2024/2008(ACI) | [ParlTrack]

Changes: 2024/06/02events.summary, docs

View current state | View Changes for this date

2024/2008(ACI) European Parliament/Council/European Commission/Court of Justice/European Central Bank/European Court of Auditors/European Economic and Social Committee/European Committee of the Regions Agreement: establishing an Interinstitutional Body for Ethical Standards for Members of Institutions and advisory bodies
Next event: Text adopted by Parliament, single reading 2024/04/25 more...

Progress: Procedure completed, awaiting publication in Official Journal

Role	Committee	Rapporteur	Shadows
Lead	AFCO	FREUND Daniel ( Verts/ALE)	SIMON Sven ( EPP), CIMOSZEWICZ Włodzimierz ( S&D), BOYER Gilles ( Renew), SARYUSZ-WOLSKI Jacek ( ECR), CHAIBI Leila ( GUE/NGL)

Lead committee dossier:

AFCO/9/15088

Subjects

Events

2024/04/25

EP - Text adopted by Parliament, single reading

Documents

T9-0372/2024

2024/04/25

EP - Debate in Parliament

Documents

Debate in Parliament

2024/04/25

EP - Decision by Parliament

Documents

T9-0372/2024

2024/04/22

EP - Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading

Documents

A9-0181/2024

2024/04/22

EP - Vote in committee

2024/04/22

EP - Committee report tabled for plenary

Documents

A9-0181/2024

2024/04/10

EP - Amendments tabled in committee

Documents

PE761.014

2024/04/10

EP - Committee referral announced in Parliament

2024/03/20

EP - Committee draft report

Documents

PE759.998

2024/03/20

EP - FREUND Daniel (Verts/ALE) appointed as rapporteur in AFCO

2024/03/15

EC - Non-legislative basic document

Documents

N9-0008/2024

2024/03/15

EC - Non-legislative basic document published

Documents

N9-0008/2024

2024/03/08

IT_CHAMBER - Contribution

Documents

COM(2023)0311

2023/06/08

EC - Document attached to the procedure

Documents

EUR-Lex
COM(2023)0311

Documents

Text adopted by Parliament, single reading: T9-0372/2024
Debate in Parliament: Debate in Parliament
Decision by Parliament: T9-0372/2024
Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading: A9-0181/2024
Committee report tabled for plenary: A9-0181/2024
Amendments tabled in committee: PE761.014
Committee draft report: PE759.998
Non-legislative basic document: N9-0008/2024
Non-legislative basic document published: N9-0008/2024
Contribution: COM(2023)0311
Document attached to the procedure: EUR-Lex
Document attached to the procedure: COM(2023)0311
Document attached to the procedure: EUR-Lex COM(2023)0311
Non-legislative basic document: N9-0008/2024
Committee draft report: PE759.998
Amendments tabled in committee: PE761.014
Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading: A9-0181/2024
Text adopted by Parliament, single reading: T9-0372/2024
Contribution: COM(2023)0311

Activities

Heidi HAUTALA
Plenary Speeches (0)
Miapetra KUMPULA-NATRI
Plenary Speeches (0)
Juan Fernando LÓPEZ AGUILAR
Plenary Speeches (0)
Roberta METSOLA
Plenary Speeches (0)
Evelyn REGNER
Plenary Speeches (0)
Pedro SILVA PEREIRA
Plenary Speeches (0)
Nikolaj VILLUMSEN
Plenary Speeches (0)
Daniel FREUND
Plenary Speeches (0)
Virginie JORON
Plenary Speeches (0)
Gilles BOYER
Plenary Speeches (0)
Gabriele BISCHOFF
Plenary Speeches (0)
Sven SIMON
Plenary Speeches (0)
Cyrus ENGERER
Plenary Speeches (0)
Vlad GHEORGHE
Plenary Speeches (0)
Marie DAUCHY
Plenary Speeches (0)
Ana COLLADO JIMÉNEZ
Plenary Speeches (0)
François THIOLLET
Plenary Speeches (0)

