33 Amendments of Alexis GEORGOULIS related to 2020/2133(INI)
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Emphasises that highest standards of transparency, accountability and integrity in the EU institutions are essential to enabling citizens to 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 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 provides citizens with the most accessible way to enter into and maintain a direct dialogue with representatives from the EU institutions and thus contributes to improving openness, responsiveness and accountability while bridging the gap between citizens and EU institutions; notes that openness requires relevant adjustments to facilitate citizens’ participation in the EU decision-making by ensuring inclusiveness and by removing any barriers relative to bureaucracy, accessibility and know- how, among others; notes that the procedures for citizens’ participation in the EU decision-making should be as simplified as possible and easy for citizens to understand; highlights that along with the digital communication channels there is a need to empower traditional communication channels, so that citizens of low web literacy or limited web access may still have equal opportunities to the EU participation, dialogues and decision- making; suggests that the proposed independent Ethics Body should be established as serving both roles in a manner of coordination, working for transparency inwards and outwards, that is within EU institutions and in direct dialogue with the citizens and the Citizen’s Society;
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. Highlights that the EU institutions should lead by example regarding transparency, accountability and integrity; notes there are lessons to take from the management of the current COVID-19 crisis and especially the vaccination agreements, which eventually hampered citizens’ trust on the European Institutions; urges the Commission to take specific measures to secure the highest transparency standards adequately, timely and throughout all the stages of the decision procedures in the future, even if emergency procedures are followed; in this context, welcomes the establishment of an independent Ethics Body or the development of any existing body to an independent ethics coordination authority;
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)
Paragraph 1 b (new)
1 b. Notes that the proposed Ethics Body or any existing body to be further developed to an independent ethics coordination authority should pay special attention to monitoring institutions and agreements where there is the greatest risk of deviating from transparency, agreements with financial transaction higher than a certain amount or agreements and contracts of the EU institutions relating with public health and safety;
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 c (new)
Paragraph 1 c (new)
1 c. Calls on the Commission to consider specific measures to ensure that highest standards of transparency, accountability and integrity are horizontally embedded in all the EU procedures and across the EU institutions in a coordinated manner; therefore, welcomes the establishment of an independent Ethics Body with the authority to verify certain transparency standards of agreements and proceed to cancellations where needed as well as to monitor and control procedures, persons and bodies, and impose sanctions where needed; suggests that the role of ethics coordinator with the above mentioned authorities should be assigned to one of the existing bodies of the EU, in case no Ethics Body is established;
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 d (new)
Paragraph 1 d (new)
1 d. Calls on the Commission to take further and specific measures in order to strengthen transparency and integrity in all agreements of EU bodies relevant with financing and budgets; suggests to include, under the authority of the Ethics Body or another independent ethics coordination authority, all EU decision- making procedures relevant with EU public spending, funding or getting any provision supplies and financially relevant transactions;
Amendment 16 #
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 more transparency1 , in particular in the decision-making of the Council and its contacts with lobbyists; raises its concerns over the appointment procedures of EU senior officials2 and over alleged conflicts of interests of Commissioners and breaches of MEPs’ code of conduct3 ; nNotes 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.highlights that democracy, transparency and integrity presuppose openness and inclusiveness; suggests that all EU websites and documents, with a special focus on transparency-sensitive documents, should be timely available in all official EU languages;
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. Notes that although there has been some relevant improvement, according to the EU survey in EU citizenship, there is still the need to work with a special focus on citizens’ information and awareness on the ways they may use in order to exercise their democratic rights; stresses that already in-place channels for citizens to participate in the EU decision-making, such as the right of petition to the European Parliament, recourse to the European Ombudsman, or public consultations, need to improve in terms of visibility, accessibility, inclusiveness and coordination; suggests that the establishment of an independent Ethics Body or the further development of any other existing independent ethics coordination authority should also serve as a central coordination portal of all channels of citizen’s participation in the EU decision-making; suggests that the inauguration of the Ethics Body or of any other existing independent ethics coordination authority under further development should facilitate relevant awareness raising with specific communication measures; calls on the Commission to prioritize citizens’ access to information on the Union’s activities in its external communication strategy;
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)
Paragraph 2 b (new)
2 b. Suggests to include on the annual regular function of the proposed Ethics Body or of any other existing independent ethics coordination authority under further development of a scheduled and systematic conduct of evaluation assessments, where citizens may give their input and evaluate the available channels and procedures for their participation in EU dialogues and decision-making;
Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 c (new)
Paragraph 2 c (new)
