Activities of Pascal DURAND related to 2020/2133(INI)
Legal basis opinions (0)
Amendments (30)
Amendment 4 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 13
Citation 13
— having regard to the recommendations of Transparency International, the Council of Europe’s Group of States against Corruption (GRECO), and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD),
Amendment 8 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas the TEU stipulates that ‘the Union shall observe the principle of the equality of its citizens, who shall receive equal attention from its institutions, bodies and agencies’; whereas this implies that public decisions are taken in the interest of the common good and not according to the financial power of individual actors;
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Notes that the European institutions have a fragmented approach to the prevention of conflicts of interest and that each institution applies its own rules; considers that the establishment of a new ethics body could contribute to a harmonised interpretation of existing rules and to strengthening their implementation;
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. Notes that the European Parliament has established the Advisory Committee on the Conduct of Members as the body responsible for giving Members guidance on the interpretation and implementation of the Code of Conduct; it also assesses alleged breaches of the Code of Conduct and advises the President on possible action to be taken;
Amendment 23 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas the shortcomings of the current EU ethics framework derive largely from the fact that it relies on a self- regulatory approach and lacks adequate human, due to the absence of EU Criminal law, and financialsufficient resources and competences to verify information;
Amendment 34 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital E a (new)
Recital E a (new)
E a. whereas the European Court of Auditors recommended, in its Special Report 13/2019, the use of a harmonised approach to handling ethical issues within the EU institutions;
Amendment 42 #
6. Considers that for proper expertise to be acquired, the future ethics body should have a permanent, independent and collegiate structure, and that its composition could be based either on specific institutional positions, such as that of the President of the Court of Justice, or on the nomination of experts by each EU institution; considers that the members of the college must offer guarantees in terms of independence, impartiality, integrity, probity and experience;
Amendment 42 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
G. whereas allsome lead candidates in the 2019 European elections committed tosupported the creation of an independent ethics body common to all EU institutions; whereas the President of the Commission committed tosupports it in her political guidelines and whereas Parliament has already supported this view;
Amendment 53 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Recommends therefore that, while fully keeping its competence on the matter, the Committee on Legal Affairs decide on the existence of a conflict of interest after having received a non-binding recommendation by such an independent expert advisory body, which would have the effect of strengthening its action;
Amendment 62 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Believes furthermore that this future advisory body could also be entrusted with thea broader task ofsupport role in order to examininge conflicts of interest within the EU institutions and agencies in general, including for Members of the European Parliament and senior officials, playing, in a complementary and balanced way, a preventive role via awareness raising and ethical guidance powers on the one hand, and a compliance role on the other.
Amendment 69 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Considers that the examination of conflicts of interest should be carried out on taking up a post, during the performance of the duties involved and on leaving a post; is of the opinion that such an examination should include the checking of statements made and compliance with the rules on transparency and lobbying the European institutions;
Amendment 69 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 – introductory part
Paragraph 2 – introductory part
2. Considers that the new EU Ethics Body should be delegated a list of competences to implementpropose and advise on ethics rules for Members and staff; takes the view that this list should include by way of a minimum the competences provided for in:
Amendment 72 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 b (new)
Paragraph 8 b (new)
8b. Considers that an institutional culture based on prevention, support and transparency requires close cooperation with the various bodies and institutions subject to oversight; considers that, in due course, internal administrative services responsible for ethical issues could be replaced by contact points responsible for relations with the European ethics body;
Amendment 74 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 – indent 2
Paragraph 2 – indent 2
- Parliament’s Rules of Procedure: Rules 2, 10(5, 6 and 7) and 11, 176(1), Annex I, Articles 1 to 3, 4(6), 5 and 6 and Annex II,
Amendment 76 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 c (new)
Paragraph 8 c (new)
8c. Considers that such a body should have investigative powers, as well as the power to request and have access to administrative documents;
Amendment 77 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 – indent 3
Paragraph 2 – indent 3
- the Commission’s Rules of Procedure: Article 9, its Code of Conduct, Article 2 and Articles 5-11, and Annex II, and its Decision of 25 November 2014 on the publication of information on meetings held between Members of the Commission and organisations or self-employed individuals, and the same decision for Directors-General,