Amendments	Dossier
52	2024/2008(ACI) 2024/04/10 AFCO 52 amendments... Amendment 1 # Sven SIMON Proposal for a decision Citation 3 - having regard to Article 132 of the Treaty of the European Union, Amendment 10 # Sven SIMON Proposal for a decision Recital E a (new) Ea. whereas the conclusion of the Agreement does not reflect the mandate; whereas Parliament needs to consider its position in light of the draft Agreement; Amendment 11 # Sven SIMON Proposal for a decision Recital F F. whereas an interinstitutional ~~ethics body will~~body for standards in public office has the potential to contribute to strengthening trust in Union institutions and their democratic legitimacy, as well as to building an institutional culture based on ~~the highest ethical standards~~clearly defined rules that are enforced; Amendment 12 # Sven SIMON Proposal for a decision Recital G G. whereas Parliament’s current ethical rules in its Rules of pProcedure provide for many standardised written declarations including declarations of private interests, declarations of assets, declarations on awareness of conflict of interests for office holders, rapporteurs, shadow-rapporteurs and participants in an official delegation or interinstitutional negotiations, declarations of scheduled meetings with interest representatives, also when delegated to their assistants, declarations of input by the rapporteurs on their files, declarations of attendance at events organised by third parties, declarations of gifts and declarations of intergroups or informal groupings on external financial support; whereas the scope of these declarations needs to be streamlined in the next legislative term; Amendment 13 # Sven SIMON Proposal for a decision Paragraph 1 1. ~~Welcome~~Rejects the Agreement allowing for strong common ethical standards and for individual cases to be examined by the independent experts at the request of an institution or an advisory body that is a party to the Agreement regarding any declaration of their Memberss it constitutes an attack on the functioning of the Parliament; calls for the defence of parliamentary independence; questions the independence of the third-party experts referred to in the agreement; expresses grave concern concerning the potentially chilling effects on the rule of law if this agreement is taken as an example at national level; Amendment 14 # Daniel FREUND Proposal for a decision Paragraph 1 1. Welcomes the Agreement ~~allowing for~~enabling the development of strong common ethical standards and the exchange of best practices, and allowing for individual cases to be examined by the independent experts at the request of an institution or an advisory body that is a party to the Agreement regarding any declaration of their Members; Amendment 15 # Sven SIMON Proposal for a decision Paragraph 2 2. Underlines th~~e fact that the final decision-making power~~at a publication onf i~~mplementation remains with the relevant authorities of the institutions or bodies; notes that any consultation of the independent experts on an individual c~~nvestigations and suspicions even in cases where no conflict of interest hase be~~gins with a request of a party to the Agreement a~~en established is pre~~gards its own members~~judicial; Amendment 16 # Daniel FREUND Proposal for a decision Paragraph 2 2. Underlines the fact that the final decision-making power on implementation remains with the relevant authorities of the institutions or bodies; notes that any consultation of the independent experts on an individual case begins with a request as regards its own members of a party to the Agreement ~~as regards its own memb~~in accordance with its internal rules; underlines that the declarations of financial interests of the Commissioners- designate, as high level cases transcending the interests of the institution concerned, should as a rule be subject to examination by the independent experts; Amendment 17 # Daniel FREUND Proposal for a decision Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Reiterates, however, that Parliament remains fully committed to an independent ethics body, capable of carrying out investigations on its own initiative and issuing recommendations for sanctions to the responsible authorities of the participating institutions or bodies, composed of independent experts as full members, that covers Members of EU institutions and bodies before, during and after their term of office or service as well as staff, as envisaged in Parliament’s resolution of 16 September 2021 on strengthening transparency and integrity in the EU institutions by setting up an independent EU ethics body1a and reiterated in its resolutions of 16 February 2023 on the establishment of an independent EU ethics body1b and 12 July 2023 on the establishment of the EU ethics body1c; _____________ 1a OJ C 117, 11.3.2022, p. 159._ 1b Texts adopted, P9_(2023)0055. 1c Texts adopted, P9_TA(2023)0281. Amendment 18 # Leila CHAIBI, Manon AUBRY, Nikolaj VILLUMSEN, Helmut SCHOLZ Proposal for a decision Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Deeply regrets that the decision- making procedure of its members is based on consensus; underlines that this risks aligning decisions with the lowest common ground among institutions on ethical standards, particularly considering that some institutions covered do not have a code of conduct; Amendment 19 # Sven SIMON Proposal for a decision Paragraph 3 3. ~~Regret~~Notes that the ~~European Council decided not to join the A~~Council decided to join the Agreement only in enforcement mechanisms; points out an inter- institutional power imbalance arising from this; calls on Parliament to refuse to sign the Agreement and to resume the negotiations until all institutions fully take part in an interinstitutional agreement; Amendment 2 # Daniel FREUND Proposal for a decision Citation 11 a (new) - having regard to its resolution of 13 July 2023 on recommendations for reform ofEuropean Parliament’s rules on transparency, integrity, accountability and anti-corruption1a, _____________ 1a Texts adopted, P9_TA(2023)0292. Amendment 20 # Sven SIMON Proposal for a decision Paragraph 4 4. ~~Regre~~Highlights the unwillingness of the Council not to allow an extension of the scope of the Agreement to at least the representatives at ministerial level of the Member State holding the Presidency of the Council, by arguing that there is no legal basis in the Treaties to adopt common minimum standards applying to the representatives of Member States; is of the opinion that Members of the Council, like Members of the European Parliament, could be bound by the rules set by the Council pursuant to its power of self- organisation, which would prevail in the event of a conflict with national rules; underlines, in this context, that representatives of the Member States gathered in the Council act in their capacity as Members of the Council when adopting EU legal acts; commits to seeking a legal clarification as to whether the Council could bind its Members by common minimum standards; Amendment 21 # Daniel FREUND Proposal for a decision Paragraph 4 4. Regrets the unwillingness of the Council ~~not to allow an extension of~~to extend the scope of the Agreement to at least the representatives at ministerial level of the Member State holding the Presidency of the Council, by arguing that there is no legal basis in the Treaties to adopt common minimum standards applying to the representatives of Member States; commits to use the first review of the Agreement to address this legal gap and calls, in the meantime, on the upcoming Council Presidencies to voluntarily apply its provisions; is of the opinion that Members of the Council, like Members of the European Parliament, could be bound by the rules set by the Council pursuant to its power of self- organisation, which would prevail in the event of a conflict with national rules; underlines, in this context, that representatives of the Member States gathered in the Council act in their capacity as Members of the Council when adopting EU legal acts; commits to seeking a legal clarification as to whether the Council could bind its Members by common minimum standards; Amendment 22 # Leila CHAIBI, Manon AUBRY, Nikolaj VILLUMSEN Proposal for a decision Paragraph 4 a (new) 4a Takes the view that the rules applicable to the resources and to the secretariat of the body shall take into consideration in an equal manner both the actual body composed by one representative of each party to the agreement and the five independent experts assisting the institutional representatives and joining the body as observers; regrets that according to Article 17 of the Agreement, any cost resulting from a consultation of the independent experts shall be covered by the requesting party; stresses that this provision not only adds a financial burden to the requesting party but will also constitute a severe burden on the parties most willing to enhance ethical standards and work towards harmonisation of rules; Amendment 23 # Daniel FREUND Proposal for a decision Paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Takes the view that the resources made available must enable the proper functioning of both the actual body composed of one representative of each party to the Agreement and the five independent experts assisting the institutional representatives and joining the body as observers, as well as any necessary support therefor; regrets that according to Article 17 of the Agreement, any cost resulting from a consultation of the independent experts is to be covered by the requesting party, as this might result in a limitation of the number of such consultations; Amendment 24 # Sven SIMON Proposal for a decision Paragraph 5 5. ~~Is of the opinion that the~~Expresses grave concern at the inclusion of so-called independent experts, which shall be appointed by consensus of the parties to the Agreement~~, shall have professional experience specifically in the areas of ethics, integrity and transparency, in addi~~ in the event of the ratification tof the ~~requirements outlined in Article 5(2) of the Agreement referring to an impeccable record of professional behaviou~~Agreement; calls for the introduction of a confirmatory vote in Parliament for andy expter~~ience in high-level functions in European, national, or international public organisations~~nal experts prior to them taking up their office; Amendment 25 # Sven SIMON Proposal for a decision Paragraph 6 6. ~~Emphasises the essential role of the independent experts in examining individual cases at the request of a party to the Agreement; is of the opinion that each party~~underlines a potential conflict of interest of NGO representatives sendrving a ~~small random sample of cases to the independent experts would be highly beneficial for the purpose of developing or updating an ethical standard~~s de facto judges in a trial by public opinion of elected Parliamentarians; Amendment 26 # Daniel FREUND Proposal for a decision Paragraph 6 a (new) 6a. Believes the body should rely on the existing powers of institutions to ask their members for information or on the agreement of national authorities to share information; believes that the independent experts should be able to exchange information with national authorities where necessary for the performance of their tasks, while treating such information with the same confidentiality as the originating authority did; stresses in this regard that the independent experts should have access to the administrative documents of participating parties, especially the party consulting them on a case, in order to allow them to carry out well-reasoned and well-documented assessments; Amendment 27 # Sven SIMON Proposal for a decision Paragraph 7 7. Notes that the independent experts shall designate a speaker from amongst them; takes the view that the independent experts should have full autonomy in organising their work, as well as in convening their own meetings;deleted Amendment 28 # Sven SIMON Proposal for a decision Paragraph 8 8. Believes that the reasoned recommendation of the independent experts, without prejudice to the General Data Protection Regulation and personal rights, should be made public by the institution or body, together with the decision of the competent authority who should provide an explaRequests that the independent experts sign a non-disclosure agreement including a sworn affidavit under Belgian law prior to taking office and underlines that any breach of confidentiality shall result in termination iof ~~the recommendations are not fully followed~~office