11 Amendments of Rosa D'AMATO related to 2020/2133(INI)
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Emphasises that the highest standards of transparency and integrity in the EU institutions are essential to enabling citizens to fully exercise their democratic right to participate in the EU’s decision- making process and thus to enhancing the democratic legitimacy and credibility of the Union while restoring confidence in the European integration process; recalls that, in her Political Guidelines for the 2019- 2024 Commission, the President of the Commission committed to work for the creation of an independent ethics body common to all EU institutions and stressed that if citizens were to have faith in the EU, its institutions should be open and beyond reproach on ethics, transparency and integrity; recalls that the right to petition must be enhanced providesing citizens with the mobest accessible waysupport in order to enter into and maintain a direct dialogue with representatives from the EU institutions andwith a view to solving problems affecting them, thus contributesing to improving openness, responsiveness and accountability while bridging the gap between citizens and EU institutions;
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. Highlights that over the recent years multiple cases of unethical behaviours and breaches of the rules remained unsanctioned, confirming that the current EU ethics oversight system continues to be affected by severe shortcomings and inconsistencies;
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Underlines the particular interest that citizens have for transparency and integrity in the functioning of the EU institutions as revealed by a number of petitions received by the Committee on Petitions that call for morefull transparency1 , in particular in, inter alia, the decision-making of the Council and its contacts with lobbyists; raises its concerns over the appointment procedures of EU senior officials2 and over allegedthe handling of conflicts of interests of Commissioners and breaches of MEPs’ code of conduct3 ; notand over checks on transparency obligations and the verification of compliance with revolving doors rules; underlines also that, as in previous years, the majority of inquiries closed by the European Ombudsman in 2019 concerned transparency and accountability, including public access to information and documents; _________________ 1Petitions Nos 0134/2019, 0939/2018, 0161/2017, 1367/2015, 0696/2015, 0698/2013. 2Petitions Nos 0224/2018 and 0799/2018, 0799/2018. 3Petitions Nos 0742/2017, 1004/2016, 2485/2014, 1984/2014.
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Stresses that a high level offull transparency ofin the legislative process is essential to enabling citizens to hold their elected representatives and governments accountable; reiterates, therefore, its call on the Council to improve its rules and practices on transparency of its legislative process in line with the recommendations of the European Ombudsman, which have been overwhelmingly supported by Parliament in its resolution of 17 January 2019 on the Ombudsman’s strategic inquiry OI/2/2017 on the transparency of legislative discussions in the preparatory bodies of the Council of the EU4 , which was based on the joint report of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs and the Committee on Petitions; _________________ 4 Texts adopted, P8_TA(2019)0045.
Amendment 47 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Underlines the important role that the European Ombudsman plays in ensuring the highest standards of transparency and integrity in the EU institutions; calls on its Committee on Constitutional Affairs committee to consider and to take fully into account the experience providall shortcomings and gaps of the current EU ethics framework, as also confirmed in the inquiries conducted by the European Ombudsman, when reflecting on the possible establishment of anworking on strengthening ethical rules and their enforcement by establishing a single independent EU ethics body; suggests the setting upconclusion of an EU interinstitutional working group that is tasked with discussing and formulating recommendations onagreement to set up an EU Ethics Body for Parliament and the Commission, open to the participation of all EU institutions, agencies and bodies with a view to improving all aspects related to the subject matter;
Amendment 56 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5 a. Is convinced that the independent EU ethics body must be given monitoring powers over ethics standards as well as advisory, investigative and enforcement powers;
Amendment 58 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 b (new)
Paragraph 5 b (new)
5 b. Believes that the independent EU ethics body must be provided with adequate human and financial resources in order for it to effectively fulfil its tasks and designed to issue legally binding decisions, which may be appealed against before the CJEU and may be subject to complaints to the EU Ombudsman;
Amendment 60 #
6. Stresses the important role played bykey role the Parliament must play, as representative of the citizens of the EU, including in its oversight of the Commission and other institutions on behalf of the public the process of enhancing the current EU ethics oversight system applying across all EU Institutions, agencies and bodies, in order to increase public trust in the EU decision-making processes;
Amendment 71 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Reiterates, therefore, the need for the highest ethical standards for the Members of the European Parliament and calls for a strong advisory body within Parliament , consisting,all EU Institutions, agencies and bodies and highlights the paramount importance that the provisions of the interinstitutional agreement to set up the single independent EU ethics body cover Members and staff of the participating institutions before, during and after the term of office or service in line with the applicable rules; calls for a strong single independent EU ethics body, consisting of Members selected by the Commission, elected by Parliament and assigned de jure from among others, of highly respectable former Members with a staunch record of responsiveness to the public opinion former Presidents of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), the Court of Auditors and former EU Ombudsmen, chosen on the basis of their integrity, competence, experience and absence of conflicts of interest; demands for a gender balanced composition of the independent EU ethics body;
Amendment 78 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Underlines the fact that strengthenreplacing the existing procedures on the basis of analysis and evaluation of their effectiveness and public response is generally more effective than the introduction of new fragmented procedures based on a self-regulatory approach by introducing a more effective EU ethics oversight system with the creation of a new single independent EU ethics body is paramount in order to guarantee a consistent and full implementation of ethics standards across the EU Institutiones;
Amendment 86 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Considers, as the committee most directly engaged with the public opinion and public response to the institutions’ transparency and integrity, that the democratic approach and political responsibility remamust be reinforced by adoptinsg the strongest controlethics mechanism, necessary in any constitutional democracy, as well as in the EUnd therefore also in the EU, in order to ensure that public decisions are taken in the general interest; stresses the need for further strengthening of the democratic accountability mechanisms at EU level.