2015/2041(INI) | [ParlTrack]

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Is concerned at, given its role in protecting the integrity of public decision-making, by the misleading registration practices of economic interests in expert groups, which distort the number of such interests represented in both absolute and relative terms, as well as the imbalance vis-à-vis non-economic interests;

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 #

Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY

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 #

Christel SCHALDEMOSE

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 #

Mark DEMESMAEKER

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~~sure that~~act legally binding measures and sanctions ensuring theat 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;

Amendment 17 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

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 #

Lynn BOYLAN, Luke Ming FLANAGAN, Josu JUARISTI ABAUNZ, Kateřina KONEČNÁ

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Is concerned ~~at the misleading~~that some registration practices of economic interests in expert groups might be misleading , which could distort the number of such interests represented in both absolute and relative terms, as well as the imbalance vis-à-vis non-economic or political interests;

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 #

Lynn BOYLAN, Luke Ming FLANAGAN, Josu JUARISTI ABAUNZ, Kateřina KONEČNÁ

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 #

Lynn BOYLAN, Luke Ming FLANAGAN, Josu JUARISTI ABAUNZ, Kateřina KONEČNÁ

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 #

Lynn BOYLAN, Luke Ming FLANAGAN, Josu JUARISTI ABAUNZ, Kateřina KONEČNÁ

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 #

Lynn BOYLAN, Luke Ming FLANAGAN, Josu JUARISTI ABAUNZ

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 ~~economic~~ interests in ~~expert group~~public consultations, which distort the number of such interests represented in both absolute and relative terms, as well as the imbalance vis-à-vis ~~non-~~economic interests;

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 #

Lynn BOYLAN, Luke Ming FLANAGAN, Josu JUARISTI ABAUNZ, Kateřina KONEČNÁ

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 #

Lynn BOYLAN, Luke Ming FLANAGAN, Josu JUARISTI ABAUNZ, Kateřina KONEČNÁ

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 #

Lynn BOYLAN, Luke Ming FLANAGAN, Josu JUARISTI ABAUNZ, Kateřina KONEČNÁ

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 #

Lynn BOYLAN, Luke Ming FLANAGAN, Josu JUARISTI ABAUNZ, Kateřina KONEČNÁ

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 #

Lynn BOYLAN, Luke Ming FLANAGAN, Kateřina KONEČNÁ

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 #

Benedek JÁVOR, Bart STAES, José BOVÉ

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 #

Lynn BOYLAN, Luke Ming FLANAGAN, Kateřina KONEČNÁ

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 #

Benedek JÁVOR, Bart STAES, José BOVÉ

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 #

Eleonora EVI, Marco AFFRONTE, Piernicola PEDICINI

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 ‘'invited specialists’' making it possible to receive input from experts who have links to regulated industries but are disqualified from drafting or decision-making roles in scientific opinions.

Amendment 51 #

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 sectors regulated by them, in order to properly avoid conflicts of interest, with particular emphasis on the ability to use a status of ‘invited specialists’ making it possible to receive input from experts ~~who have links to~~employed in regulated industries but are disqualified from drafting or decision-making roles in scientific opinions.

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 #

Eleonora EVI, Marco AFFRONTE, Piernicola PEDICINI

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 #

Mark DEMESMAEKER

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 #

Mark DEMESMAEKER

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 #

Eleonora EVI, Piernicola PEDICINI, Marco AFFRONTE

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 #

Lynn BOYLAN, Luke Ming FLANAGAN, Josu JUARISTI ABAUNZ, Kateřina KONEČNÁ

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Recognizes that expert groups need access to best available scientific expertise;

Amendment 8 #

Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY

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 codes of conduct, which ~~are~~is indispensable to the transparency, accountability and integrity of those institutions;

Amendment 12 #

Dennis de JONG, Marian HARKIN, Ana GOMES, Elly SCHLEIN, Benedek JÁVOR, Ignazio CORRAO

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

5. Requests that the aforementioned structure assess the compatibility of post- EU employment or the situation whereby civil servants 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 are required to behave with integrity and discretion or to comply with certain conditions when taking up new duties;deleted

Amendment 14 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

Amendment 15 #

Dennis de JONG, Ana GOMES, Marian HARKIN, Elly SCHLEIN, Benedek JÁVOR, Ignazio CORRAO