as well as criminal liability; Amendment 29 # Daniel FREUND Proposal for a decision Paragraph 8 a (new) 8a. Calls for the interinstitutional ethics body to lead by example on transparency by publishing all recommendations, annual reports, decisions and records of spending in a machine-readable open data format available to all citizens, and in accordance with the applicable data protection rules, including, inter alia, the written opinion of the independent experts on the institutions’ self-assessments in accordance with Article 10 and the anonymised and aggregated annual account of every year which summarises in aggregated and anonymised form the consultations and questions submitted by the parties and actions to follow them up in accordance with Article 7(4); underscores the importance of protecting the privacy of the individuals concerned to an appropriate extent and the presumption of innocence; calls on the parties to the Agreement to develop common guidance for the consultation of the independent experts and the publication of their recommendations; Amendment 3 # Sven SIMON Proposal for a decision Recital -A (new) -A. whereas the rule of law is of paramount importance for the functioning of the Union; whereas all acts of the Union require a legal basis in the Treaties; whereas there is no such legal basis for an interinstitutional ethics body; Amendment 30 # Daniel FREUND Proposal for a decision Paragraph 8 b (new) 8b. Believes that, in order to be fully effective, the interinstitutional ethics body would need to combine the functions of existing organs responsible for ethics and that therefore, for cases which require specific consideration or for the purpose of developing or updating an ethical standard each participating party should consult the independent experts; Amendment 31 # Sven SIMON Proposal for a decision Paragraph 9 9. Remains committed to constructively engaging in the review of the Agreement which is to be conducted ~~three years after its entry into force in order to improve and enhance the ethics body, as provided for in Article 21 of the Agreement~~annually; calls for a confirmatory vote by Parliament whether to remain party to the Agreement 12 months after its entry into force; Amendment 32 # Leila CHAIBI, Manon AUBRY, Nikolaj VILLUMSEN, Helmut SCHOLZ Proposal for a decision Paragraph 9 a (new) 9a. Recalls its position that the body should be able to investigate on its own initiative alleged breaches of ethical rules by officials and staff of EU institutions and to conduct on-the-spot and records- based investigations using the information that it has collected or that it has received from third parties; Amendment 33 # Leila CHAIBI, Manon AUBRY, Nikolaj VILLUMSEN, Helmut SCHOLZ Proposal for a decision Paragraph 9 b (new) 9b. Reiterates its call for a revision of the Staff Regulations, especially Article 22c thereof, in order to align them with the standards of Directive (EU) 2019/1937 of the European Parliament and of the Council1a; reiterates therefore its calls on the Bureau, in the interim, to immediately revise Parliament’s Rules of Procedure implementing Article 22c of the Staff Regulations to bring them in line with the protections provided for in that Directive; _____________ 1a Directive (EU) 2019/1937 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2019 on the protection of persons who report breaches of Union law (OJ L 305, 26.11.2019, p. 17). Amendment 34 # Sven SIMON Proposal for a decision Paragraph 10 10. ADoes not approves the conclusion of the Agreement annexed hereto and calls for its renegotiation; Amendment 35 # Sven SIMON Proposal for a decision Paragraph 10 a (new) 10a. Calls to establish a body for standards in public office instead; notes that such a body should have the authority to set standards for all institutions and to guide Members and institutions in implementing those standards; Amendment 36 # Sven SIMON Proposal for a decision Paragraph 10 a (new) 10a. Asks for the body to be renamed the “Standards for Public Office Commission” in line with precedent in Member States; Amendment 37 # Sven SIMON Proposal for a decision Paragraph 10 b (new) 10b. Calls on the President not to sign the Agreement unless the Council either joins the agreement as a full member or is no longer a party to the agreement at all; Amendment 38 # Sven SIMON Proposal for a decision Paragraph 10 c (new) 10c. Insists that the secretariat of the body be hosted by the European Parliament; Amendment 39 # Sven SIMON Proposal for a decision Paragraph 10 c (new) 10c. Stresses that the body should set clearly-defined legal rules instead of vaguely defined ethical standards; calls for the renegotiation of the Agreement to this end; Amendment 4 # Sven SIMON Proposal for a decision Recital A A. whereas the independence, transparency and accountability of EU institutions are of the utmost importance for their democratic legitimacy and for fostering citizens’ trust; whereas the European Parliament today ranks amongst the most transparent legislatures in the world; Amendment 40 # Sven SIMON Proposal for a decision Paragraph 10 d (new) 10d. Insists that the appointment of independent experts should not be renewable; Amendment 41 # Sven SIMON Proposal for a decision Paragraph 10 e (new) 10e. Calls on the Parties to renegotiate the agreement to ensure that the body provides for the harmonisation of standards instead of the investigation of individual cases; Amendment 42 # Sven SIMON Proposal for a decision Paragraph 11 11. Instructs its President to ~~sign~~issue a letter with the intention of re-negotiating the Agreement with the President of the Council, the President of the Commission, the President of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the President of the European Central Bank, the President of the Court of Auditors, the President of the European Economic and Social Committee and the President of the Committee of the Regions ~~and arrange for its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union~~; Amendment 43 # Sven SIMON 1. The European Parliament, ~~the Council of the European Union,~~ the European Commission, the Court of Justice of the European Union, the European Central Bank, the European Court of Auditors, the European Economic and Social Committee and the European Committee of the Regions (‘the Parties’) establish by this Agreement an interinstitutional framework for cooperation on ethical standards setting up an interinstitutional body for ethical standards (‘the Body’) for the members of the Parties. Amendment 44 # Sven SIMON 1. The European Parliament, the European Commission, the Council of the European Union, ~~the European Commission,~~ the Court of Justice of the European Union, the European Central Bank, the European Court of Auditors, the European Economic and Social Committee and the European Committee of the Regions (‘the Parties’) establish by this Agreement an interinstitutional framework for cooperation on ethical standards setting up an interinstitutional body for ~~ethical~~ standards in public office (‘the Body’) for the members of the Parties. Amendment 45 # Sven SIMON (ba) the members of the Council of the European Union in relation to the exercise of their Union mandate; Amendment 46 # Sven SIMON 5. The term of the independent experts shall be 3 years~~, renewable once~~. If an independent expert ceases office before the completion of the 3-year term or if the Parties decide by consensus to revoke the appointment of an independent expert, the Parties shall appoint by consensus a new independent expert for 3 years. Amendment 47 # Sven SIMON 6. ~~For purely administrative purposes, the independent experts shall receive the status of Special Adviser from the Commission and shall be administratively attached to the Commission. They~~The independent experts shall be reimbursed the travelling and accommodation expenses they incur when carrying out their duties. They shall receive a per diem allowance per day of work calculated on the basis of the remuneration of a Union official in grade AD12. Amendment 48 # Sven SIMON 1. If deemed to be particularly relevant by a Party~~, either for cases which require specific consideration or~~ for the purpose of developing or updating an ethical standard, the Party may consult and submit questions to the independent experts on the compliance of declarations of interests or any other standardised written declarations, or elements or drafts of such declarations, of its own members with the common minimum standards developed by the Body and reflected by the Party in its internal rules. Pending agreement on common minimum standards such questions may be referred to the independent experts based on other relevant standards applicable to the Party. Amendment 49 # Sven SIMON 1. The Body shall assess the necessity for an update of common minimum standards where ~~one or more members of the Bod~~the Body unanimously considers that a review is necessary. Amendment 5 # Sven SIMON Proposal for a decision Recital B B. whereas there is a need to address the shortcomings ~~stemming from~~of the implementation of the current ethics framework~~, whi~~ as existing rules were not enforced in incidents such ias ~~fragmented across the EU institutions, bodies,~~‘Qatargate’; whereas under the current Treaties every EU institution is responsible for its own rules on standards in public offices and ~~agencies, with different rules, procedures and levels of enforcement~~harmonisation of some of these rules is desirable; Amendment 50 # Sven SIMON 8. The self-assessment and the report shall be made ~~public on the website of the Bod~~available only to Parties and subject to confidentiality. Amendment 51 # Sven SIMON 2. The Secretariat shall be ~~formally~~ hosted inat the ~~Commission~~European Parliament in Brussels and operate under the coordination of the official who, within the Party chairing the Body, is responsible for the ethical rules for the members of that Party, or an official specifically designated for that purpose by the Party chairing the Body (‘the coordinator’). The coordinator shall represent the Secretariat and shall oversee its day-to-day work, in the common interest of the Parties. Amendment 52 # Sven SIMON 2. The website shall, in particular, contain the following: (a) the composition of the Body, and the calendar of its meetings ~~and the meeting agendas~~; (b) the common minimum standards; ~~(c) the self-assessments and reports referred to in Article 10(1) and (6), respectively;~~deleted (d) all the applicable rules of all Parties in the areas covered by the common minimum standards. Amendment 6 # Sven SIMON Proposal for a decision Recital C C. whereas Parliament ~~propos~~’s negotiation mandate is defined, in its resolution of 16 September 2021~~, and reiterated, in its subsequent resolutions of 16 February 2023 and 12 July 2023, to set up an ambitious, genuine and independent ethics body;~~on strengthening transparency and integrity in the EU institutions by setting up an independent EU ethics body1a and its subsequent resolutions of 16 February 2023 on the establishment of an independent EU ethics body1b and 12 July 2023 on the establishment of the EU ethics body1c; whereas that mandate to support the set up of an ethics body fully includes the Council and the European Council; _____________ 1a OJ C 117, 11.3.2022, p. 159._ 1b Texts adopted, P9_(2023)0055. 1c Texts adopted, P9_TA(2023)0281. Amendment 7 # Sven SIMON Proposal for a decision Recital C a (new) Ca. whereas the term “ethics” is legally undefined and may lead to a misinterpretation of the role of the body in the future; whereas precedent in Member States establishes more appropriate terms such as “standards in public office”; Amendment 8 # Sven SIMON Proposal for a decision Recital D D. whereas the Commission presented its proposal for the establishment of an interinstitutional ethics body on 8 June 2023, putting forward a standard-setting body ~~mainly lacking capac~~in line wityh t~~o examine individual cases and potential breaches of ethical rules~~he Treaties, however retaining the questionable term “ethics body”; Amendment 9 # Daniel FREUND Proposal for a decision Recital D D. whereas the Commission presented its proposal for the establishment of an interinstitutional ethics body on 8 June 2023, putting forward a standard-setting body; whereas that Commission proposal fell far short of the ambition put forward in Parliament’s resolutions, mainly lacking in capacity to examine individual cases and potential breaches of ethical rules as well as to recommend sanctions; source: 761.014