Amendment 79 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 d (new)
Paragraph 8 d (new)
8d. Considers that the consultation, prevention and support tasks of the future ethics body could be accompanied by the possibility of sanctions in order to ensure that its recommendations are followed up; considers that the publication or forwarding of recommendations and opinions could constitute a form of sanction in itself; stresses that such a body should not replace the CJEU;
Amendment 80 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 – indent 4
Paragraph 2 – indent 4
- the Staff Regulation’s Articles 11, 11(a), 12, 12(a), 12(b), 13, 15, 16, 17, 19, 21(a), 22(a), 22(c), 24, 27 and 40, applying mutatis mutandis to all personnel employed by the agencies if signatories of the IIA
Amendment 83 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. Recalls the difference between Members of Parliament who are elected and receive allowances, and civil servants who are appointed and receive a salary; stresses that for the former, control should take place after the election, and for the latter before the appointment
Amendment 86 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 d (new)
Paragraph 2 d (new)
2 d. Points out, however, that the final decision making concerning the adoption of ethics rules as well as decisions on sanctions remain the prerogative of the participating Institutions
Amendment 90 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Believes that the Members and staff of the participating institutions should be covered by the agreement before, during and in some cases after the term of office or service in line with the applicable rules; considers that this should apply to Members of Parliament, Commissioners and all EU staff falling under the scope of the Staff Regulation;
Amendment 95 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Insists that the IIA should be open to the participation of all EU institutions and bodies; believes that the IIA should allow the Ethics Body to conclude agreements with national authorities with a view to ensuring the exchange of information and best practices necessary for the performance of its tasks;
Amendment 106 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Considers that the participating institutions should entrust the EU Ethics Body with monitoring powers over ethics standards, as well as advisory, investigative and enforcement powersthe capacity to propose sanctions, if appropriate;
Amendment 108 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5 a. Highlights that public officials are not in a position to conduct self- assessments concerning matters of conflict of interest or the respect of ethical standards; underlines that this task should fall under the competence of the EU Ethics body, as an independent specialised third party;
Amendment 118 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6 a. Believes that the EU ethics body should conduct studies, compile annual statistics on financial interest declarations, revolving door cases and other relevant information;
Amendment 119 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 b (new)
Paragraph 6 b (new)
6 b. Considers that the new EU Ethics Body should have competence to contribute by way of proposals to the development and periodic update of a common ethical framework for the EU institutions, including common rules and a common model for declarations of financial interests in a machine-readable format;
Amendment 125 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7 a. Considers that the EU Ethics Body should be given the task to develop an EU public portal with relevant information on ethics rules, reports on best practices, studies, statistics, as well as a database containing the declarations of financial interests of all the participating institutions;
Amendment 135 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Believes that in relation to its enforcement powers, the body cshould take over from the Appointing Authority in dealing with staff ethics obligations, and that in relation to Members of Parliament or Commissioners, the body could be granted enforcement powers within the limits of the provisions contained in the Treaties, and without prejudice to any additional mechanisms provided for in Parliament’s Rules of Procedure, in particular concerning termination of officeissue recommandations to the responsible authorities of the respective participative Institutions and without prejudice to any additional mechanisms;
Amendment 172 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Suggests that each institution choose these members in particular from among former judges of the CJEU, former or current members of highest courts of Member States, former Members of the European Parliament, former staff of the participating institutions and bodies, former EU Ombudsmen, and members of the ethics authorities in Member States; suggests further that the body elect a President and two Vice- Presidents from among its members;
Amendment 187 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Proposes a two-step approach whereby, in the event that the EU Ethics Body becomes aware of a breach or possible breach of ethics rules, it first recommends actions to put an end to the breach; considers that this first preventive step should ensure confidentiality and the right of the person to be heard; suggests that in the event that the individual concerned refuses to take the appropriate actions, the EU Ethics Body should make relevant information, without prejudice to the GDPR, about the case publicly available and drecideommend, if appropriate, on sanctions; considers that this two-step approach should apply provided that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the individual acted in bad faith and recommends that intentional breach, gross negligence, the concealment of evidence and non- compliance with the obligation to cooperate should be, as such, subject to sanctions, even when the breach itself has ceased;