory registers of lobbyists containing detailed information showing who is lobbying on behalf of whom, for what purpose and with what resources and funding;
Amendment 50 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6.. Urges the EU agencies to establish much stricter criteria and procedures to ensure the independence of their scientific panels from the economic and non- economic sectors regulated by them and from the influence of political parties having specific agenda on the concerned topic, in order to properly avoid conflicts of interest, with particular emphasis on the ability to use a status of
Amendment 51 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6.. Urges the EU agencies to establish
Amendment 52 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 a (new) 6a. Points out that the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union gives individuals the right of access to public documents, and criticises the fact that one of the main transparency- related problems facing the European institutions is their own frequent refusal to grant access to documents and information;
Amendment 53 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 a (new) 6a. Calls on the Commission to explore options encompassing legislative acts, institutional and administrative arrangements and to take concrete actions to create a framework to improve governance and explicitly represent the future generations to better integrate their rights into decision and policy making at European level;
Amendment 54 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 a (new) 6a. Notes that in the time of rising euro scepticism it is crucial to strengthen public trust in EU institutions and the people who run it; strong commitment to transparency, ensuring integrity of the institutions and fighting corruption are of utmost importance;
Amendment 55 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 a (new) 6a. Welcomes private sector investment in research and development; reminds that most experts have participated in research projects funded by the private sector; recalls that expertise is a scarce resource which should not be made inaccessible to expert groups;
Amendment 56 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 a (new) 6a. Underlines that the Commission should strengthen the integrity of its use of scientific advice, in particular by not seeking political balance but rather by relying on the most objective and authoritative information available;
Amendment 57 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 a (new) 6a. Calls on the Commission to streamline access to information and ensure greater transparency in the application of the rules on exceptions set out in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001;
Amendment 58 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 a (new) 6a. Strongly recommends a cooling-off period of 5 years from commercial interests as a requirement for candidate- experts to participate as full members of scientific panels with drafting and decision-making duties;
Amendment 59 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 b (new) 6b. Calls in EU institutions to ensure that Agencies are provided with the means of their mission; recalls that currently experts from a number of agencies are not paid for their work despite the strategic importance of their contributions towards public and environmental health;
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Insists, recalling its resolution of 22 October 2014 on the Council position on the draft general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2015, on the need for a legally binding framework replacing C(2010) 7649 Communication Framework for Commission Expert Groups: Horizontal Rules and Public Register, so as to achieve full and consistent implementation of the applicable rules across all Commission Directorates-General;
Amendment 60 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 b (new) 6b. Reiterates the Parliament's request for a mandatory EU Transparency Register, which must apply to all European institutions, and asks the Commission and the Member States to put forward concrete proposals in this regard;
Amendment 61 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 b (new) 6b. Welcomes the Commission’s decision to require its members to make public information on meetings they and the members of their private offices hold with organisations and self-employed individuals on matters relating to EU policy making and policy implementation;
Amendment 62 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 b (new) 6b. Stresses, as far as EU agencies are concerned, the inadequacy of reliance on self-assessment by prospective members of scientific panels and committees in order to screen for potential conflicts of interest; encourages the EU agencies to establish a system of proactive checks;
Amendment 63 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 b (new) 6b. Calls on the Commission to ensure that access is provided to documents and information on formal notice and infringement proceedings taken against Member States and on the implementation of Court of Justice judgments;
Amendment 64 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 c (new) 6c. Acknowledges and welcomes the Commission’s efforts to ensure greater transparency in the TTIP negotiations, and calls on the Commission to take those efforts further and give private individuals and all of the Members of Parliament easy access to the texts under negotiation;
Amendment 65 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 c (new) 6c. Emphasises, in the interests of sound and independent scientific advice for policy making, the importance of adequate resources for the development of in-house expertise within the EU specialised agencies, including the opportunity to conduct publishable research and testing, thus enhancing the attractiveness of regulatory science service in academic careers;
Amendment 66 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 d (new) 6d. Calls on the Commission to submit a proposal for a compulsory register of lobbyists, and stresses that the European institutions need to be made more transparent if they are to be brought closer to the people;
Amendment 67 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 d (new) 6d. Suggests that, in order to address issues arising from the selective suppression of unfavourable research findings, prior registration of scientific studies and trials, stating the scope and expected date of conclusion, could be a condition for input into regulatory and policy processes.