Amendments

Dossier

2024/2008(ACI)

2024/04/10 AFCO 52 amendments...

Amendment 1 #

Sven SIMON

Proposal for a decision
Citation 3

- having regard to Article 132 of the Treaty of the European Union,

Amendment 10 #

Sven SIMON

Proposal for a decision
Recital E a (new)

Ea. whereas the conclusion of the Agreement does not reflect the mandate; whereas Parliament needs to consider its position in light of the draft Agreement;

Amendment 11 #

Sven SIMON

Proposal for a decision
Recital F

F. whereas an interinstitutional ~~ethics body will~~body for standards in public office has the potential to contribute to strengthening trust in Union institutions and their democratic legitimacy, as well as to building an institutional culture based on ~~the highest ethical standards~~clearly defined rules that are enforced;

Amendment 12 #

Sven SIMON

Proposal for a decision
Recital G

G. whereas Parliament’s current ethical rules in its Rules of pProcedure provide for many standardised written declarations including declarations of private interests, declarations of assets, declarations on awareness of conflict of interests for office holders, rapporteurs, shadow-rapporteurs and participants in an official delegation or interinstitutional negotiations, declarations of scheduled meetings with interest representatives, also when delegated to their assistants, declarations of input by the rapporteurs on their files, declarations of attendance at events organised by third parties, declarations of gifts and declarations of intergroups or informal groupings on external financial support; whereas the scope of these declarations needs to be streamlined in the next legislative term;

Amendment 13 #

Sven SIMON

Proposal for a decision
Paragraph 1

1. ~~Welcome~~Rejects the Agreement allowing for strong common ethical standards and for individual cases to be examined by the independent experts at the request of an institution or an advisory body that is a party to the Agreement regarding any declaration of their Memberss it constitutes an attack on the functioning of the Parliament; calls for the defence of parliamentary independence; questions the independence of the third-party experts referred to in the agreement; expresses grave concern concerning the potentially chilling effects on the rule of law if this agreement is taken as an example at national level;

Amendment 14 #

Daniel FREUND

Proposal for a decision
Paragraph 1

1. Welcomes the Agreement ~~allowing for~~enabling the development of strong common ethical standards and the exchange of best practices, and allowing for individual cases to be examined by the independent experts at the request of an institution or an advisory body that is a party to the Agreement regarding any declaration of their Members;

Amendment 15 #

Sven SIMON

Proposal for a decision
Paragraph 2

2. Underlines th~~e fact that the final decision-making power~~at a publication onf i~~mplementation remains with the relevant authorities of the institutions or bodies; notes that any consultation of the independent experts on an individual c~~nvestigations and suspicions even in cases where no conflict of interest hase be~~gins with a request of a party to the Agreement a~~en established is pre~~gards its own members~~judicial;

Amendment 16 #

Daniel FREUND

Proposal for a decision
Paragraph 2

2. Underlines the fact that the final decision-making power on implementation remains with the relevant authorities of the institutions or bodies; notes that any consultation of the independent experts on an individual case begins with a request as regards its own members of a party to the Agreement ~~as regards its own memb~~in accordance with its internal rules; underlines that the declarations of financial interests of the Commissioners- designate, as high level cases transcending the interests of the institution concerned, should as a rule be subject to examination by the independent experts;

Amendment 17 #

Daniel FREUND

Proposal for a decision
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Reiterates, however, that Parliament remains fully committed to an independent ethics body, capable of carrying out investigations on its own initiative and issuing recommendations for sanctions to the responsible authorities of the participating institutions or bodies, composed of independent experts as full members, that covers Members of EU institutions and bodies before, during and after their term of office or service as well as staff, as envisaged in Parliament’s resolution of 16 September 2021 on strengthening transparency and integrity in the EU institutions by setting up an independent EU ethics body1a and reiterated in its resolutions of 16 February 2023 on the establishment of an independent EU ethics body1b and 12 July 2023 on the establishment of the EU ethics body1c; _____________ 1a OJ C 117, 11.3.2022, p. 159._ 1b Texts adopted, P9_(2023)0055. 1c Texts adopted, P9_TA(2023)0281.

Amendment 18 #

Leila CHAIBI, Manon AUBRY, Nikolaj VILLUMSEN, Helmut SCHOLZ

Proposal for a decision
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Deeply regrets that the decision- making procedure of its members is based on consensus; underlines that this risks aligning decisions with the lowest common ground among institutions on ethical standards, particularly considering that some institutions covered do not have a code of conduct;

Amendment 19 #

Sven SIMON

Proposal for a decision
Paragraph 3

3. ~~Regret~~Notes that the ~~European Council decided not to join the A~~Council decided to join the Agreement only in enforcement mechanisms; points out an inter- institutional power imbalance arising from this; calls on Parliament to refuse to sign the Agreement and to resume the negotiations until all institutions fully take part in an interinstitutional agreement;

Amendment 2 #

Daniel FREUND

Proposal for a decision
Citation 11 a (new)

- having regard to its resolution of 13 July 2023 on recommendations for reform ofEuropean Parliament’s rules on transparency, integrity, accountability and anti-corruption1a, _____________ 1a Texts adopted, P9_TA(2023)0292.

Amendment 20 #

Sven SIMON

Proposal for a decision
Paragraph 4

4. ~~Regre~~Highlights the unwillingness of the Council not to allow an extension of the scope of the Agreement to at least the representatives at ministerial level of the Member State holding the Presidency of the Council, by arguing that there is no legal basis in the Treaties to adopt common minimum standards applying to the representatives of Member States; is of the opinion that Members of the Council, like Members of the European Parliament, could be bound by the rules set by the Council pursuant to its power of self- organisation, which would prevail in the event of a conflict with national rules; underlines, in this context, that representatives of the Member States gathered in the Council act in their capacity as Members of the Council when adopting EU legal acts; commits to seeking a legal clarification as to whether the Council could bind its Members by common minimum standards;

Amendment 21 #

Daniel FREUND

Proposal for a decision
Paragraph 4

4. Regrets the unwillingness of the Council ~~not to allow an extension of~~to extend the scope of the Agreement to at least the representatives at ministerial level of the Member State holding the Presidency of the Council, by arguing that there is no legal basis in the Treaties to adopt common minimum standards applying to the representatives of Member States; commits to use the first review of the Agreement to address this legal gap and calls, in the meantime, on the upcoming Council Presidencies to voluntarily apply its provisions; is of the opinion that Members of the Council, like Members of the European Parliament, could be bound by the rules set by the Council pursuant to its power of self- organisation, which would prevail in the event of a conflict with national rules; underlines, in this context, that representatives of the Member States gathered in the Council act in their capacity as Members of the Council when adopting EU legal acts; commits to seeking a legal clarification as to whether the Council could bind its Members by common minimum standards;

Amendment 22 #

Leila CHAIBI, Manon AUBRY, Nikolaj VILLUMSEN

Proposal for a decision
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a Takes the view that the rules applicable to the resources and to the secretariat of the body shall take into consideration in an equal manner both the actual body composed by one representative of each party to the agreement and the five independent experts assisting the institutional representatives and joining the body as observers; regrets that according to Article 17 of the Agreement, any cost resulting from a consultation of the independent experts shall be covered by the requesting party; stresses that this provision not only adds a financial burden to the requesting party but will also constitute a severe burden on the parties most willing to enhance ethical standards and work towards harmonisation of rules;

Amendment 23 #

Daniel FREUND

Proposal for a decision
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Takes the view that the resources made available must enable the proper functioning of both the actual body composed of one representative of each party to the Agreement and the five independent experts assisting the institutional representatives and joining the body as observers, as well as any necessary support therefor; regrets that according to Article 17 of the Agreement, any cost resulting from a consultation of the independent experts is to be covered by the requesting party, as this might result in a limitation of the number of such consultations;