2 c. Stresses that a change in rules and practices such as the establishment of an independent Ethic Body at EU level or the further development of any existing body to an independent ethics coordination authority should have in place open procedures in order to take into account the opinion of citizens and Citizens’ Society;
Amendment 25 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 d (new)
Paragraph 2 d (new)
2 d. Suggests in the context of the function of the Ethics Body or of any other existing independent ethics coordination authority under further development, the establishment of scheduled and regular public hearings on citizens’ dialogues and citizens’ participation in the EU decision-making, where citizens, stakeholders and Citizens’ Society representatives may take the floor and express their views on measures to improve civic engagement in the EU decision making;
Amendment 26 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 e (new)
Paragraph 2 e (new)
2 e. Suggests, along with the establishment of the Ethics Body or of any other existing independent ethics coordination authority under further development, to proceed to the design of an EU Civic Participation Strategy, including an action plan and a media plan; suggests the setting of specific aims and measurable goals for such a strategy, including quotas to secure gender balance and overall representation of the diversity of European society; suggests the setting of long-term goals; highlights the importance of an ultimate goal to increase citizens’ participation in the European elections;
Amendment 27 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 f (new)
Paragraph 2 f (new)
2 f. Suggests the conduct of scientific social research in order to explore the parameters suggested by citizens and the Citizen’s Society that the Commission should focus on in order to improve civic participation in the EU decision- making,including the establishment of the independent Ethics Body or the further development of any other existing body to an independent ethics coordination authority;
Amendment 28 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Stresses that athe highest level of transparency of 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; _________________ 4urges the EU Institutions to provide timely and fully transparent access to the public during all preparatory stages of the legislative and other documents and processes; suggests that legislative discussions should be on live web stream and the relevant minutes made available to the general public as soon as possible and shortly after the proceedings; Texts adopted, P8_TA(2019)0045.
Amendment 34 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3 a. Highlights that MEPs and senior officials of the EU institutions should lead by example regarding transparency, accountability and integrity; suggests the strengthening of the measures to prevent incidents of revolving doors and conflicts of interests; in this regard, suggests for a common framework and definition of conflict of interest and revolving doors to be used in all EU institutions;
Amendment 37 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Considers that the EU institutions should apply the highest ethical standards to prevent any episodes of revolving doors and any conflicts of interests, also with regard to the appointments to senior positions in the EU institutions and agencies; notes that in cases where ethical standards are proven as inadequate, there should be sanctions imposed, varying from soft to severe sanctions, depending on the offense and according to a framework of sanctions with specific rules and procedures; expresses its concern that any such episodes, even if legally admissible, are undermining the overall credibility of the EU institutions and often used by anti- European propaganda as a means of introducing euro-scepticism to the publiccitizen’s trust on the EU institutions;
Amendment 42 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4 a. Notes that the creation of a strict and clear framework of prevention and of sanctions would work as a precaution in order to avoid violations; suggests that prevention measures may include freezing time intervals after occupation in senior EU positions, disclosure of breaches where proven as required may as well act as a deterrent; suggests that the proposed Ethics Body or any existing body to be further developed to an independent ethics coordination authority should be plainly assigned the authority of monitoring procedures, applying controls on its own initiative and enforcing sanctions where required and after relevant procedures to safely prove the truth; suggests to include the creation of a common framework of sanctions, varying from soft to severe, according to specific rules and procedures based on the offence, including the return of financial resources or of any other fortune where proven as legitimately required;
Amendment 45 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)
Paragraph 4 b (new)
4 b. Considers that the procedures for selecting persons for senior positions should be carried out with fully objective criteria and fully transparent to the general public; highlights that there should be a framework in place for expressing questions and objections, along with open follow-up procedures and the power to cancel decision that may be proven as of inadequate transparency and integrity;
Amendment 52 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Underlines the important role that the European Ombudsman plays in ensuring high standards of transparency and integrity in the EU institutions; calls on its Committee on Constitutional Affairs committee to consider and to take into account the experience provided by the European Ombudsman when reflecting on the possible establishment of an independent ethics body; suggests the setting up of an EU interinstitutional working group that is tasked with discussing and formulating recommendations on all aspects related to the subject matter; suggests that the interinstitutional working group focuses on utilizing accumulated experience aiming at the best possible effectiveness and optimization of coordination for the proposed Ethics Body; suggests that if there is evidence that there may be more efficient alternatives in terms of coordination than establishing a new body, then they should be thoroughly examined as well;