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- EU employment or the situation whereby civil servants 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 are required to behave with integrity and discretion or to comply with certain conditions when taking up new duties, which will cover at least the time of transitional allowances;

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 #

Dennis de JONG

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 ~~dissemination~~EU institutions to better raise awareness of the conflict-of-interests p~~olicy~~rinciple among their officials a~~longside ongoing awareness-raising activities~~nd to take adequate measure against conscious infringements of this principle and of other rules which negatively affect the EU interests; recalls that the issues of conflict of interests and the situation whereby civil servants move from the public to the private sector (the ‘revolving door’) are phenomena which could seriously undermine the integrity of EU institutions; is of the opinion that all EU institutions should further strengthen their policies in this respect while taking into account the recommendations put forward in recent years by the European Ombudsman, the European Court of Auditors or the European Parliament itself;

Amendment 22 #

Dennis de JONG, Ana GOMES, Marian HARKIN, Elly SCHLEIN, Benedek JÁVOR, Ignazio CORRAO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Encourages the dissemination of the conflict-of-interest policy among officials alongside ongoing awareness-raising activities; and the inclusion of integrity and transparency as an obligatory item to be discussed during recruitment procedures and performance chats;

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 #

Ingeborg GRÄSSLE

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 ~~agreement~~decision 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;

Amendment 27 #

Dennis de JONG, Ana GOMES, Marian HARKIN, Elly SCHLEIN, Benedek JÁVOR, Ignazio CORRAO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. ~~Welcomes the Commission’s agreement to inc~~Notes with concern the findings of the rease ~~transparency by improving its system of expert groups, particularly as regards the procedure for selecting experts, through the development of a new conflict-of-inte~~archers in the study ‘Composition of the Commission’s expert groups and the status of the register of expert groups’1 a; urges the Commission to take the recommendations of this study into account, when drafting amendments to the curresnt ~~policy for experts appointed in a personal capacity; takes note of the requirement for experts to be registered in the transparency register where relevant;~~horizontal rules governing expert groups; requests the Commission to engage in a dialogue with the Parliament, before these rules are being formally adopted, especially in relation to the up-coming CONT/JURI report on this matter; __________________ 1aDirectorate General for Internal Policies, 10/09/2015. PE 552.301

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 ~~better~~full public access to documents and more stringent rules on conflicts of interest and transparency registers, with a view to developing a coherent global approach to these issues;

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~~, with the objective of switching~~ that marks a definitive shift from a voluntary to a mandatory EU register for all lobbying activities for any of the EU institutions;

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~~, with the objective of switching from a voluntary to a mandatory EU register for all lobbying activities for any of the EU institutions~~;

Amendment 33 #

Dennis de JONG, Ana GOMES, Marian HARKIN, Elly SCHLEIN, Benedek JÁVOR, Ignazio CORRAO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9

9. Believes that the level of transparency ~~could~~must be raised through the creation of a legislative footprint for EU lobbying, ~~with the objective of switching from a voluntary to~~and by establishing a mandatory EU register for all lobbying activities for any of the EU institutions; points in this regard to the need for introducing annexes to Commission proposals and reports of the EP, clearly indicating which lobbyists had a substantial effect on the text of these proposals and reports, and for creating the possibility for Members of Parliament, who wish to do so, of publishing on their official webpage of the Parliament, which lobbyists they have met;

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 cshould be raised through the creation of a legislative footprint for EU lobbying, with the objective of switching from a voluntary to a mandatory EU register for all lobbying activities for anyll of the EU institutions;

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 ~~should~~must 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; believes that a system of sanctions in the event of abuse ~~should~~must be envisaged under the supervision of Parliament;

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; ~~believes that a system of sanctions in the event of abuse should be envisaged under the supervision of Parliament;~~calls the Commission to bring forward to the Parliament a study with a possible system of sanctions in the event of abuse.