Amendment 24 #

Sven SIMON

Proposal for a decision
Paragraph 5

5. ~~Is of the opinion that the~~Expresses grave concern at the inclusion of so-called independent experts, which shall be appointed by consensus of the parties to the Agreement~~, shall have professional experience specifically in the areas of ethics, integrity and transparency, in addi~~ in the event of the ratification tof the ~~requirements outlined in Article 5(2) of the Agreement referring to an impeccable record of professional behaviou~~Agreement; calls for the introduction of a confirmatory vote in Parliament for andy expter~~ience in high-level functions in European, national, or international public organisations~~nal experts prior to them taking up their office;

Amendment 25 #

Sven SIMON

Proposal for a decision
Paragraph 6

6. ~~Emphasises the essential role of the independent experts in examining individual cases at the request of a party to the Agreement; is of the opinion that each party~~underlines a potential conflict of interest of NGO representatives sendrving a ~~small random sample of cases to the independent experts would be highly beneficial for the purpose of developing or updating an ethical standard~~s de facto judges in a trial by public opinion of elected Parliamentarians;

Amendment 26 #

Daniel FREUND

Proposal for a decision
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Believes the body should rely on the existing powers of institutions to ask their members for information or on the agreement of national authorities to share information; believes that the independent experts should be able to exchange information with national authorities where necessary for the performance of their tasks, while treating such information with the same confidentiality as the originating authority did; stresses in this regard that the independent experts should have access to the administrative documents of participating parties, especially the party consulting them on a case, in order to allow them to carry out well-reasoned and well-documented assessments;

Amendment 27 #

Sven SIMON

Proposal for a decision
Paragraph 7

7. Notes that the independent experts shall designate a speaker from amongst them; takes the view that the independent experts should have full autonomy in organising their work, as well as in convening their own meetings;deleted

Amendment 28 #

Sven SIMON

Proposal for a decision
Paragraph 8

8. Believes that the reasoned recommendation of the independent experts, without prejudice to the General Data Protection Regulation and personal rights, should be made public by the institution or body, together with the decision of the competent authority who should provide an explaRequests that the independent experts sign a non-disclosure agreement including a sworn affidavit under Belgian law prior to taking office and underlines that any breach of confidentiality shall result in termination iof ~~the recommendations are not fully followed~~office as well as criminal liability;

Amendment 29 #

Daniel FREUND

Proposal for a decision
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8a. Calls for the interinstitutional ethics body to lead by example on transparency by publishing all recommendations, annual reports, decisions and records of spending in a machine-readable open data format available to all citizens, and in accordance with the applicable data protection rules, including, inter alia, the written opinion of the independent experts on the institutions’ self-assessments in accordance with Article 10 and the anonymised and aggregated annual account of every year which summarises in aggregated and anonymised form the consultations and questions submitted by the parties and actions to follow them up in accordance with Article 7(4); underscores the importance of protecting the privacy of the individuals concerned to an appropriate extent and the presumption of innocence; calls on the parties to the Agreement to develop common guidance for the consultation of the independent experts and the publication of their recommendations;

Amendment 3 #

Sven SIMON

Proposal for a decision
Recital -A (new)

-A. whereas the rule of law is of paramount importance for the functioning of the Union; whereas all acts of the Union require a legal basis in the Treaties; whereas there is no such legal basis for an interinstitutional ethics body;

Amendment 30 #

Daniel FREUND

Proposal for a decision
Paragraph 8 b (new)

8b. Believes that, in order to be fully effective, the interinstitutional ethics body would need to combine the functions of existing organs responsible for ethics and that therefore, for cases which require specific consideration or for the purpose of developing or updating an ethical standard each participating party should consult the independent experts;

Amendment 31 #

Sven SIMON

Proposal for a decision
Paragraph 9

9. Remains committed to constructively engaging in the review of the Agreement which is to be conducted ~~three years after its entry into force in order to improve and enhance the ethics body, as provided for in Article 21 of the Agreement~~annually; calls for a confirmatory vote by Parliament whether to remain party to the Agreement 12 months after its entry into force;

Amendment 32 #

Leila CHAIBI, Manon AUBRY, Nikolaj VILLUMSEN, Helmut SCHOLZ

Proposal for a decision
Paragraph 9 a (new)

9a. Recalls its position that the body should be able to investigate on its own initiative alleged breaches of ethical rules by officials and staff of EU institutions and to conduct on-the-spot and records- based investigations using the information that it has collected or that it has received from third parties;

Amendment 33 #

Leila CHAIBI, Manon AUBRY, Nikolaj VILLUMSEN, Helmut SCHOLZ

Proposal for a decision
Paragraph 9 b (new)

9b. Reiterates its call for a revision of the Staff Regulations, especially Article 22c thereof, in order to align them with the standards of Directive (EU) 2019/1937 of the European Parliament and of the Council1a; reiterates therefore its calls on the Bureau, in the interim, to immediately revise Parliament’s Rules of Procedure implementing Article 22c of the Staff Regulations to bring them in line with the protections provided for in that Directive; _____________ 1a Directive (EU) 2019/1937 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2019 on the protection of persons who report breaches of Union law (OJ L 305, 26.11.2019, p. 17).

Amendment 34 #

Sven SIMON

Proposal for a decision
Paragraph 10

10. ADoes not approves the conclusion of the Agreement annexed hereto and calls for its renegotiation;

Amendment 35 #

Sven SIMON

Proposal for a decision
Paragraph 10 a (new)

10a. Calls to establish a body for standards in public office instead; notes that such a body should have the authority to set standards for all institutions and to guide Members and institutions in implementing those standards;

Amendment 36 #

Sven SIMON

Proposal for a decision
Paragraph 10 a (new)

10a. Asks for the body to be renamed the “Standards for Public Office Commission” in line with precedent in Member States;

Amendment 37 #

Sven SIMON

Proposal for a decision
Paragraph 10 b (new)

10b. Calls on the President not to sign the Agreement unless the Council either joins the agreement as a full member or is no longer a party to the agreement at all;

Amendment 38 #

Sven SIMON

Proposal for a decision
Paragraph 10 c (new)

10c. Insists that the secretariat of the body be hosted by the European Parliament;

Amendment 39 #

Sven SIMON

Proposal for a decision
Paragraph 10 c (new)

10c. Stresses that the body should set clearly-defined legal rules instead of vaguely defined ethical standards; calls for the renegotiation of the Agreement to this end;

Amendment 4 #

Sven SIMON

Proposal for a decision
Recital A

A. whereas the independence, transparency and accountability of EU institutions are of the utmost importance for their democratic legitimacy and for fostering citizens’ trust; whereas the European Parliament today ranks amongst the most transparent legislatures in the world;

Amendment 40 #

Sven SIMON

Proposal for a decision
Paragraph 10 d (new)

10d. Insists that the appointment of independent experts should not be renewable;

Amendment 41 #

Sven SIMON

Proposal for a decision
Paragraph 10 e (new)

10e. Calls on the Parties to renegotiate the agreement to ensure that the body provides for the harmonisation of standards instead of the investigation of individual cases;

Amendment 42 #

Sven SIMON

Proposal for a decision
Paragraph 11

11. Instructs its President to ~~sign~~issue a letter with the intention of re-negotiating the Agreement with the President of the Council, the President of the Commission, the President of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the President of the European Central Bank, the President of the Court of Auditors, the President of the European Economic and Social Committee and the President of the Committee of the Regions ~~and arrange for its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union~~;

Amendment 43 #

Sven SIMON

1. The European Parliament, ~~the Council of the European Union,~~ the European Commission, the Court of Justice of the European Union, the European Central Bank, the European Court of Auditors, the European Economic and Social Committee and the European Committee of the Regions (‘the Parties’) establish by this Agreement an interinstitutional framework for cooperation on ethical standards setting up an interinstitutional body for ethical standards (‘the Body’) for the members of the Parties.