Amendment 68 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 e (new) 6e. Calls on the Council to take part in the transparency register scheme, in order to enhance its own transparency;
Amendment 69 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 f (new) 6f. Stresses that the European Medicines Agency (EMA) should ensure maximum transparency in providing access to clinical reports, and welcomes the agency's decision proactively to publish reports on clinical trials in support of its decisions on individual medicines;
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Recognizes that expert groups need access to best available scientific expertise;
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Urges the Commission to make a concrete proposal without further delay for the establishment of an Inter- Institutional Agreement on a mandatory Transparency Register, especially having in mind earlier statements and commitments made by the Juncker Commission;
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Recalls that a 2014 Eurobarometer survey revealed that 70% of the EU public believe that corruption is present in the EU institutions and therefore urges the EU institutions to urgently address this lack of public trust;
source: 569.479
2015/11/09
CONT
60 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion Recital C C. whereas there is a need to reduce accountability gaps within the EU and to move towards more collaborative modes of scrutiny which combine democratic oversight, control and auditing activities while also providing more transparency;
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Considers it regrettable that the Council has still not adopted a code of conduct; is of the opinion that all the EU institutions should agree on codes of conduct, which are indispensable to the transparency, accountability and integrity of those institutions; calls on EU institutions and bodies which still do not have a code of conduct to develop such a document as soon as possible;
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Considers it regrettable that the Council has still not adopted a code of conduct; is of the opinion that all the EU institutions should agree on a common code
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Calls upon those European institutions who have introduced codes of conduct, including the Parliament, to step up their implementation measures, such as the checks of declarations of financial interests;
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Requests that the aforementioned structure assess the compatibility of post- EU employment or the situation whereby
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Requests that all EU institutions implement article 16 of the EU Staff Regulations by annually publishing information about senior officials who left the EU administration, as well as a list of conflicts of interests; requests that the aforementioned structure assess the compatibility of post-
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Requests that the aforementioned structure assess the compatibility of post- EU employment or the situation whereby civil servants and former Members of the European Parliament move from the public to the private sector (the ‘revolving door’ issue) and the possibility of a conflict of interest, and define clear cooling-off periods during which officials and MEPs are required to behave with integrity and discretion or to comply with certain conditions when taking up new duties;
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1 (new) Recalls the general principle which states that every person is presumed innocent until proven guilty according to the law;
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Calls for the aforementioned substructure to be capable of seeking evidence both for and against;
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Emphasises the need for an independent structure within the EU institutions to supervise closely the implementation of the code of conduct and the conflict-of-interest policies; is of the opinion that the European Ombudsman and the European Data Protection Supervisor jointly should play a role in carrying out this task;
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion Recital D a (new) Da. whereas transparency, accountability and integrity should be the leading principles for the culture within the European institutions;
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 b (new) 5b. Calls for the accused person to have access to his or her file at all times and, where necessary, be able to contact an advisor to act in his or her defence or seek representation;
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Encourages the
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Encourages the dissemination of the conflict-of-interest policy among officials alongside ongoing awareness-raising activities
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Encourages the dissemination of the conflict-of-interest policy among officials alongside ongoing awareness-raising activities in the EU institutions and bodies;
Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Encourages the dissemination of the conflict-of-interest policy among officials alongside ongoing awareness-raising activities; considers that a distinction should be made between elected representatives and public officials in the legislation on conflicts of interest; believes that there should also be such regulations in the Member States for public officials and civil servants involved in the administration and monitoring of EU subsidies; calls on the Commission to submit a draft legal basis on this matter.
Amendment 25 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Welcomes the Commission’s agreement to increase transparency by improving its system of expert groups, particularly as regards the procedure for selecting experts, through the development of a new conflict- of-interest policy for experts appointed in a personal capacity which makes it possible for Parliament to scrutinise those appointments directly; takes note of the requirement for experts to be registered in the transparency register where relevant;
Amendment 26 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Welcomes the Commission’s
Amendment 27 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7.
Amendment 28 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Welcomes the Commission’s agreement to increase transparency by improving its system of expert groups, particularly as regards the procedure for selecting experts, through the development of a new conflict- of-interest policy for experts appointed in a personal capacity; takes note of the requirement for experts to be registered in the transparency register where relevant; however urges the Commission to take into account the recommendations of the European Ombudsman concerning the composition of the expert groups and to create more systematic and transparent approach; encourages the European agencies to consider reforms in a similar sense;
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 8. Is of the opinion that further steps need to be taken both to tackle ethical issues relating to the political role of lobbies, their practices and their influence and to promote safeguards for integrity, in order to raise the level of transparency of lobbying activities; proposes that common rules governing the pursuit of lobbying activities within the European institutions should be introduced;
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Calls for an overall improvement in the prevention of, and the fight against, corruption in the public sector through
Amendment 30 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 9. Believes that the level of transparency could be raised through the creation of a legislative footprint for EU lobbying
Amendment 31 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 9. Believes that the level of transparency could be raised through the creation of a legislative footprint for EU lobbying, and calls for a proposal to be put forward with the objective of switching from a voluntary to a mandatory EU register for all lobbying activities for any of the EU institutions by 2016;
Amendment 32 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 9. Believes that the level of transparency could be raised through the creation of a legislative footprint for EU lobbying
Amendment 33 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 9. Believes that the level of transparency
Amendment 34 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 9. Believes that the level of transparency could be raised through the creation of a legislative footprint for EU lobbying that would enable publishing of all documents covering every step in the process of drafting legislation, with the objective of switching from a voluntary to a mandatory EU register for all lobbying activities for any of the EU institutions;
Amendment 35 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 9. Believes that the level of transparency
Amendment 36 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 a (new) 9a. Calls for switching from a voluntary to a mandatory EU register for all lobbying activities for all the EU institutions; calls on the Council to join the EU transparency register;
Amendment 37 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 10 10. Considers, in this context, that a mandatory EU register
Amendment 38 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 10 10. Considers, in this context, that a mandatory EU register should include clear provisions on the type of information to be recorded, i.e. accurate and regularly updated information on the nature of lobbying/legal activities, together with detailed records of contacts and input into EU law and policymaking;
Amendment 39 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 10 10. Considers, in this context, that a mandatory EU register should include clear provisions on the type of information to be recorded, i.e. accurate and regularly updated information on the nature of lobbying/legal activities, together with detailed records of contacts and input into
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Calls for an overall improvement in the prevention of, and the fight against, corruption in the public sector through a holistic approach, commencing with better public access to documents and more stringent rules on conflicts of interest
Amendment 40 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 11 11. Demands that all those EU institutions that have not yet done so adopt internal rules on whistleblowing and
Amendment 41 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 11 11. Demands that all those EU institutions that have not yet done so adopt internal rules on whistleblowing and assess the possibility of agreeing on a common approach to their obligations, focusing on the protection of whistleblowers; asks special attention for the protection of whistleblowers in the context of the Directive on the Protection of Trade Secrets;
Amendment 42 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 11 11. Demands that all those EU institutions that have not yet done so urgently adopt internal rules on whistleblowing and assess the possibility of agreeing on a common approach to their obligations, focusing on the protection of whistleblowers;
Amendment 43 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 11 11.