Amendment 39 #

Dennis de JONG, Ana GOMES, Marian HARKIN, Elly SCHLEIN, Benedek JÁVOR, Ignazio CORRAO

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; believes that a system of sanctions in the event of abuse should be envisaged under the supervision of Parliament; calls upon the Commission to submit its proposals for a mandatory register without further delay;

Amendment 4 #

Dennis de JONG, Ana GOMES, Marian HARKIN, Elly SCHLEIN, Benedek JÁVOR, Ignazio CORRAO

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 ~~and transparency registers, with a view to developing a coherent global approach to these issu~~, support for investigative journalism and for anti-corruption watchdogs, the introduction or strengthening of transparency registers, the provision of sufficient resources for law enforcement measures and through improved co- operation among Member States as well as with relevant third countries;

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 ~~assess the possibility of agreeing on~~take a common approach to their obligations, focusing on the protection of whistleblowers;

Amendment 41 #

Dennis de JONG, Ana GOMES, Marian HARKIN, Elly SCHLEIN, Benedek JÁVOR, Ignazio CORRAO

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. ~~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~~Calls on the Commission to promote legislation on the minimum protection of whistle-blower in the Union; Calls on the Institutions to amend the Staff Regulations to ensure that Staff Regulations not only formally oblige officials to report irregularities of all kinds but also lay down adequate protect whistle-blowers’; calls on the Institutions to implement §22(c) onf the ~~protection of whistleblowers~~Staff Regulations without delay;

Amendment 44 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 12

12. Asks the ~~Commission~~EU institutions and bodies to apply strictly the measures pertaining to discretion and exclusion in respect of public procurement, with proper background checks being carried out in every instance, and to apply the exclusion criteria in order to debar companies in the event of any conflict of interest, this being essential to protect the ~~credibility of the institution~~EU financial interests;

Amendment 45 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 13

13. ~~Believes that the discharge procedure is an important~~Highlights the key importance of the discharge as an instrument of democratic accountability and transparency of the EU institutions to the citizens of the Union; 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 an effective budgetary control exercise and the democratic accountability of the institution requires the cooperation of Parliament and the Councilgarding the sound financial management of the EU budget; considers as crucial that the EU institutions and bodies present reliable and comprehensive data which is relevant to scrutinise the level of respect of the sound financial management principles and protection of EU financial interests;

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 #

Dennis de JONG, Ana GOMES, Marian HARKIN, Elly SCHLEIN, Benedek JÁVOR, Ignazio CORRAO

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 #

Dennis de JONG, Ana GOMES, Marian HARKIN, Elly SCHLEIN, Benedek JÁVOR, Ignazio CORRAO

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 #

Dennis de JONG, Ana GOMES, Marian HARKIN, Elly SCHLEIN, Benedek JÁVOR, Ignazio CORRAO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 16

16. Demands that at the latest in its second anti- corruption report the Commission carry out further analysis at the level of both the EU institutions and the Member States of the environment in which policies are implemented, in order to identify inherent critical factors, vulnerable areas and risk factors conducive to corruption;

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 stringent rules on conflicts of interest and transparency registers, with a view to developing a coherent global approach to these issues;

Amendment 50 #

Dennis de JONG, Ana GOMES, Marian HARKIN, Elly SCHLEIN, Benedek JÁVOR, Ignazio CORRAO

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. Invites the Commission to assess the impact of existing measures and to define accordingly a coherent policy based on measures aimed at effectively addressing corruption mechanisms and practices; believes, furthermore,Reiterates its request[1] that the Commission report to Parliament and the Council on the implementation by the EU institutions of their internal anti- corruption policies and expects that the Commission’s ~~second~~future anti-corruption report ~~should~~s will also cover all the EU institutions; [1] P8_TA-PROV(2015)0062 on PIF 2013 Annual Report

Amendment 52 #

Miroslav POCHE, Inés AYALA SENDER

Draft opinion
Paragraph 17

17. IWelcomes the Commissions commitment to publish an EU Anti- Corruption report biannually and is looking forward to read the next report in early 2016; asks the Commission to add a chapter on the performance of the EU institutions in fighting corruption; invites the Commission to assess the impact of existing measures and to define accordingly a coherent policy based on measures aimed at effectively addressing corruption mechanisms and practices; believes, furthermore, that the Commission’s second anti-corruption report should also cover all the EU institutions and bodies;

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 #

Dennis de JONG, Ana GOMES, Marian HARKIN, Elly SCHLEIN, Benedek JÁVOR, Ignazio CORRAO

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 ~~response to~~action to fight corruption.