Amendment 44 #

Sven SIMON

1. The European Parliament, the European Commission, the Council of the European Union, ~~the European Commission,~~ the Court of Justice of the European Union, the European Central Bank, the European Court of Auditors, the European Economic and Social Committee and the European Committee of the Regions (‘the Parties’) establish by this Agreement an interinstitutional framework for cooperation on ethical standards setting up an interinstitutional body for ~~ethical~~ standards in public office (‘the Body’) for the members of the Parties.

Amendment 45 #

Sven SIMON

(ba) the members of the Council of the European Union in relation to the exercise of their Union mandate;

Amendment 46 #

Sven SIMON

5. The term of the independent experts shall be 3 years~~, renewable once~~. If an independent expert ceases office before the completion of the 3-year term or if the Parties decide by consensus to revoke the appointment of an independent expert, the Parties shall appoint by consensus a new independent expert for 3 years.

Amendment 47 #

Sven SIMON

6. ~~For purely administrative purposes, the independent experts shall receive the status of Special Adviser from the Commission and shall be administratively attached to the Commission. They~~The independent experts shall be reimbursed the travelling and accommodation expenses they incur when carrying out their duties. They shall receive a per diem allowance per day of work calculated on the basis of the remuneration of a Union official in grade AD12.

Amendment 48 #

Sven SIMON

1. If deemed to be particularly relevant by a Party~~, either for cases which require specific consideration or~~ for the purpose of developing or updating an ethical standard, the Party may consult and submit questions to the independent experts on the compliance of declarations of interests or any other standardised written declarations, or elements or drafts of such declarations, of its own members with the common minimum standards developed by the Body and reflected by the Party in its internal rules. Pending agreement on common minimum standards such questions may be referred to the independent experts based on other relevant standards applicable to the Party.

Amendment 49 #

Sven SIMON

1. The Body shall assess the necessity for an update of common minimum standards where ~~one or more members of the Bod~~the Body unanimously considers that a review is necessary.

Amendment 5 #

Sven SIMON

Proposal for a decision
Recital B

B. whereas there is a need to address the shortcomings ~~stemming from~~of the implementation of the current ethics framework~~, whi~~ as existing rules were not enforced in incidents such ias ~~fragmented across the EU institutions, bodies,~~‘Qatargate’; whereas under the current Treaties every EU institution is responsible for its own rules on standards in public offices and ~~agencies, with different rules, procedures and levels of enforcement~~harmonisation of some of these rules is desirable;

Amendment 50 #

Sven SIMON

8. The self-assessment and the report shall be made ~~public on the website of the Bod~~available only to Parties and subject to confidentiality.

Amendment 51 #

Sven SIMON

2. The Secretariat shall be ~~formally~~ hosted inat the ~~Commission~~European Parliament in Brussels and operate under the coordination of the official who, within the Party chairing the Body, is responsible for the ethical rules for the members of that Party, or an official specifically designated for that purpose by the Party chairing the Body (‘the coordinator’). The coordinator shall represent the Secretariat and shall oversee its day-to-day work, in the common interest of the Parties.

Amendment 52 #

Sven SIMON

2. The website shall, in particular, contain the following: (a) the composition of the Body, and the calendar of its meetings ~~and the meeting agendas~~; (b) the common minimum standards; ~~(c) the self-assessments and reports referred to in Article 10(1) and (6), respectively;~~deleted (d) all the applicable rules of all Parties in the areas covered by the common minimum standards.

Amendment 6 #

Sven SIMON

Proposal for a decision
Recital C

C. whereas Parliament ~~propos~~’s negotiation mandate is defined, in its resolution of 16 September 2021~~, and reiterated, in its subsequent resolutions of 16 February 2023 and 12 July 2023, to set up an ambitious, genuine and independent ethics body;~~on strengthening transparency and integrity in the EU institutions by setting up an independent EU ethics body1a and its subsequent resolutions of 16 February 2023 on the establishment of an independent EU ethics body1b and 12 July 2023 on the establishment of the EU ethics body1c; whereas that mandate to support the set up of an ethics body fully includes the Council and the European Council; _____________ 1a OJ C 117, 11.3.2022, p. 159._ 1b Texts adopted, P9_(2023)0055. 1c Texts adopted, P9_TA(2023)0281.

Amendment 7 #

Sven SIMON

Proposal for a decision
Recital C a (new)

Ca. whereas the term “ethics” is legally undefined and may lead to a misinterpretation of the role of the body in the future; whereas precedent in Member States establishes more appropriate terms such as “standards in public office”;

Amendment 8 #

Sven SIMON

Proposal for a decision
Recital D

D. whereas the Commission presented its proposal for the establishment of an interinstitutional ethics body on 8 June 2023, putting forward a standard-setting body ~~mainly lacking capac~~in line wityh t~~o examine individual cases and potential breaches of ethical rules~~he Treaties, however retaining the questionable term “ethics body”;

Amendment 9 #

Daniel FREUND

Proposal for a decision
Recital D

D. whereas the Commission presented its proposal for the establishment of an interinstitutional ethics body on 8 June 2023, putting forward a standard-setting body; whereas that Commission proposal fell far short of the ambition put forward in Parliament’s resolutions, mainly lacking in capacity to examine individual cases and potential breaches of ethical rules as well as to recommend sanctions;

source: 761.014

History

(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)

2024-06-01Show (2) Changes | Timetravel

docs/5

date: 2024-04-25T00:00:00

docs: url: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2024-0372_EN.html title: T9-0372/2024

type: Text adopted by Parliament, single reading

body: EP

events/5/summary

The European Parliament decided by 301 votes to 216, with 23 abstentions, to conclude an Agreement between the European Parliament, the Council, the European Commission, the Court of Justice of the European Union, the European Central Bank, the European Court of Auditors, the European Economic and Social Committee and the European Committee of the Regions, establishing an Interinstitutional Body for Ethical Standards for Members of Institutions and advisory bodies mentioned in Article 13 of the Treaty on European Union.
The European Parliament today ranks amongst the most transparent legislatures in the world. There is a need to address the shortcomings stemming from the current ethics framework, which is fragmented across the EU institutions, bodies, offices and agencies, with different rules, procedures and levels of enforcement.
In 2021, Parliament proposed to set up an ambitious, genuine and independent ethics body. The Commission presented its proposal for the establishment of an interinstitutional ethics body on 8 June 2023, putting forward a standard-setting body. This proposal fell far short of the ambition put forward in Parliament’s resolutions, mainly lacking in capacity to examine individual cases and potential breaches of ethical rules as well as to recommend sanctions.
An interinstitutional ethics body will contribute to strengthening trust in Union institutions and their democratic legitimacy, as well as to building an institutional culture based on the highest ethical standards.
Ethics body
Parliament welcomed the Agreement enabling the development of strong common ethical standards and the exchange of best practices, and allowing for individual cases to be examined by the independent experts at the request of an institution or an advisory body that is a party to the Agreement regarding any declaration of their Members. However, it regretted that the European Council decided not to join the Agreement.
Financing
Members take the view that the resources made available must enable the proper functioning of both the interinstitutional body for ethical standards (the ‘Body’) itself composed of one representative of each party to the Agreement and the five independent experts assisting the institutional representatives and joining the Body as observers, as well as any necessary support therefor.
Transparency
Parliament called for the Body to lead by example on transparency by publishing all recommendations, annual reports, decisions and records of spending in a machine-readable open data format available to all citizens, and in accordance with the applicable data protection rules, including, inter alia, the written opinion of the independent experts on the institutions’ self-assessments.
Moreover, Parliament recalled its position that the Body should be able to investigate on its own initiative alleged breaches of ethical rules by officials and staff of EU institutions and to conduct on-the-spot and records-based investigations using the information that it has collected or that it has received from third parties.