Amendment 44 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 12 12. Asks the
Amendment 45 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 13 13.
Amendment 46 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 13 a (new) 13a. Recalls the difficulties repeatedly encountered in the discharge procedures to date, owing to a lack of cooperation on the part of the Council; insists that the Council must be accountable and transparent as the other institutions and that democratic accountability of the Council requires cooperation with the European Parliament;
Amendment 47 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 13 a (new) 13a. States that the annual reports of the European institutions could play an important role in the compliance regarding transparency, accountability and integrity; calls upon the European institutions to have a standard chapter in the annual reports on these components;
Amendment 48 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 14 14. Considers the Commission’s first biennial anti-corruption report to be a promising attempt to better understand corruption in all its dimensions, to develop effective responses with a view to tackling it, and to pave the way for enhanced accountability of the public sphere to EU citizens; reaffirms, in this context, the importance of the EU’ zero-tolerance policy on fraud, corruption and collusion; regrets, however, that this report did not include anti-corruption policies of the EU institutions themselves;
Amendment 49 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 16 16. Demands that at the latest in its second anti-
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Calls for an overall improvement in the prevention of, and the fight against, corruption in the public sector and especially within the EU institutions through better public access to documents and more
Amendment 50 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 16 a (new) 16a. Requests the Commission in this regard to pay particular attention to the prevention of conflicts of interest, as well as corruptive practises in the case of decentralised agencies who are particularly vulnerable, considering the fact that they are relatively unknown to the public and are also located throughout the EU;
Amendment 51 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 17 17.
Amendment 52 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 17 17.
Amendment 53 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 17 a (new) 17a. Believes that in order to increase the accountability and integrity of the EU institutions is of paramount importance to establish a European Public Prosecutor office. Urges in this sense the Council to adopt the regulation on the proposal on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office and follow the recommendations of the Parliament’s resolution on this proposal (P8_TA(2015)0173 Wednesday, 29 April 2015 Resolution on the European Public Prosecutor’s Office);
Amendment 54 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 17 a (new) 17a. Considers OLAF to be a key actor in the fight against corruption and therefore believes that it is of utmost importance that the institution works effectively and independently; recommends that the OLAF Supervisory Committee is given access to the information needed for effective execution of its mandate with regard to oversight of the OLAF activities and is provided with budgetary independence;
Amendment 55 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 18 18. Calls for the EU to apply for membership of the Council of Europe Group of States against Corruption (GRECO) and for Parliament to be kept up to date with the progress of that application;
Amendment 56 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 18 18. Calls for the EU to apply for membership of the Council of Europe Group of States against Corruption (GRECO) as soon as possible;
Amendment 57 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 18 a (new) 18a. Calls upon the Commission to fulfil without delay its reporting obligations under the UN Convention against Corruption;
Amendment 58 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 19 19. Encourages enhanced cooperation among Member States with a view to exchanging know-how and good practices, reinforcing international agreements on judicial and police cooperation, and bringing together the EU, the United Nations, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development and the Council of Europe to formulate a coordinated
Amendment 59 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 19 a (new) 19a. Recognises the important role of Europol and Eurojust in combating organised crime including corruption; believes that the agencies should have further powers to act in this area, especially in the instances of transnational cases;
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Calls on all EU institutions to enhance their procedures and practices aimed at safeguarding the financial interests of the Union and to actively contribute to a results-oriented discharge process;
Amendment 60 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 19 b (new) 19b. Recommends that the European Public Prosecutor´s Office (EPPO) has a mandate covering organised crime including combating of corruption; highlights that tasks and responsibilities of the EPPO should be further clarified in order to avoid potential overlap of work with national authorities;
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Underlines the need to enhance integrity and improve the ethical framework through
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Advocates the creation of an independent structure to oversee the application of various codes of conduct and arrangements for the protection of whistleblowers, with reference to the highest possible professional ethical standards, in the context of strengthening the public-sector accountability framework and the performance of administration thanks to better governance principles and structures at all levels;
source: 571.614
2015/11/26
INTA
54 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Re
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Recalls that the Treaty on European Union (TEU) marked a new stage in the process of creating an ever closer union in which decisions
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Stresses that achieving progress in this respect requires a meaningful engagement of the European Commission with social partners, commensurate to the EU's obligation to "recognise and promote the role of the social partners" as expressed in article 152 TFEU; notes in the context of the TTIP negotiations that neither the Civil Society Dialogue nor the TTIP Advisory Group are sufficient means to achieve this objective;