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 ~~clear and reinforced~~better implementation of codes of conduct and ethical principles, so as to ~~allow the development of~~reinforce a common and effective culture of integrity for all EU institutions and agencies;

Amendment 8 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Advocates the creation of an independent structure to oversee the application of various codes of conduct, 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;deleted

Amendment 9 #

Franz OBERMAYR, Edouard FERRAND, Marine LE PEN, Matteo SALVINI

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~~call~~grets 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~~loss of sovereignty by Member States, often against the wishes of their citizens, in which European Union decisions are not taken in the interest of 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 communicated to the public, in order to ensure their legitimacy; stresses that such legitimacy can only be guaranteed by introducing elements of democracy to the decision-making process;

Amendment 10 #

Harald VILIMSKY

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 arshould be 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 communicated to the public, in order to ensure their legitimacy;

Amendment 11 #

Jude KIRTON-DARLING

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 #

Jude KIRTON-DARLING

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 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 commit fully and seriously to this principle of sincere cooperation with Parliament by immediately providing, through the relevant channels, full and accurate information pertaining to the Union’'s external action, including its Common Commercial Policy (CCP), in regard to decision-making and implementation of primary and secondary legislation; notes that, even though an interinstitutional cooperation agreement exists between Parliament and the Commission, the same does not exist between Parliament and the Council, which creates certain hurdles for scrutiny; calls on the Commission to take into full consideration Parliament’'s requests concerning the interinstitutional agreement, in particular as regards a set of clear criteria for the provisional application and implementation of trade agreements; calls on the Council to accept these criteria and guarantee that the provisional application of trade agreements is contingent to the prior consent of Parliament;

Amendment 16 #

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); cCalls on the Council and the Commission to commit fully and seriously to thise principle of sincere cooperation with Parliament by immediately providing, through the relevant channels, full and accurate information pertaining to the Union’'s external action, including its Common Commercial Policy (CCP), in regard to decision-making and implementation of primary and secondary legislation; notes that, even though an interinstitutional cooperation agreement exists between Parliament and the Commission, the same does not exist between Parliament and the Council, which creates certain hurdles for scrutiny; calls on the Commission to take into full consideration Parliament’'s requests concerning the interinstitutional agreement, in particular as regards provisional application and implementation of trade agreements;

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 commit fully and seriously to this principle of sincere cooperation with Parliament by immediately providing, through the relevant channels and where appropriate, full and accurate information pertaining to the Union’s external action, including its Common Commercial Policy (CCP), in regard to decision-making and implementation of primary and secondary legislation; notes that, even though an interinstitutional cooperation agreement exists between Parliament and the Commission, the same does not exist between Parliament and the Council~~, which creates certain hurdles for scrutiny; calls on the Commission to take into full consideration~~; recalls Parliament’s requests concerning the interinstitutional agreement, in particular as regards provisional application and implementation of trade agreements;

Amendment 18 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. 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); notes that, even though an interinstitutional cooperation agreement exists between Parliament and the Commission, the same does not exist between Parliament and the Council, which creates certain hurdles for scrutiny;

Amendment 19 #

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 with regret that after one year of negotiations; is confident that an agreement between the Commission and Parliament on access to confidential documents related to the TTIP negotiations~~, there is still no agreement about access to confidential documents;~~ will be reached in a very near future.

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 communicated ~~to th~~and made publically available, in order to ensure their legitimacy; considers that a key point to regain public trust not only in trade-policy making but in the EU as such is to approach principles of transparency from the perspective of citizen to be empowered to understand policy-making and administration instead of an inner- administration logic of procedures and documentation;

Amendment 20 #

Bernd LANGE

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 with~~ regrets that ~~after~~it took one year of negotiations between the Commission and Parliament to achieve an agreement on access to documents related to the TTIP negotiations~~, there is still no agreement about access to confidential docu~~; notes that regulation 1049/2011 on public access to documents grants very broad rights for ordinary citizens in term of access to documents which can go beyond the access that is currently given to Members of the European Parliaments;

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-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 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; calls on Parliament to revise its own rules on the treatment of, and access to, confidential documents and, in order to protect confidentiality, greatly to increase the severity of the penalties incurred when persons entitled to consult such documents, Members included, infringe those rules;