2024-05-31Show (2) Changes | Timetravel

docs/5

date: 2024-04-25T00:00:00

docs: url: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2024-0372_EN.html title: T9-0372/2024

type: Text adopted by Parliament, single reading

body: EP

events/5/summary

The European Parliament decided by 301 votes to 216, with 23 abstentions, to conclude an Agreement between the European Parliament, the Council, the European Commission, the Court of Justice of the European Union, the European Central Bank, the European Court of Auditors, the European Economic and Social Committee and the European Committee of the Regions, establishing an Interinstitutional Body for Ethical Standards for Members of Institutions and advisory bodies mentioned in Article 13 of the Treaty on European Union.
The European Parliament today ranks amongst the most transparent legislatures in the world. There is a need to address the shortcomings stemming from the current ethics framework, which is fragmented across the EU institutions, bodies, offices and agencies, with different rules, procedures and levels of enforcement.
In 2021, Parliament proposed to set up an ambitious, genuine and independent ethics body. The Commission presented its proposal for the establishment of an interinstitutional ethics body on 8 June 2023, putting forward a standard-setting body. This proposal fell far short of the ambition put forward in Parliament’s resolutions, mainly lacking in capacity to examine individual cases and potential breaches of ethical rules as well as to recommend sanctions.
An interinstitutional ethics body will contribute to strengthening trust in Union institutions and their democratic legitimacy, as well as to building an institutional culture based on the highest ethical standards.
Ethics body
Parliament welcomed the Agreement enabling the development of strong common ethical standards and the exchange of best practices, and allowing for individual cases to be examined by the independent experts at the request of an institution or an advisory body that is a party to the Agreement regarding any declaration of their Members. However, it regretted that the European Council decided not to join the Agreement.
Financing
Members take the view that the resources made available must enable the proper functioning of both the interinstitutional body for ethical standards (the ‘Body’) itself composed of one representative of each party to the Agreement and the five independent experts assisting the institutional representatives and joining the Body as observers, as well as any necessary support therefor.
Transparency
Parliament called for the Body to lead by example on transparency by publishing all recommendations, annual reports, decisions and records of spending in a machine-readable open data format available to all citizens, and in accordance with the applicable data protection rules, including, inter alia, the written opinion of the independent experts on the institutions’ self-assessments.
Moreover, Parliament recalled its position that the Body should be able to investigate on its own initiative alleged breaches of ethical rules by officials and staff of EU institutions and to conduct on-the-spot and records-based investigations using the information that it has collected or that it has received from third parties.

2024-05-01Show (3) Changes | Timetravel

docs/5	date 2024-04-25T00:00:00 docs url: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2024-0372_EN.html title: T9-0372/2024 type Text adopted by Parliament, single reading body EP
events/5	date 2024-04-25T00:00:00 type Decision by Parliament body EP docs url: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2024-0372_EN.html title: T9-0372/2024
procedure/stage_reached	Old Awaiting Parliament's vote New Procedure completed, awaiting publication in Official Journal

2024-04-28Show (1) Changes | Timetravel

events/4/docs

url: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/CRE-9-2024-04-25-TOC_EN.html title: Debate in Parliament

2024-04-27Show (6) Changes | Timetravel

docs/4	date 2024-04-22T00:00:00 docs url: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-9-2024-0181_EN.html title: A9-0181/2024 type Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading body EP
events/2	date 2024-04-22T00:00:00 type Vote in committee body EP
events/3	date 2024-04-22T00:00:00 type Committee report tabled for plenary body EP docs url: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-9-2024-0181_EN.html title: A9-0181/2024
events/4	date 2024-04-25T00:00:00 type Debate in Parliament body EP
forecasts	date: 2024-04-22T00:00:00 title: Indicative plenary sitting date
procedure/stage_reached	Old Awaiting committee decision New Awaiting Parliament's vote

2024-04-26Show (6) Changes | Timetravel

docs/4	date 2024-04-22T00:00:00 docs url: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-9-2024-0181_EN.html title: A9-0181/2024 type Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading body EP
events/2	date 2024-04-22T00:00:00 type Vote in committee body EP
events/3	date 2024-04-22T00:00:00 type Committee report tabled for plenary body EP docs url: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-9-2024-0181_EN.html title: A9-0181/2024
events/4	date 2024-04-25T00:00:00 type Debate in Parliament body EP
forecasts	date: 2024-04-22T00:00:00 title: Indicative plenary sitting date
procedure/stage_reached	Old Awaiting committee decision New Awaiting Parliament's vote

2024-04-25Show (6) Changes | Timetravel

docs/4	date 2024-04-22T00:00:00 docs url: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-9-2024-0181_EN.html title: A9-0181/2024 type Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading body EP
events/2	date 2024-04-22T00:00:00 type Vote in committee body EP
events/3	date 2024-04-22T00:00:00 type Committee report tabled for plenary body EP docs url: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-9-2024-0181_EN.html title: A9-0181/2024
forecasts/0	date 2024-04-25T00:00:00 title Debate in plenary scheduled
forecasts/0	date 2024-04-22T00:00:00 title Indicative plenary sitting date
procedure/stage_reached	Old Awaiting committee decision New Awaiting Parliament's vote

2024-04-24Show (6) Changes | Timetravel

docs/4	date 2024-04-22T00:00:00 docs url: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-9-2024-0181_EN.html title: A9-0181/2024 type Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading body EP
events/2	date 2024-04-22T00:00:00 type Vote in committee body EP
events/3	date 2024-04-22T00:00:00 type Committee report tabled for plenary body EP docs url: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-9-2024-0181_EN.html title: A9-0181/2024
forecasts/0	date 2024-04-25T00:00:00 title Debate in plenary scheduled
forecasts/0	date 2024-04-22T00:00:00 title Indicative plenary sitting date
procedure/stage_reached	Old Awaiting committee decision New Awaiting Parliament's vote

2024-04-23Show (2) Changes | Timetravel

forecasts/0	date 2024-04-25T00:00:00 title Debate in plenary scheduled
forecasts/0	date 2024-04-22T00:00:00 title Indicative plenary sitting date

2024-04-22Show (2) Changes | Timetravel

forecasts/0	date 2024-04-25T00:00:00 title Debate in plenary scheduled
forecasts/0	date 2024-04-22T00:00:00 title Indicative plenary sitting date

2024-04-21Show (2) Changes | Timetravel

forecasts/0	date 2024-04-25T00:00:00 title Debate in plenary scheduled
forecasts/0	date 2024-04-22T00:00:00 title Indicative plenary sitting date

2024-04-20Show (2) Changes | Timetravel

forecasts/0	date 2024-04-25T00:00:00 title Debate in plenary scheduled
forecasts/0	date 2024-04-22T00:00:00 title Indicative plenary sitting date

2024-04-17Show (6) Changes | Timetravel

commission	body: EC dg: Secretariat-General commissioner: VON DER LEYEN Ursula
docs/3	date 2024-04-10T00:00:00 docs url: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/AFCO-AM-761014_EN.html title: PE761.014 type Amendments tabled in committee body EP
events/1	date 2024-04-10T00:00:00 type Committee referral announced in Parliament body EP
forecasts	date: 2024-04-22T00:00:00 title: Indicative plenary sitting date
procedure/dossier_of_the_committee	AFCO/9/15088
procedure/stage_reached	Old Preparatory phase in Parliament New Awaiting committee decision

2024-04-16Show (5) Changes | Timetravel

docs/3	date 2024-04-10T00:00:00 docs url: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/AFCO-AM-761014_EN.html title: PE761.014 type Amendments tabled in committee body EP
events/1	date 2024-04-10T00:00:00 type Committee referral announced in Parliament body EP
forecasts	date: 2024-04-22T00:00:00 title: Indicative plenary sitting date
procedure/dossier_of_the_committee	AFCO/9/15088
procedure/stage_reached	Old Preparatory phase in Parliament New Awaiting committee decision

2024-04-15Show (4) Changes | Timetravel

events/1	date 2024-04-10T00:00:00 type Committee referral announced in Parliament body EP
forecasts	date: 2024-04-25T00:00:00 title: Indicative plenary sitting date
procedure/dossier_of_the_committee	AFCO/9/15088
procedure/stage_reached	Old Preparatory phase in Parliament New Awaiting committee decision

2024-04-13Show (4) Changes | Timetravel

events/1	date 2024-04-10T00:00:00 type Committee referral announced in Parliament body EP
forecasts	date: 2024-04-25T00:00:00 title: Indicative plenary sitting date
procedure/dossier_of_the_committee	AFCO/9/15088
procedure/stage_reached	Old Preparatory phase in Parliament New Awaiting committee decision