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Recommends that the Commissions on-going efforts to increase transparency in all current and future trade negotiations should entail the strengthening of the European Ombudsman's mandate as an independent oversight body; calls on the Commission to grant the European Ombudsman the right of access to all trade related documents, in particular consolidated and confidential files;
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 b (new) 1b. Stresses that greater democratic scrutiny by the European Parliament and engagement by civil society and social partners is also necessary with respect to negotiating directives; regrets that Parliament, civil society and social partners are not systematically involved in the process of drafting negotiating directives by the European Commission, or even consulted prior to their adoption by the Council;
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 b (new) 1b. Suggests a set of new rules dealing in particular with the treatment of internal documents, especially wider access to Legal Service opinions drafted within the framework of the decision-making process as well as to information relating to the work of Member State representatives when acting as members of the Council, including transcripts of meetings;
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Recalls that, pursuant to the principle of sincere cooperation, the Union and the Member States must, in full mutual respect, assist each other in carrying out
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2.
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Recalls that, pursuant to the principle of sincere cooperation, the Union and the Member States must, in full mutual respect, assist each other in carrying out certain tasks (Articles 4 and 13 TEU), which is a precondition for Parliament to adequately exercise its legislative and budgetary functions, and those of political control and consultation (Article 14 TEU); calls on the Council and the Commission to
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Welcomes the fact that the Committee on International Trade (INTA) and the Commission
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Recalls that the Treaty on European Union (TEU) marked a new stage in the process of creating an ever closer union in which decisions are taken as openly and as closely as possible to the citizen (Article 1 TEU); notes that there is a considerable lack of trust among EU citizens in EU trade-policy making, and believes that a radical shift is needed in the way that information about trade negotiations is
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Welcomes the fact that the Committee on International Trade (INTA) and the Commission’s Directorate-General for Trade have been collaborating pro-actively to enhance cooperation, establish best practices and improve communication channels, and that this collaboration has been especially useful for monitoring trade negotiations through INTA Standing Rapporteurs and targeted monitoring groups; welcomes recent efforts by the Commission to increase the transparency of trade negotiations; believes, nevertheless, that the Council and the Commission can still improve their working methods to better cooperate with Parliament as regards access to documents, information and decision-making for all issues and negotiations related to CCP (such as information relating to negotiations – including scoping, mandates and evolution of negotiations – provisional application of trade agreements, activities and decisions taken by bodies created by trade and/or investment agreements, expert meetings, and delegated and implementing acts);
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Welcomes the fact that the Committee on International Trade (INTA) and the Commission’s Directorate-General for Trade have been collaborating pro-actively to enhance cooperation, establish best practices and improve communication channels, and that this collaboration has been especially useful for monitoring trade negotiations through INTA Standing Rapporteurs and targeted monitoring groups; welcomes recent efforts by the Commission to increase the transparency of trade negotiations; believes, nevertheless, that the Council and the Commission can still improve their working methods to better cooperate with Parliament as regards access to documents, information and decision-making for all issues and negotiations related to CCP (such as information relating to negotiations – including scoping, mandates and evolution of negotiations – provisional application of trade agreements, activities and decisions taken by bodies created by trade and/or investment agreements, expert meetings, and delegated and implementing acts); notes that the European Commission was ineffective in properly assessing and reacting to all individual and standard responses to its public consultation on ISDS in TTIP in 2014 and calls on the Commission to improve the inclusiveness of all public consultation results in order to fulfil its commitments to the European citizens; notes with regret that after one year of negotiations between the Commission and Parliament on access to documents related to the TTIP negotiations, there is still no agreement about access to confidential documents;
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Welcomes the fact that the Committee on International Trade (INTA) and the Commission’s Directorate-General for Trade have been collaborating pro
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Welcomes the fact that the Committee on International Trade (INTA) and the Commission’s Directorate-General for Trade have been collaborating pro-actively to enhance cooperation, establish best practices and improve communication channels, and that this collaboration has been especially useful for monitoring trade negotiations through INTA Standing Rapporteurs and targeted monitoring groups; welcomes recent efforts by the Commission to increase the transparency of trade negotiations; believes, nevertheless, that the Council and the Commission can still improve their working methods to better cooperate with Parliament as regards access to documents, information and decision-making for all issues and negotiations related to CCP (such as information relating to negotiations – including scoping, mandates and evolution of negotiations – provisional application of trade agreements, activities and decisions taken by bodies created by trade and/or investment agreements, expert meetings, and delegated and implementing acts);
Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Welcomes the fact that the Committee on International Trade (INTA) and the Commission’s Directorate-General for Trade have been collaborating pro-actively to enhance cooperation, establish best practices and improve communication channels, and that this collaboration has been especially useful for monitoring trade negotiations through INTA Standing Rapporteurs and targeted monitoring groups; welcomes recent efforts by the Commission to increase the transparency of trade negotiations; believes, nevertheless, that the Council and the Commission