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); ~~notes with regret that after one year of negotiations between the Commission and Parliament on~~welcomes the initiatives taken by the Commission to improve the access to documents related to the TTIP negotiations~~, there is still no~~; acknowledges that the TTIP negotiations agre~~ement about access to confidential documents~~ the most transparent negotiations in history;

Amendment 24 #

Emmanuel MAUREL

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~~'s efforts remain insufficient and that both should 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); regrets, in this regard, that the Council has not made available to the Members of the European Parliament the negotiating mandates for all agreements currently in negotiation; 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 25 #

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; welcomes the Commission's ambition to use the current transparency initiative on TTIP as a model for all trade negotiations, as outlined in the new Trade Strategy 'Trade for All'; 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 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 26 #

Marielle DE SARNEZ, Tokia SAÏFI

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; ~~welcom~~stresses recent efforts by the Commission to increase the transparency of trade negotiations; believes~~, nevertheless,~~ that the Council and the Commission ~~can still~~have improved 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 ~~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 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 #

Franz OBERMAYR, Edouard FERRAND, Marine LE PEN, Matteo SALVINI

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 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;(Does not affect the English version.)

Amendment 29 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

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 ~~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~~more can always be done to increase the level of information ~~about~~on trade negotiations that is communicated to the public, ~~in order to ensure~~ but reminds that a balance between transparency and effectiveness has to be struck, as in all otheir lnegioti~~macy~~ations;

Amendment 30 #

David BORRELLI

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 ‘'classified’' and for the de- classification of classified documents at the earliest moment; 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; believes that the scoping exercise prior to the start of trade negotiations with a third country should include the scoping of aspired transparency of the negotiations and that continuous failure of partners in trade negotiations to increase transparency to a similar level as in the EU should constitute a reason to halt negotiations;

Amendment 32 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

Amendment 33 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

Amendment 34 #

Emmanuel MAUREL

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 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, so as the bilateral and plurilateral negotiations the EU is involved in could be led with a greater level of transparency and, if possible, with no less transparency than the negotiations organised in the WTO framework;

Amendment 35 #

Jude KIRTON-DARLING

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 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;

Amendment 36 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

Amendment 37 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

Amendment 38 #

Bernd LANGE

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); ~~notes that there is a considerabl~~takes into account the lively public debate 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 communicated to the public, in order to ensure their legitimaross Europe on current trade negotiations and the concerns voiced by European citizens, welcomes both the Commission's transparency initiative for the TTIP negotiations and the release of the new trade strategy "Trade for all" which aims at creating a higher level of transparency in trade policy;

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; 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 42 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

Amendment 43 #

Emmanuel MAUREL

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 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 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 #

Harald VILIMSKY

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 #

Franz OBERMAYR, Edouard FERRAND, Marine LE PEN, Matteo SALVINI

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~~welcomes further reflection on ~~further~~ promoting a mandatory legislative ~~(and lobbying)~~ footprint throughout the legislative process~~, which would further legitimise it by~~ to mak~~ing~~e it more fact based and transparent for citizens and stakeholders;

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 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~~in order to reflect the possibility to improve thise re~~spect, to coordinate action to~~gister to further enhance transparency within the institutions ~~as regards the activity of lobbies and special interest groups~~;

Amendment 49 #

Harald VILIMSKY

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 ~~there is a considerable lack of trust among EU citizens in~~vested interests are endeavouring to destroy trust in the European institutions and EU trade- policy ~~making~~, and believes that a radical shift is needed in th~~e way~~at regard and that information about trade negotiations ~~is communicated~~must continue to thbe p~~ublic, in order to ensure their legitimacy~~roperly communicated to the public;

Amendment 50 #

Marielle DE SARNEZ, Tokia SAÏFI

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~~, non- governmental organisations, trade unions, and other special interest groups;

Amendment 51 #

David BORRELLI

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~~direct and indirect activity of any kind of lobby and group of pressure and special interest groups;

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 #

Miroslav POCHE

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

8. Believes that Parliament should ~~also~~ cooperate in a more targeted manner with the ECJ, the Court of Auditors, the European Ombudsman and the Commission’s Anti-Fraud Office ~~in order to closely monitor~~so that they can report to one another in detail on the evolution of CCP within the framework of their respective powers and responsibilities.