2024-04-12Show (4) Changes | Timetravel

events/1	date 2024-04-10T00:00:00 type Committee referral announced in Parliament body EP
forecasts	date: 2024-04-25T00:00:00 title: Indicative plenary sitting date
procedure/dossier_of_the_committee	AFCO/9/15088
procedure/stage_reached	Old Preparatory phase in Parliament New Awaiting committee decision

2024-04-11Show (1) Changes | Timetravel

forecasts

date: 2024-04-25T00:00:00 title: Indicative plenary sitting date

2024-04-10Show (1) Changes | Timetravel

forecasts

date: 2024-04-25T00:00:00 title: Indicative plenary sitting date

2024-04-03Show (2) Changes | Timetravel

committees/0

type: Responsible Committee

body: EP

committee_full: Constitutional Affairs

committee: AFCO

associated: False

rapporteur: name: FREUND Daniel date: 2024-03-20T00:00:00 group: Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance abbr: Verts/ALE

shadows: name: SIMON Sven group: Group of European People's Party abbr: EPP name: CIMOSZEWICZ Włodzimierz group: Group of Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats abbr: S&D name: BOYER Gilles group: Renew Europe group abbr: Renew name: SARYUSZ-WOLSKI Jacek group: European Conservatives and Reformists Group abbr: ECR name: CHAIBI Leila group: The Left group in the European Parliament - GUE/NGL abbr: GUE/NGL

committees/0

type: Responsible Committee

body: EP

committee_full: Constitutional Affairs

committee: AFCO

associated: False

rapporteur: name: FREUND Daniel date: 2024-03-20T00:00:00 group: Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance abbr: Verts/ALE

shadows: name: SIMON Sven group: Group of European People's Party abbr: EPP name: CIMOSZEWICZ Włodzimierz group: Group of Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats abbr: S&D name: BOYER Gilles group: Renew Europe group abbr: Renew

2024-04-02Show (2) Changes | Timetravel

committees/0

type: Responsible Committee

body: EP

committee_full: Constitutional Affairs

committee: AFCO

associated: False

rapporteur: name: FREUND Daniel date: 2024-03-20T00:00:00 group: Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance abbr: Verts/ALE

shadows: name: SIMON Sven group: Group of European People's Party abbr: EPP name: CIMOSZEWICZ Włodzimierz group: Group of Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats abbr: S&D name: BOYER Gilles group: Renew Europe group abbr: Renew name: SARYUSZ-WOLSKI Jacek group: European Conservatives and Reformists Group abbr: ECR name: CHAIBI Leila group: The Left group in the European Parliament - GUE/NGL abbr: GUE/NGL

committees/0

type: Responsible Committee

body: EP

committee_full: Constitutional Affairs

committee: AFCO

associated: False

rapporteur: name: FREUND Daniel date: 2024-03-20T00:00:00 group: Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance abbr: Verts/ALE

shadows: name: SIMON Sven group: Group of European People's Party abbr: EPP name: CIMOSZEWICZ Włodzimierz group: Group of Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats abbr: S&D name: BOYER Gilles group: Renew Europe group abbr: Renew

2024-04-01Show (2) Changes | Timetravel

committees/0

type: Responsible Committee

body: EP

committee_full: Constitutional Affairs

committee: AFCO

associated: False

rapporteur: name: FREUND Daniel date: 2024-03-20T00:00:00 group: Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance abbr: Verts/ALE

shadows: name: SIMON Sven group: Group of European People's Party abbr: EPP name: CIMOSZEWICZ Włodzimierz group: Group of Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats abbr: S&D name: BOYER Gilles group: Renew Europe group abbr: Renew name: SARYUSZ-WOLSKI Jacek group: European Conservatives and Reformists Group abbr: ECR name: CHAIBI Leila group: The Left group in the European Parliament - GUE/NGL abbr: GUE/NGL

committees/0

type: Responsible Committee

body: EP

committee_full: Constitutional Affairs

committee: AFCO

associated: False

rapporteur: name: FREUND Daniel date: 2024-03-20T00:00:00 group: Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance abbr: Verts/ALE

shadows: name: SIMON Sven group: Group of European People's Party abbr: EPP name: CIMOSZEWICZ Włodzimierz group: Group of Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats abbr: S&D name: BOYER Gilles group: Renew Europe group abbr: Renew

2024-03-31Show (2) Changes | Timetravel

committees/0

type: Responsible Committee

body: EP

committee_full: Constitutional Affairs

committee: AFCO

associated: False

rapporteur: name: FREUND Daniel date: 2024-03-20T00:00:00 group: Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance abbr: Verts/ALE

shadows: name: SIMON Sven group: Group of European People's Party abbr: EPP name: CIMOSZEWICZ Włodzimierz group: Group of Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats abbr: S&D name: BOYER Gilles group: Renew Europe group abbr: Renew name: SARYUSZ-WOLSKI Jacek group: European Conservatives and Reformists Group abbr: ECR name: CHAIBI Leila group: The Left group in the European Parliament - GUE/NGL abbr: GUE/NGL

committees/0

type: Responsible Committee

body: EP

committee_full: Constitutional Affairs

committee: AFCO

associated: False

rapporteur: name: FREUND Daniel date: 2024-03-20T00:00:00 group: Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance abbr: Verts/ALE

shadows: name: SIMON Sven group: Group of European People's Party abbr: EPP name: CIMOSZEWICZ Włodzimierz group: Group of Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats abbr: S&D name: BOYER Gilles group: Renew Europe group abbr: Renew

2024-03-30Show (2) Changes | Timetravel

committees/0

type: Responsible Committee

body: EP

committee_full: Constitutional Affairs

committee: AFCO

associated: False

rapporteur: name: FREUND Daniel date: 2024-03-20T00:00:00 group: Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance abbr: Verts/ALE

shadows: name: SIMON Sven group: Group of European People's Party abbr: EPP name: CIMOSZEWICZ Włodzimierz group: Group of Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats abbr: S&D name: BOYER Gilles group: Renew Europe group abbr: Renew name: SARYUSZ-WOLSKI Jacek group: European Conservatives and Reformists Group abbr: ECR name: CHAIBI Leila group: The Left group in the European Parliament - GUE/NGL abbr: GUE/NGL

committees/0

type: Responsible Committee

body: EP

committee_full: Constitutional Affairs

committee: AFCO

associated: False

rapporteur: name: FREUND Daniel date: 2024-03-20T00:00:00 group: Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance abbr: Verts/ALE

shadows: name: SIMON Sven group: Group of European People's Party abbr: EPP name: CIMOSZEWICZ Włodzimierz group: Group of Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats abbr: S&D name: BOYER Gilles group: Renew Europe group abbr: Renew

2024-03-28Show (2) Changes

committees/0

type: Responsible Committee

body: EP

committee_full: Constitutional Affairs

committee: AFCO

associated: False

rapporteur: name: FREUND Daniel date: 2024-03-20T00:00:00 group: Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance abbr: Verts/ALE

shadows: name: SIMON Sven group: Group of European People's Party abbr: EPP name: CIMOSZEWICZ Włodzimierz group: Group of Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats abbr: S&D name: BOYER Gilles group: Renew Europe group abbr: Renew name: SARYUSZ-WOLSKI Jacek group: European Conservatives and Reformists Group abbr: ECR name: CHAIBI Leila group: The Left group in the European Parliament - GUE/NGL abbr: GUE/NGL

committees/0

type: Responsible Committee

body: EP

committee_full: Constitutional Affairs

committee: AFCO

associated: False

rapporteur: name: FREUND Daniel date: 2024-03-20T00:00:00 group: Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance abbr: Verts/ALE

shadows: name: SIMON Sven group: Group of European People's Party abbr: EPP name: CIMOSZEWICZ Włodzimierz group: Group of Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats abbr: S&D name: BOYER Gilles group: Renew Europe group abbr: Renew

Progress: Procedure completed, awaiting publication in Official Journal

Lead committee dossier:

AFCO/9/15088

Subjects

Links

Events

Documents

Activities

History

ParlTrack - 2011-2024