Amendment 25 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Welcomes the fact that the Committee on International Trade (INTA) and the Commission
Amendment 26 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Welcomes the fact that the Committee on International Trade (INTA) and the Commission’s Directorate-General for Trade have been collaborating pro-actively to enhance cooperation, establish best practices and improve communication channels, and that this collaboration has been especially useful for monitoring trade negotiations through INTA Standing Rapporteurs and targeted monitoring groups;
Amendment 27 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Welcomes the fact that the Committee on International Trade (INTA) and the Commission’s Directorate-General for Trade have been collaborating pro-actively to enhance cooperation, establish best practices and improve communication channels, and that this collaboration has been especially useful for monitoring trade negotiations through INTA Standing Rapporteurs and targeted monitoring groups; welcomes recent efforts by the Commission to increase the transparency of trade negotiations; believes, nevertheless, that the Council and the Commission can still improve their working methods to better cooperate with Parliament as regards access to documents, information and decision-making for all issues and negotiations related to CCP (such as information relating to negotiations – including their mixed or exclusive nature, scoping, mandates and evolution of negotiations – provisional application of trade agreements, activities and decisions taken by bodies created by trade and/or investment agreements, expert meetings, and delegated and implementing acts); notes with regret that after one year of negotiations between the Commission and Parliament on access to documents related to the TTIP negotiations, there is still no agreement about access to confidential documents;
Amendment 28 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Stresses that, as pointed out by the European Court of Justice (ECJ), imperatives for transparency derive from the democratic nature of governance within the EU, and that, where confidential information is beyond the reach of public access, as in the case of trade negotiations, it must be available to parliamentarians who scrutinise trade policy on behalf of citizens; considers th
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Recalls that the Treaty on European Union (TEU) marked a new stage in the process of creating an ever closer union in which decisions are taken as openly and as closely as possible to the citizen (Article 1 TEU); notes that
Amendment 30 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Stresses that, as pointed out by the European Court of Justice (ECJ), imperatives for transparency derive from the democratic nature of governance within the EU, and that, where confidential information is beyond the reach of public access, as in the case of trade negotiations, it must be available to parliamentarians who scrutinise trade policy on behalf of citizens; considers therefore that access to classified information is essential for scrutiny by Parliament, which in return should abide by its obligation to manage such information properly; considers that there should be clear criteria for labelling documents as ‘classified’, and also that the document should be declassified as soon as its classification is no longer necessary; notes that the case law of the ECJ makes it clear that where a document originating in an EU institution is covered by an exception with regard to the right to access, the institution must clearly explain why access to this document could specifically and effectively undermine the interest protected by the exception, and that the risk must be reasonably foreseeable and not purely hypothetical; calls on the Commission to implement the recommendations of the European Ombudsman of July 2015 with particular regard to access to documents for all negotiations, and calls on the Commission to convince EU negotiating partners to increase transparency at their end; calls to mind the importance of harnessing as far as possible information technology, online archives, the new technologies and the new media in order to guarantee that access to documents for citizens, wherever they may be, is as direct, simple and immediate as it can be; considers that, in general, publicity concerning documents should be regarded as the norm and classification as an exception, especially in the case of documents concerning major trade agreements that will have a significant impact on citizens’ lives;
Amendment 31 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Stresses that, as pointed out by the European Court of Justice (ECJ), imperatives for transparency derive from the democratic nature of governance within the EU, and that, where confidential information is beyond the reach of public access, as in the case of trade negotiations, it must be available to parliamentarians who scrutinise trade policy on behalf of citizens; considers therefore that access to classified information is essential for scrutiny by Parliament, which in return should abide by its obligation to manage such information properly; demands that Members of the European Parliament and key political group staff with a "need to know" will be granted access to trade negotiation documents on the level of the best current practice of any national Parliament within the EU; considers that there should be clear criteria for labelling documents as
Amendment 32 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Stresses that, as pointed out by the European Court of Justice (ECJ), imperatives for transparency derive from the democratic nature of governance within the EU, and that, where confidential information is beyond the reach of public access, as in the case of trade negotiations, it must be available to parliamentarians who scrutinise trade policy on behalf of citizens; considers therefore that access to classified information is essential for scrutiny by Parliament, which in return should abide by its obligation to manage such information properly; considers that there should be clear criteria for labelling documents as ‘classified’; notes that the case law of the ECJ makes it clear that where a document originating in an EU institution is covered by an exception with regard to the right to access, the institution must clearly explain why access to this document could specifically and