Amendment 54 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5 a. Recalls that there is no common definition of ethics in the EU law; notes in this regard that there is a need to reach an agreement among the institutions on definitions to be accordingly used regarding ethics, transparency, integrity, accountability, morality, trust and conflict of interest, among others; underlines the need for relevant institutional change so that the treaties plainly define ethics with no open interpretations; suggests to include this review into the Future of Europe;
Amendment 57 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 b (new)
Paragraph 5 b (new)
5 b. Notes that the Ethics Body or any existing body to be further developed to an independent ethics coordination authority should have full access to all the data needed during audit process and any control procedures over the auditees, including personal data, banking data, tax data and all financial situation data and data of relatives or other approximates where the case is valid, among others;
Amendment 59 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 c (new)
Paragraph 5 c (new)
5 c. Highlights the need for the Ethics Body or any existing body to be further developed to an independent ethics coordination authority to monitor and conduct systematic controls in order to ensure that the EU institutions and any third parties in collaboration with the EU institutions, including those enlisted in the Transparency Registry, keep covering transparency criteria overtime;
Amendment 63 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Stresses the important role played by Parliament as representative of the citizens of the EU, including in its oversight of the Commission and other institutions on behalf of the public; suggests that nominees by the European Parliament to participate in the independent Ethics Body or in any existing body to be developed to an independent ethics coordination authority should follow democratic procedures and should be voted by the two third of the plenary;
Amendment 65 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6 a. Emphasizes that the independent Ethics Body or any existing body to be developed to an independent ethics coordination authority should follow democratic procedures and should be governed by a scheme including equal representation by all institutions; suggests that the relevant governance scheme should as well respect gender parity;
Amendment 66 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 b (new)
Paragraph 6 b (new)
6 b. Suggests that the independent Ethics Body or any existing body to be developed to an independent ethics coordination authority should include in its function certain mechanisms for complaint management internally in the EU institutions, so that concerns about potential breaches may be confidentially risen and discreetly examined;
Amendment 67 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 c (new)
Paragraph 6 c (new)
6 c. Suggests that the independent Ethics Body or any existing body to be developed to an independent ethics coordination authority should include in its function certain mechanisms for complaint management coming from citizens or the Citizen’s Society under a certain framework, so that concerns about potential breaches may be confidentially risen and appropriately and discreetly examined;
Amendment 72 #
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, among others, of highly respectable former Members with a staunch record of responsiveness to the public opinon the Commission to establish an independent Ethics Body or to develop any existing body into an independent ethics coordination authority; highlights that this body should be assigned with the resources needed to effectively function monitoring and control as well as the authority to impose sanctions and to cancel decisions if proven as necessary;urges the Commission to ensure that no colleagues are to be placed as judges of other colleagues; namely, suggests not to place MEPs or former MEPs as judges of other MEPs; instead, suggests the procedure of the voting process where necessary, for the European Parliament to have a supervisory and control power, as one of the EU Institutions;
Amendment 75 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7 a. Notes that in this context it is necessary to adequately clarify any responsibilities and authorities of MEPs and members of any other body that are about to participate in order to ensure transparency and integrity;
Amendment 80 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Underlines the fact that strengthening 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 ones; considers of high importance to identify the weaknesses of the current system and address them; notes that sound feasibility studies should be the basis for the decisive criteria on the creation of a new independent Ethics Body or the further development of an existing body to an independent ethics coordination authority;
Amendment 82 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8 a. Stresses that the procedures used should be evaluated at regular intervals in order to judge their effectiveness and in case they do not bring the desired results should be changed or replaced by other procedures;
Amendment 85 #
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, highest ethics, transparency and accountability standards remains the strongest control mechanism in any constitutional democracy, as well as in the EU; stresses the need for further strengthening of the democratic accountability mechanisms at EU level. , either with the establishment of anew independent Ethics Body or by the further development of an existing body to an independent ethics coordination authority;
Amendment 88 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9 a. Stresses that information should be provided to citizens without discrimination; to this end, suggests for the relevant technical or other adjustments to be made on the websites of the EU institutions so that people with disabilities and people with dyslexia or any other reading difficulties may equally receive complete and understandable information;
Amendment 89 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 b (new)
Paragraph 9 b (new)
9 b. Highlights that those who are audited must be accountable to both the European institutions and the citizens; stresses that there should be a sanctions range, including return of financial resources or other items of wealth when proven as legitimately required;
Amendment 90 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 c (new)
Paragraph 9 c (new)
9 c. Stresses that the procedures used should be regularly evaluated in order to monitor their effectiveness and apply quality improvements where necessary.