DOCSLIB.ORG

One Rule for Them, One Rule for Us

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

ONE RULE FOR THEM, ONE RULE FOR US Integrity double standards in the European Parliament This in-depth report is an update to the 2014 Transparency International EU study on the EU integrity system Transparency International EU (TI EU) is a regional office of the global anti-corruption movement, Transparency International. Working closely with the International Secretariat in Berlin, Germany, TI EU leads the movement’s EU-focused advocacy in close cooperation with over 100 national chapters worldwide, but particularly with the 23 chapters in EU Member States. TI EU’s mission is to prevent and address corruption and promote integrity, transparency and accountability in EU institutions and in EU internal and external policies, programmes and legislation. www.transparency.eu Authors: Angels Giménez Bofarull, Leo Hoffmann-Axthelm, Matilde Manzi, Vitor Teixeira Editor: Leo Hoffmann-Axthelm Design: www.beelzePub.com Photography: © Cover photo: © Sebastien Pirlet / European Parliament is licensed under CC BY 2.0 Page 8: © Leo Hoffmann-Axthelm Page 11: © Leo Hoffmann-Axthelm Page 14: © roma1880 via Pixabay Page 15: © European Parliament, licensed under CC BY 2.0 Page 16: © LeJC, licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 Page 18: © Maarten van den Heuvel via Unsplash Page 19: © European Parliament, licensed under CC BY 2.0 Page 21: © European Parliament, licensed under CC BY 2.0 Page 24: © Steven Lek, licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0 Page 25: © European Parliament, licensed under CC BY 2.0 Page 28: © Olnnu, licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 Page 29: © Simon Shim via Unsplash Page 32: © Gerd Altmann via Unsplash Page 34: © Didier Weemaels via Unsplash Page 37: © Michael Walter via Unsplash Page 38: © CherryX, licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 Page 42: © European Parliament, licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 Page 44: © JLogan, licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 Page 46: © European Cyclists’ Federation, licensed under CC BY 2.0 Page 47: © BP Miller via Unsplash Page 50: © Miguel Discart Page 52: © Nick Fewings via Unsplash Page 54: © European Parliament, licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 © 2021 Transparency International EU. All rights reserved. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Any mistakes are the responsibility of the authors alone and do not reflect the views of the members of the advisory group or any other persons consulted externally, either through interviews or our feedback and review process. Members of the advisory group to not bear responsibility for the final text. Transparency International EU would like to thank everyone who contributed to all stages of the research and preparation of this report. In particular the Senior Advisory Committee composed of: Mario Monti — Former EU Commissioner and former Prime Minister of Italy Reinhard Priebe — Former Director, European Commission Emilio de Capitani — Former Head of the Civil Liberties Committee Secretariat, European Parliament Jean Paul Jacqué — Former Director in the Legal Service, Council of the EU Alberto Alemanno — Professor of European Union Law & Policy, HEC Paris Lisbeth Kirk Iversen — Founder, EU Observer Monique Goyens — Director General, European Consumer Organisation (BEUC) We would also like to thank the Editorial Committee from the Transparency International Secretariat Every effort has been made to verify the accuracy of the information included in this report. All information was believed to be correct as of January 2021. Nevertheless, Transparency International EU cannot accept responsibility for the consequences of this information’s use for other purposes or in other contexts. This project was made possible with the support of: This publication reflects the views of the authors only. Project funders cannot be held responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein. ONE RULE FOR THEM, ONE RULE FOR US Integrity double standards in the European Parliament Acknowledgments ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4 POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 6 METHODOLOGY AND LACK OF COOPERATION ............................................................................................................................................................. 8 INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................10 ADMINISTRATIVE TRANSPARENCY ....................................................................................................................................................................................14 Internal structure and functioning .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 15 Politicisation of recruitment ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 18 Access to documents ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 19 2 LEGISLATIVE TRANSPARENCY .................................................................................................................................................................................................23 Trilogue transparency between Commission, Parliament and Council ............................................................................................. 24 Lobby transparency .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 31 ALLOWANCES FOR MEPS ............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 34 General Expenditure Allowance ..............................................................................................................................................................................................35 Parliamentary Assistance Allowance .................................................................................................................................................................................38 ETHICS ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................41 Reform of the Rules of Procedure .........................................................................................................................................................................................43 Revolving doors .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................44 Side-jobs ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................45 Conflicts of interest ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 47 Sanctions and the Advisory Committee ..........................................................................................................................................................................48 Rules for EP staff ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 51 Whistleblowing rules .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 51 Endnotes .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 57 List of abbreviations .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................65
Recommended publications
  • Legislative Power of the European Parliament Committees: Plenary