Amendment 33 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Stresses that, as pointed out by the European Court of Justice (ECJ), imperatives for transparency derive from the democratic nature of governance within the EU, and that, where confidential information is beyond the reach of public access, as in the case of trade negotiations, it must be available to parliamentarians who scrutinise trade policy on behalf of citizens; considers therefore that access to classified information is essential for scrutiny by Parliament, which in return should abide by its obligation to manage such information properly; considers that there should be clear criteria for labelling documents as
Amendment 34 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Stresses that, as pointed out by the European Court of Justice (ECJ), imperatives for transparency derive from the democratic nature of governance within the EU, and that, where confidential information is beyond the reach of public access, as in the case of trade negotiations, it must be available to parliamentarians who scrutinise trade policy on behalf of citizens; considers therefore that access to classified information is essential for scrutiny by Parliament, which in return should abide by its obligation to manage such information properly; considers that there should be clear criteria for labelling documents as ‘classified’; notes that the case law of the ECJ makes it clear that where a document originating in an EU institution is covered by an exception with regard to the right to access, the institution must clearly explain why access to this document could specifically and effectively undermine the interest protected by the exception, and that the risk must be reasonably foreseeable and not purely hypothetical; calls on the Commission to implement the recommendations of the
Amendment 35 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Stresses that, as pointed out by the European Court of Justice (ECJ), imperatives for transparency derive from the democratic nature of governance within the EU, and that, where confidential information is beyond the reach of public access, as in the case of trade negotiations, it must be available to parliamentarians who scrutinise trade policy on behalf of citizens; considers therefore that access to classified information is essential for scrutiny by Parliament, which in return should abide by its obligation to manage such information properly; considers that there should be clear criteria for labelling documents as ‘classified’ in order to remove any doubt as to any ambiguity over arbitrary decision making by the European Commission; notes that the case law of the ECJ makes it clear that where a document originating in an EU institution is covered by an exception with regard to the right to access, the institution must clearly explain why access to this document could specifically and effectively undermine the interest protected by the exception, and that the risk must be reasonably foreseeable and not purely
Amendment 36 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Stresses that, as pointed out by the European Court of Justice (ECJ), imperatives for transparency derive from the democratic nature of governance within the EU, and that, where confidential information is beyond the reach of public access, as in the case of trade negotiations, it must be available to parliamentarians who scrutinise trade policy on behalf of citizens; considers therefore that access to classified information is essential for scrutiny by Parliament, which in return should abide by its obligation to manage such information properly; considers that there should be clear criteria for labelling documents as ‘classified’; notes that the case law of the ECJ makes it clear that where a document originating in an EU institution is covered by an exception with regard to the right to public access, the institution must clearly explain why access to this document could specifically and effectively undermine the interest protected by the exception, and that th
Amendment 37 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Stresses that, as pointed out by the European Court of Justice (ECJ), imperatives for transparency derive from the democratic nature of governance within the EU, and that, where confidential information is beyond the reach of public access, as in the case of trade negotiations, it must be available to parliamentarians who scrutinise trade policy on behalf of citizens; considers therefore that access to classified information is essential for scrutiny by Parliament, which in return should abide by its obligation to manage such information properly; considers that there should be clear criteria for labelling documents as ‘classified’; notes that the case law of the ECJ makes it clear that where a document originating in an EU institution is covered by an exception with regard to the right to access, the institution must clearly explain why access to this document could specifically and effectively undermine the interest protected by the exception, and that the risk must be reasonably foreseeable and not purely hypothetical; calls on the Commission to
Amendment 38 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Stresses that more engagement with civil society and social partners is crucial in order to achieve greater transparency; stresses in this respect the important need for improvement of the functioning of the domestic advisory groups engaged in the implementation of existing trade agreements in terms of working methods, membership and overall resources dedicated by the Commission;
Amendment 39 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Believes that the EU must take the lead when it comes to furthering transparency of trade negotiations, not only regarding bilateral, but also plurilateral and multilateral processes; Stresses however, that the Commission must also convince negotiating partners to increase transparency at their end to make sure that this is a reciprocal process in which the EU's negotiating position is not compromised; Stresses that increased transparency is in the interest of all our negotiating partners and stakeholders worldwide, and that it can strengthen the global support for rules-based trade;
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Recalls that the Treaty on European Union (TEU) marked a new stage in the process of creating an ever closer union in which decisions are taken as openly and as closely as possible to the citizen (Article 1 TEU);
Amendment 40 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 b (new) 4b. Believes that, while transparency is crucial, more is needed to maintain the legitimacy of EU trade policy, namely actual engagement with all stakeholders through organising meetings, briefings and other events;
Amendment 41 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Recalls the importance for the CCP legislative process to count on Union statistics consistent with Article 338(2) TFEU and on impact assessments conforming to the highest standards of impartiality and reliability;