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~~re is a considerable lack of trust among EU citizens in EU trade-policy making~~ expectations about involvement of different EU stakeholders and citizens is changing, and that trust in EU trade-policy making must be ensured and reinforced, and believes that a radical shift is needed in the way that information about trade negotiations is communicated to the public and in the way information is gathered by Member States and the Commission, in order to ensure their legitimacy;

Amendment 7 #

Marielle DE SARNEZ, Tokia SAÏFI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

Amendment 8 #

David BORRELLI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

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 communicated to the public, in order to ensure their legitimacy; recalls that in accordance with Article 12 TEU on the role of national parliaments in the European Union, various instruments for cooperation between the European Parliament and national parliaments have been created to guarantee effective democratic scrutiny of EU legislation at all levels;

source: 571.604

2015/12/16 JURI 35 amendments...

Amendment 1 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Emphasises that reinforcing the legitimacy, accountability and effectiveness of the EU institutions, together with the level of trust among EU citizens, is of the utmost importance, and believes that rules of good administration of the EU are key to achieving this objective through the provision of swift, clear and visible answers in response to citizens’ concerns;

Amendment 10 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Believes that a European Law of Administrative Procedure applicable to EU institutions, bodies, offices and agencies in their relations with the public would contribute to a high level of transparency and accountability ~~and~~, increase citizens’ confidence in an open, efficient and independent EU administration with respect towards their rights and enhance their procedural rights vis-à-vis the EU institutions;

Amendment 11 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Believes that a European Law of Administrative Procedure applicable to EU institutions, bodies, offices and agencies in their relations with the public would contribute to a high level of transparency and accountability and ~~increase citizens’ confidence in an open, efficient and independent EU~~to convincing citizens that the Union institutions work on their behalf and are accountable to them administration;

Amendment 12 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Believes that a European Law of Administrative Procedure applicable to EU institutions, bodies, offices and agencies in their relations with the public would contribute to a high level of transparency and accountability and increase citizens’ confidence in an open, efficient and independent EU administration;Does not affect the English version.

Amendment 13 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Recalls the importance of access to documents and calls for an ambitious reform of Regulation (EC) 1049/2001, regrets the present deadlock in Council on the revision;

Amendment 14 #

Angel DZHAMBAZKI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Recalls, in this connection, that in its resolution of 15 January 2013, adopted by an overwhelming majority, Parliament called for the adoption of an EU regulation on a European Law of Administrative Procedure; calls again on the Commission to submit a proposal for a clear and binding set of rules for EU administration on the basis of Article 298 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU); recalls that under Articles 10(3) TEU and 11(2) TEU and Article 15 TFEU transparency is the democratic foundation of the European Union;

Amendment 15 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Recalls, in this connection, that in its resolution of 15 January 2013, adopted by an overwhelming majority, Parliament called for the adoption of an EU regulation on a European Law of Administrative Procedure; regrets that no steps have been taken by the Commission in this regard; calls again on the Commission to submit a proposal for a clear and binding set of rules for EU administration on the basis of Article 298 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), which calls for openness, efficiency and independence, as well as on the basis of the general principles of EU law, as specified in the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice (CJEU);

Amendment 16 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Recalls, in this connection, that in its resolution of 15 January 2013, adopted by an overwhelming majority, Parliament called for the adoption of an EU regulation on a European Law of Administrative Procedure; calls again on the Commission to submit a proposal for a clear and binding set of rules for EU administration on the basis of Article 298 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU); as well as an ambitious plan of action regarding transparency and public access to documents in the shortest delay, for transparency is the cornerstone of better regulation, calls the EU institutions to ensure that their internal administrative procedures achieve the aim;

Amendment 17 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Recalls, in this connection, that in its resolution of 15 January 2013, adopted by an overwhelming majority, Parliament called for the adoption of an EU regulation on a European Law of Administrative Procedure; calls again on the Commission to submit a proposal for a clear and binding set of rules for EU administration on the basis of Article 298 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;

Amendment 18 #

Virginie ROZIÈRE

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Considers that the European Parliament and the Council ought to accept more extensive obligations of transparency, particularly in trialogues and conciliation procedures;

