10 Amendments of Monika HOHLMEIER related to 2020/2133(INI)
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Recalls that the European Court of Auditors (ECA) identified serious weaknesses in this regard in its 2019 audit on the ethical frameworks of the EU institutions, which concludes that improvements need to be made through harmonisation, awareness raising and strengthening of EU ethics rules; sharn its special report 13/20191a on the ethical frameworks of the EU institutions stated that Parliament, Council and Commission “have, to large extent, adequate ethical frameworks in place for both staff and Members” and identified certain areas where the coverage, specificity, clarify and level of guidance could be improved and harmonised; notes the ECA’s concernobservations about the absence of a common EU ethical framework governing the work of Member States’ representatives in the Council; _________________ 1a https://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECADoc uments/SR19_13/SR_ethical_frameworks _EN.pdf
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Emphasises that the high level of fragmentationfragmentation shows a lack of common understanding and different standards under comparable circumstances in the ethics legal framework ands of the lack of oversight have prevented the proper implementation of codes of conduct in EU indifferent EU institutions, bodies and organs; believes that a more harmonised approach in important areas such as whistle-blower protection is needed and to fill existing legislative gaps such as a non-existing Commissioner’s stiatutions; believes that the current self-regulatory approach is not fit for purpose and cannot guarantee integritye; acknowledges the differences in the nature of the various institutions, explicitly the legally guaranteed independence of Judges of the European Court of Justice, of the Members of ECA, of the Members of the European Parliament, national Parliament or national governments; underlines the need to enhance the integrity of the EU institutions and restore public trustto strengthen public trust and to overcome existing weaknesses;
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Encourages the creation of an Independent Ethics Body (IEB) common to all EU institutions; welcomes the fact that the Commission has made it a priority, and is committed to supporting the IEB’s effort to establish a common ethical framework at EU level; initiatives to create a Commissioner’s statute and to ensure aligned rules across EU agencies and other EU organs; asks the President and the Bureau of the European Parliament to identify in cooperation with the other institutions common areas as well as particular circumstances requiring a differentiated approach with the goal to strengthen their integrity; welcomes the fact that the Commission has made it a priority, and is committed to supporting this idea together through a common ethical framework that is respectful of the particularities of each institution as well as the institutional balance and democratic role of each institution and its members as established by the Treaties; reminds that the principle of separation of power is the foundation pillar of modern democracy; considers it imperative for the legislative to control the executive, as any reversal of the roles and powers of the legislative and executive would otherwise endanger the independence of the free mandate of elected Members of Parliament;
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Sees high potential for the EU institutions to transfer administrative decision-making competences to the IEB based on a new harmonised ethics framework that it will establish, which should include common rules on the publication of declarations of interests,Encourages a creation of clear rules on the avoidance of conflicts of interest and revs, coolving doors, acceptance of gifts and entertainment, protection of whistle- blowers and victims of harassment, transparency of lobby meetings, public procurement and meeting calendars of senior staff, and use of transparent bank accounts for public fund-off periods, undue interference on political decisions, rules of publication, direct and indirect gifts, protection of whistle-blowers and victims;
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Believes that empowering the IEB with the current internal ethics functions ofReminds that the Treaties of the European Union are the primary law and reside at the top of the hierarchy of norms; the Treaties establish the EU’s institutions will concentrate expertise, create synergies and hence improve the implementationand clearly define their competences and decision-making powers (Article 13 TEU); Parliament together with the Council are the co-legislators (Article 14(1) TEU); reminds that under the Treaties, the Court of Justice of the European Union is the supreme judicial body of ethics rules; is confidente EU(Article 19 TEU); there can be no higher judicial decision-making authority above it; under no circumstances can secondary law contradict or amend primary law; reminds that, this transfer of competence will represent considerable savings for the EU budgeterefore, the establishment of an independent ethics body with the power to make binding decisions on the EU’s institutions and organs counter to the separation of powers laid down in the Treaties, would imperatively require a change of the Treaties;
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Underlines that the IEB should be in charge of prevention, monitoring, investigation and enforcement of the ethical framework for the protection of the EU’s financial interests; highlights that the IEB screation of a common ethics framework must respect the boundaries of competence of the EU’s institutions and the separation of power as defined in the Treaties; emphasises the need to respect and uphould be able to take disciplinary measures and impose financial sanctions in order to avoid abuse of the EU budget linked to unethical behaviourthe rule of law and to ensure that the common ethical framework is soundly based on the fundamental legal basis of the Treaties and the respect for rule of law in its implementation;
Amendment 27 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Highlights that tasks transferred to the IEB can go beyond those currently exercised by the institutions; calls for the IEB to assess the implementation of ethics rules byReminds that currently all institutions and EU bodies have their own set of ethics rules in place, where the final discretion on decisions and interpretation of the rules commonly rests with the respective presidents; emphasises the need of the support of each institution involved for the common framework to be effective; underlines that it would be desirable for the EU institutions and publish an annual to generally align their ethics rules where port on its findingsssible and identify areas for a harmonised approach;
Amendment 31 #
9. Calls for the IEBEU bodies to lead by example on transparency by publishing all relevant decisions and spending in a machine- readable open data format available to all citizens; strongly recommends thatin accordance with the applicable data-protection rules anyd software developed for upholding the ethical standards in EU public administration should be made available under a free and open-source software licence and should be shared with any institution in Europe wishing to use itpending in a machine-readable open data format available to all citizens;
Amendment 34 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Welcomes the signing of an interinstitutional agreement (IIA) between EU institutions to set up the IEB; emphasises the importance of the Council, including the Member States’ representatives working in the Council, joining the IIA in view of the ECA’s and European Ombudsman’s repeated requests to enhance the institution’s working ethics and transparency; recalls the obligation of the Council to deal with high-level conflicts of interest, revolving doors and lobby transparency rules; Underlines that with the creation of a new advisory ethics body for the Parliament, duplication of work and overlapping competences should be avoided, its decisions should take the form of non-binding recommendations to the President, who must remain in charge of the final decision-making power; calls for clear provisions giving the Person concerned a right of appeal against any such decision taken by the President in fully respect of the basic principles of rule of law; underlines that respect for the peculiarity of parliamentary work requires that this body be composed of current and former Members of the Parliament being knowledgeable about Parliaments rules of procedures and in accordance with Parliament’s rules of procedure on geographical, political and gender balance, and potentially supplemented with former Members of the Court of Justice of the EU or national Courts of highest instance;
Amendment 38 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Stresses the importance of enhanced mutual cooperation between the IEB and EU bodies such as the European Anti- Fraud Office (OLAF), the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO), the European Ombudsman, the European Court of Auditors (ECA) and others within their respective mandates, and of such cooperation generating a steady information exchange.