Amendment 42 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Recalls the importance for the CCP legislative process to count on Union statistics consistent with Article 338(2) TFEU and on impact assessments conforming to the highest standards of impartiality and reliability; calls for further reflection on
Amendment 43 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Recalls the importance for the CCP legislative process to count on Union statistics consistent with Article 338(2) TFEU and on impact assessments conforming to the highest standards of impartiality and reliability; considers that sector-by-sector impact assessments would provide EU trade agreements with a higher level of reliability and legitimacy; calls for further reflection on further promoting a
Amendment 44 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Recalls the importance for the CCP legislative process to count on Union statistics consistent with Article 338(2) TFEU and on impact assessments and sustainability impact assessments conforming to the highest standards of impartiality and reliability, a principle which should lead all respective revisions in the frame of the "Better Regulation" policy of the Commission; calls for further reflection on further promoting a mandatory legislative (and lobbying) footprint throughout the legislative process, which would further legitimise it by making it more fact based and transparent for citizens and stakeholders;
Amendment 45 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Recalls the importance for the CCP legislative process to be able to count on Union statistics consistent with Article 338(2) TFEU and on impact assessments conforming to the highest standards of impartiality and reliability, and calls for more to be done to provide the guarantees needed to make this possible; calls for further reflection on further promoting a mandatory legislative (and lobbying) footprint throughout the legislative process, which would further legitimise it by making it more fact based and transparent for citizens and stakeholders;
Amendment 46 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Recalls the importance for the CCP legislative process to count on Union statistics consistent with Article 338(2) TFEU and on impact assessments conforming to the highest standards of impartiality and reliability;
Amendment 47 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Stresses that the Commission must promote the general interests of the Union, be led by members chosen on the grounds of their competence and independence, and refrain from any action incompatible with its duties (Article 17 TFEU); welcomes initiatives aimed at greater transparency, accountability and integrity, including the decisions adopted by the Commission on 25 November 2014 and the new impetus given to the Transparency Register, which should be mandatory and binding for all EU institutions, bodies, offices and agencies; calls for Parliament, in this respect, to coordinate action to enhance transparency within the institutions as regards the activity of lobbies and special interest groups; notes that lobbies are widely consulted and listened to in all trade negotiations while no account is taken of the opinion of Member States’ citizens;
Amendment 48 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Stresses that the Commission must promote the general interests of the Union, be led by members chosen on the grounds of their competence and independence, and refrain from any action incompatible with its duties (Article 17 TFEU); welcomes
Amendment 49 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Stresses that the Commission must promote the general interests of the Union, be led by members chosen on the grounds of their competence and independence, and refrain from any action incompatible with its duties (Article 17 TFEU); welcomes initiatives aimed at greater transparency, accountability and integrity, including the decisions adopted by the Commission on 25 November 2014 and the new impetus given to the Transparency Register, which should be mandatory and binding for all EU institutions, bodies, offices and agencies; calls for Parliament, in this respect, to coordinate action to enhance transparency within the institutions, especially as regards the activity of lobbies and special interest groups; calls for all lobbies to be included and shown in the EU Transparency Register;
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Recalls that the Treaty on European Union (TEU) marked a new stage in the process of creating an ever closer union in which decisions are taken as openly and as closely as possible to the citizen (Article 1 TEU); notes that
Amendment 50 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Stresses that the Commission must promote the general interests of the Union, be led by members chosen on the grounds of their competence and independence, and refrain from any action incompatible with its duties (Article 17 TFEU); welcomes initiatives aimed at greater transparency, accountability and integrity, including the decisions adopted by the Commission on 25 November 2014 and the new impetus given to the Transparency Register, which should be mandatory and binding for all EU institutions, bodies, offices and agencies; calls for Parliament, in this respect, to coordinate action to enhance transparency within the institutions as regards the activity of lobbies
Amendment 51 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Stresses that the Commission must promote the general interests of the Union, be led by members chosen on the grounds of their competence and independence, and refrain from any action incompatible with its duties (Article 17 TFEU); welcomes initiatives aimed at greater transparency, accountability and integrity, including the decisions adopted by the Commission on 25 November 2014 and the new impetus
Amendment 52 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Believes firmly that transparency, integrity and ethical behaviour, accountability and good governance should inspire and be mainstreamed into all EU administrative and political initiatives, and considers that further commitment and interinstitutional coordinated work towards higher standards of integrity should be sought, and that, for example, the Commission should not adopt guidelines which run counter to the position of Parliament and the Council;
Amendment 53 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 a (new) 7a. Believes that the credibility of the EU's ethical behaviour will be ultimately judged by citizens in relation to the consistency of the EUs political initiatives with its internal administrative standards; commends in this regard the EU internal standards on the fight against corruption and the protection of whistle-blowers and demands to protect these standards in international trade agreement negotiations on the protection of trade secrets within chapters on Intellectual Property.