Amendment 19 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Believes that a proactive culture of transparency that promotes the rule of law presupposes clear and efficient mechanisms for managing conflicts of interest within EU institutions and advisory bodies; regrets, in this context, the absence of a common code of conduct for the European Council, which makes it difficult to assess whether integrity is safeguarded and potential misbehaviour sanctioned, and calls on the European Council to introduce comprehensive integrity rules for its President and his/her office, urges the Council to review its policy on access to documents and to align it with the relevant provision of the Charter of Fundamental Rights;

Amendment 2 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point 1 (new)

(1) Points out that it is the duty of the institutions to carry out regularly an open and transparent dialogue with civil society so as to enable citizens to become more informed and actively involved in the EU democratic process and exercise public scrutiny. Recalls that transparency is the key factor to restore the lack of citizens' trust in the EU and to increase the legitimacy of the EU institutions. Calls in this context on the Commission to revise the legislating regarding the ECI and is of the opinion that the Commission should not have the veto right, because of the potential conflict of interest, but its legal assessment should be advisory in nature. The revision of the ECI should also remove Art. 4(2)(b), which restrictively limits the admissibility of ECIs;

Amendment 20 #

Constance LE GRIP

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Believes that a proactive culture of transparency that promotes the rule of law presupposes clear and efficient mechanisms for preventing and managing conflicts of interest within EU institutions and advisory bodies; regrets, in this context, the absence of a common code of conduct for the European Council, which makes it difficult to assess whether integrity is safeguarded and potential misbehaviour sanctioned, and calls on the European Council to introduce comprehensive integrity rules for its President and his/her office;

Amendment 21 #

Angel DZHAMBAZKI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Takes note of the case law of the Court of Justice of the EU, in particularly cases C-39/05 P and C-52/05 P where the Court has developed distinction between documents of legislative and administrative proceedings when considering the conditions governing the public disclosure of documents within the context of the legislative procedure; recalls that when granting access to documents rules governing data protection must be observed;

Amendment 22 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Calls the EU Agencies to adopt Guidelines for a coherent policy on the prevention and management of conflicts of interest for members of the Management Board and Directors, experts in scientific committees, and members of Boards of Appeal and to adopt and implement a clear policy on conflicts of interest, in accordance with the Roadmap on the follow-up to the Common Approach on EU decentralised agencies;

Amendment 23 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Welcomes the idea of introducing a legislative footprint for the European Parliament, Council and Commission, in order to increase transparency as regards the relations between those institutions and lobbyists and the representatives of interest groups; welcomes also the idea of establishing a mandatory register for lobbyists based on a legal act;

Amendment 24 #

Jean-Marie CAVADA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Considers that effective protection of whistle blowers would help to increase both public interest and democratic accountability in the European Institutions;

Amendment 25 #

Jean-Marie CAVADA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 b (new)

5b. Calls on the Commission to draw up a regulatory framework for whistle blowers, with the aim of keeping their identity secret and protecting them against any form of reprisal;

Amendment 26 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Stresses that the work on greater transparency of the EU Institutions must also include a revision of the Code of Conduct of the European Parliament; considers that the revision must at all events comprise a prohibition on sideline activities for Members of the European Parliament which might lead to a conflict of interests; observes furthermore that any regular secondary income exceeding EUR 10 000 must be specified in the declaration for the protection of financial interests, that in order to avoid conflicts of interests the employment of lobbyists and the payment of staff working for Members of the European Parliament by representatives of interest groups must be absolutely prohibited and that further effective methods of penalising misconduct must be provided for; considers furthermore that, for a period of two to three years after Members have left the European Parliament, they should be required to submit notifications, in order to provide information about conflicts of interests which exist with their previous activities as Members;

Amendment 27 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 b (new)

6b. Proposes not only a formal examination of the declarations of financial interests of Commissioners- designate by the Committee on Legal Affairs of the European Parliament but also a substantive one, so that any conflicts of interests can be avoided;

Amendment 28 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 c (new)

6c. Suggests that Members of the European Parliament should be required to inform the European Parliament of their professional work and other income in the two years after they leave the European Parliament, and that Parliament should set up an ethics committee to examine the information for any conflict of interests; considers introducing a two-year waiting period if any conflict of interests is identified;

Amendment 29 #

Constance LE GRIP

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Also calls on the Council to adopt a comprehensive set of integrity rules – covering conflicts of interest and effective ~~mechanisms for sanctioning mis~~tools for preventing and sanctioning inappropriate conduct – for the members of the EU’s two advisory bodies, the Committee of the Regions and the European Economic and Social Committee, in accordance with Article 300 TFEU.