Amendment 54 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 8. Believes that Parliament should
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Recalls that the Treaty on European Union (TEU) marked a new stage in the process of creating an ever closer union in which decisions are taken as openly and as closely as possible to the citizen (Article 1 TEU); notes that the
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Recalls that the Treaty on European Union (TEU) marked a new stage in the process of creating an ever closer union in which decisions are taken as openly and as closely as possible to the citizen (Article 1 TEU); notes that
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Recalls that the Treaty on European Union (TEU) marked a new stage in the process of creating an ever closer union in which decisions are taken as openly and as closely as possible to the citizen (Article 1 TEU); notes that there is a considerable lack of trust among EU citizens in EU trade-policy making, and believes that a radical shift is needed in the way that information about trade negotiations
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Recalls that the Treaty on European Union (TEU) marked a new stage in the process of creating an ever closer union in which decisions are taken as openly and as closely as possible to the citizen (Article 1 TEU); notes that there is a considerable lack of trust among EU citizens in EU trade-policy making, and believes that a radical shift is needed in the way that information about trade negotiations is
source: 571.604
|
History
(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)
committees/0 |
|
committees/0 |
|
committees/1 |
|
committees/1 |
|
committees/2 |
|
committees/2 |
|
committees/3 |
|
committees/3 |
|
committees/4 |
|
committees/4 |
|
committees/5 |
|
committees/5 |
|
docs/8/body |
EC
|
events/2/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A8-2017-0133&language=ENNew
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-8-2017-0133_EN.html |
events/5/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P8-TA-2017-0358New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-8-2017-0358_EN.html |
committees/0 |
|
committees/0 |
|
committees/2 |
|
committees/2 |
|
committees/4 |
|
committees/4 |
|
activities |
|
commission |
|
committees/0 |
|
committees/0 |
|
committees/1 |
|
committees/1 |
|
committees/2 |
|
committees/2 |
|
committees/3 |
|
committees/3 |
|
committees/4 |
|
committees/4 |
|
committees/5 |
|
committees/5 |
|
docs |
|
events |
|
links |
|
other |
|
procedure/Modified legal basis |
Old
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 150New
Rules of Procedure EP 159 |
procedure/dossier_of_the_committee |
Old
AFCO/8/02760New
|
procedure/legal_basis/0 |
Rules of Procedure EP 54
|
procedure/legal_basis/0 |
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 052
|
procedure/subject |
Old
New
|
activities/4 |
|
procedure/stage_reached |
Old
Awaiting Parliament 1st reading / single reading / budget 1st stageNew
Procedure completed |
activities/4 |
|
activities/3/docs |
|
activities/3/type |
Old
Debate scheduledNew
Debate in Parliament |
activities/3/type |
Old
Debate in plenary scheduledNew
Debate scheduled |
activities/3/type |
Old
Indicative plenary sitting date, 1st reading/single readingNew
Debate in plenary scheduled |
activities/4 |
|
activities/3 |
|
activities/2/docs/0/text |
|
activities/2/docs |
|
activities/3 |
|
activities/2 |
|
activities/3 |
|
procedure/stage_reached |
Old
Awaiting committee decisionNew
Awaiting Parliament 1st reading / single reading / budget 1st stage |
activities/1 |
|
other/0/dg/url |
Old
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/secretariat_general/index_en.htmNew
http://ec.europa.eu/info/departments/secretariat-general_en |
procedure/Modified legal basis |
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 150
|
activities/1 |
|
activities/1/date |
Old
2016-12-12T00:00:00New
2017-01-16T00:00:00 |
activities/1/date |
Old
2016-10-24T00:00:00New
2016-12-12T00:00:00 |
activities/1/date |
Old
2016-10-03T00:00:00New
2016-10-24T00:00:00 |
activities/0/committees/0/shadows/0/mepref |
Old
51d21272b819f23b5b000006New
4f1adb34b819f207b30000b0 |
activities/0/committees/0/shadows/0/name |
Old
PLENKOVIĆ AndrejNew
SCHÖPFLIN György |
activities/0/committees/0/shadows/6 |
|
committees/0/shadows/0/mepref |
Old
51d21272b819f23b5b000006New
4f1adb34b819f207b30000b0 |
committees/0/shadows/0/name |
Old
PLENKOVIĆ AndrejNew
SCHÖPFLIN György |
committees/0/shadows/6 |
|
activities/1/date |
Old
2016-09-12T00:00:00New
2016-10-03T00:00:00 |
activities/1/date |
Old
2016-07-04T00:00:00New
2016-09-12T00:00:00 |
activities/1/date |
Old
2016-09-12T00:00:00New
2016-07-04T00:00:00 |
activities/1/date |
Old
2016-06-22T00:00:00New
2016-09-12T00:00:00 |
activities/1/date |
Old
2016-05-25T00:00:00New
2016-06-22T00:00:00 |
activities/0/committees/0/shadows/5 |
|
committees/0/shadows/5 |
|
activities/0/committees/0/shadows/5 |
|
committees/0/shadows/5 |
|
activities/1/date |
Old
2016-04-11T00:00:00New
2016-05-25T00:00:00 |
activities/1 |
|
activities/0/committees/3 |
|
committees/3 |
|
activities/0/committees/4/date |
2015-03-30T00:00:00
|
activities/0/committees/4/rapporteur |
|
committees/4/date |
2015-03-30T00:00:00
|
committees/4/rapporteur |
|
activities/0/committees/4 |
|
committees/4 |
|
activities/0/committees/0/shadows/5 |
|
committees/0/shadows/5 |
|
activities/0/committees/0/shadows/2 |
|
committees/0/shadows/2 |
|
activities/0/committees/0/shadows/3 |
|
committees/0/shadows/3 |
|
activities/0/committees/0/shadows/0 |
|
activities/0/committees/0/shadows/1 |
|
committees/0/shadows/0 |
|
committees/0/shadows/1 |
|
other/0 |
|
activities |
|
committees |
|
links |
|
other |
|
procedure |
|