Amendment 3 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point 2 (new)

(2) Deplores that little progress has been made to implement Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 as regards the obligation for the institutions to keep complete registers of documents, is convinced that Members of the European Parliament should have access to all the Commission's documents, points out in this relation the lack of transparency while negotiating the TTIP;

Amendment 30 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. ~~Also c~~Calls on the Co~~uncil to adopt a comprehensive set of integrity rules – covering conflicts of interest and effective mechanisms for sanctioning mis~~mmittee of the Regions and the European Economic and Social Committee to draw up codes of conduct – for the ~~members of the EU’s two advisory bodies, the Committee of the Regions and the European Economic and Social Committee, in accordance with Article 300 TFEU.~~ir staff, taking account of the fact that they are advisory bodies;

Amendment 31 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Recalls the European Parliament's request to the Commission to examine the possibility of establishing a European whistle-blower protection programme and welcomes the European Ombudsman's investigation into whether the EU institutions are living up to their obligation of introducing internal whistleblowing rules;

Amendment 32 #

Heidi HAUTALA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Notes the Ombudsman's finding that most EU institutions have not yet properly implemented rules to protect whistle- blowers as requested following the reform of Staff regulations in 2014; requests all EU institutions that have not yet done so to urgently adopt internal rules on whistleblowing and to take a common approach to their obligations;

Amendment 33 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 b (new)

7b. Recalls the need to improve the transparency of legislative negotiations; underlines the importance of publishing the progress of negotiations after each trilogue and to opt for a plenary mandate of the EP negotiating team in order to improve transparency as regards first reading agreements commonly conducted in trilogues,

Amendment 34 #

Heidi HAUTALA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 b (new)

7b. Welcomes the European Ombudsman call on the European Commission to make its review processes on "revolving doors" cases more robust to avoid conflicts of interest; calls more specifically to a full implementation of article 16 of the Staff regulations

Amendment 35 #

Heidi HAUTALA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 c (new)

7c. Recalls that Parliaments in its resolution of 8 September 2015 on procedures and practices regarding Commissioner hearings, lessons to be taken from the 2014 process (2015/2040(INI)) considered that "confirmation by the Committee on Legal Affairs of the absence of any conflict of interests, based on a substantive analysis of the declarations of financial interests, constitutes an essential precondition for the holding of the hearing by the committee responsible" (para. 4). As a consequence, the Committee on Legal Affairs should "issue guidelines in the form of a recommendation or initiative report, with a view to facilitating reform of the procedures relating to Commissioners' declarations of interests" (para. 13);

Amendment 4 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Is convinced that, in the context of relations with representatives of interest groups, it is essential to introduce a mandatory transparency register with the participation of the Commission, Council and European Parliament in order to achieve a minimum degree of transparency in legislation;

Amendment 5 #

Angel DZHAMBAZKI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Stresses that although the right to good administration is established in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the lack of a coherent and comprehensive set of codified rules of administrative law makes it difficult for citizens to understand their administrative rights under EU law; believes that transparency is indispensable for increasing citizens' understanding of EU decision-making and for enhancing confidence in the EU institutions;

Amendment 6 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

Amendment 7 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Stresses that although the right to good administration ~~is established in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,~~granting to every person the right to have his or her affairs handled impartially, fairly and within a reasonable time by the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union is established in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and that this article also includes the right of every person to be heard before any individual measure which also includes the right of access to files while respecting the legitimate interests of confidentiality and of professional and business secrecy, and the duty of the administration to give reasons for its decisions, stresses that the lack of a coherent and comprehensive set of codified rules of administrative law makes it difficult for citizens to understand their administrative rights under EU law;

Amendment 8 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Stresses that although the right to good administration is established in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the lack of a coherent and comprehensive set of codified rules of administrative law makes it difficult for citizens to understand their administrative rights under EU law, thereby preventing them from having easy access to, and fully enjoying, those rights;

Amendment 9 #