    Legislative Power of the European Parliament Committees: Plenary

    Legislative Power of the European Parliament Committees: Plenary Adoption of Committee Reports Nikoleta Yordanova European University Institute [email protected] Paper prepared for the 11th Biannual Conference of the European Union Studies Association Los Angeles, California, 23-25 April 2009 This paper questions the claim that the European Parliament (EP) is a legislature with strong committees. It examines to what extent the plenary adopts committee reports as the official parliamentary legislative positions under codecision. The committees’ impact is expected to be substantially weakened when an informal early agreement is reached with the Council. Furthermore, following the predictions of congressional theories, committees are expected to be more successful if the legislators drafting their reports have no special outlying interests, have relevant expertise, and are affiliated with big party groups. These hypotheses are tested on an original data set on all codecision reports which passed first reading in the 6th EP so far (2004- 2009). The findings suggests that indeed informal trilogue agreements significantly undermine committees’ legislative influence, which is somewhat counteracted by the expertise of rapporteurs. First draft. Please do not cite before consulting the author. Introduction For over a decade the European Parliament has served as an equal co-legislator with the Council of Ministers in drafting the European legislation falling under the codecision procedure. The latter procedure has significantly changed since it was first introduced in the Maastricht Treaty (1992). Most importantly, the Amsterdam Treaty (1999) abolished the Council’s ability to reinstate its position after three readings of unsuccessful negotiations with the EP and allowed for an early conclusion of codecision acts already in the first reading.
  • En En Draft Report

    En En Draft Report

    European Parliament 2019-2024 Committee on Constitutional Affairs 2020/2220(INL) 1.7.2021 DRAFT REPORT on the reform of the electoral law of the European Union (2020/2220(INL)) Committee on Constitutional Affairs Rapporteur: Domènec Ruiz Devesa PR\1235563EN.docx PE693.622v03-00 EN United in diversityEN PR_INL CONTENTS Page MOTION FOR A EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT RESOLUTION.............................................3 ANNEX TO THE MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION..............................................................11 PE693.622v03-00 2/31 PR\1235563EN.docx EN MOTION FOR A EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT RESOLUTION on the reform of the electoral law of the European Union (2020/2220(INL)) The European Parliament, – having regard to the Declaration of 9 May 1950 that proposed the creation of the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) as a first step in the federation of Europe, – having regard to the Act concerning the election of the members of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage ("the Electoral Act") annexed to the Council decision of 20 September 1976, as amended by Council Decision 2002/772/EC, Euratom, of 25 June and 23 September 2002, and by Council Decision (EU, Euratom) 2018/994 of 13 July 2018, – having regard to the Treaties and in particular to Articles 9, 10, 14 and 17(7) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and to Articles 20, 22, 223(1) and 225 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), and to Article 2 of Protocol No 1 on the role of national parliaments in the European Union, – having regard to Protocol
  • 17. One-Minute Speeches on Matters of Political Importance 18. Passenger Car Related Taxes

    17. One-Minute Speeches on Matters of Political Importance 18. Passenger Car Related Taxes

    C 305 E/14 Official Journal of the European Union EN 14.12.2006 Monday 4 September 2006 Thursday — Debate on cases of breaches of human rights, democracy and the rule of law (Rule 115): — Request from the PSE Group to replace the item on Zimbabwe (Item 56 on the final draft agenda) with an item on Transnistria. The following spoke: Hannes Swoboda, on behalf of the PSE Group, who moved the request, Marianne Mikko and Charles Tannock. Parliament rejected the request by electronic vote (74 in favour, 103 against, 19 abstentions). The order of business was thus established. 17. One-minute speeches on matters of political importance Pursuant to Rule 144, the following Members who wished to draw the attention of Parliament to matters of political importance spoke for one minute: Geoffrey Van Orden, Marc Tarabella, Danutė Budreikaitė, Margrete Auken, Pedro Guerreiro, Janusz Wojcie- chowski, Thomas Wise, Georgios Karatzaferis, Ashley Mote, James Nicholson, Justas Vincas Paleckis, Lívia Járóka, Pál Schmitt, Bogusław Liberadzki, Antolín Sánchez Presedo, Kyriacos Triantaphyllides, Véronique De Keyser, Glenys Kinnock, Romana Jordan Cizelj, Ioannis Gklavakis, Sophia in 't Veld, Monika Beňová, Vytau- tas Landsbergis, Georgios Papastamkos, Csaba Sándor Tabajdi, Árpád Duka-Zólyomi, Adamos Adamou, Mai- read McGuinness, Marianne Mikko, Richard Corbett, Manuel Medina Ortega, Marios Matsakis, Simon Busut- til, Milan Gaľa, Marie Panayotopoulos-Cassiotou and Inés Ayala Sender. IN THE CHAIR: Sylvia-Yvonne KAUFMANN Vice-President 18. Passenger car related taxes * (debate) Report on the proposal for a Council directive on passenger car related taxes [COM(2005)0261 — C6-0272/2005 — 2005/0130(CNS)] — Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs.
  • Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta the Law Courts A1 Sir Winston Churchill Square Edmonton Alberta T5J-0R2

    Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta the Law Courts A1 Sir Winston Churchill Square Edmonton Alberta T5J-0R2

    Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: AVI v MHVB, 2020 ABQB 489 Date: 20200826 Docket: FL03 55142 Registry: Edmonton Between: AVI Applicant and MHVB Respondent and Jacqueline Robinson, a.k.a. Jacquie Phoenix Third Party and Unauthorized Alleged Representative _______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision of the Honourable Mr. Justice Robert A. Graesser _______________________________________________________ I. Introduction [1] Pseudolaw is a collection of spurious legally incorrect ideas that superficially sound like law, and purport to be real law. In layman’s terms, pseudolaw is pure nonsense. [2] Pseudolaw is typically employed by conspiratorial, fringe, criminal, and dissident minorities who claim pseudolaw replaces or displaces conventional law. These groups attempt to Page: 2 gain advantage, authority, and other benefits via this false law. In Meads v Meads, 2012 ABQB 571 [Meads], Associate Chief Justice Rooke reviewed many forms of and variations on pseudolaw that have been deployed in Canada. In his decision, he described populations and personalities that use these ideas, and explained how these “Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument” [“OPCA”] concepts are legally false and universally rejected by Canadian courts. Rooke ACJ concluded OPCA strategies are instead scams promoted to gullible, ill-informed, and often greedy individuals by unscrupulous “guru” personalities. Employing pseudolaw is always an abuse of court processes, and warrants immediate court response: Unrau v National Dental Examining Board, 2019 ABQB 283 at paras 180, 670-671 [Unrau #2]. [3] To date Canada has weathered two waves of pseudolaw. In the 2000 “Detaxers” held seminars and taught classes on how to supposedly avoid paying income tax, for example by claiming that ROBERT GRAESSER is a legal person and a taxpayer, while Robert-A.: Graesser is a physical human being and therefore exempt from tax: Meads at paras 87-98.
  • Report of the EP Committee on Institutional Affairs on the Constitution of the European Union (9 February 1994)

    Report of the EP Committee on Institutional Affairs on the Constitution of the European Union (9 February 1994)

    Report of the EP Committee on Institutional Affairs on the Constitution of the European Union (9 February 1994) Caption: On 9 February 1994, the Belgian MEP Fernand Herman, on behalf of the Committee on Institutional Affairs for which he is rapporteur, submits a draft Constitution of the European Union to the European Parliament. Source: Second report of the Committee on Institutional Affairs on the Constitution of the European Union. Rapporteur: Mr Fernand HERMAN, A3-0064/94, PE 203.601/fin.2. [s.l.]: European Parliament, 09.02.1994. 41 p. Copyright: All rights of reproduction, public communication, adaptation, distribution or dissemination via Internet, internal network or any other means are strictly reserved in all countries. The documents available on this Web site are the exclusive property of their authors or right holders. Requests for authorisation are to be addressed to the authors or right holders concerned. Further information may be obtained by referring to the legal notice and the terms and conditions of use regarding this site. URL: http://www.cvce.eu/obj/report_of_the_ep_committee_on_institutional_affairs_on_the_constitution_of_the_european_un ion_9_february_1994-en-b198b297-f3aa-418d-a495-7b0cd9c85d71.html Publication date: 29/11/2013 1 / 28 29/11/2013 Second report of the Committee on Institutional Affairs on the Constitution of the European Union (9 February 1994) Rapporteur: Mr Fernand HERMAN Contents Procedural page A. Motion for a resolution B. Explanatory statement Annex : Draft Constitution of the European Union By letter of 23 January 1990 the Committee on Institutional Affairs requested authorization to draw up a report on the European Constitution. At the sitting of 2 April 1990, the President of the European Parliament announced that the committee had been authorized to report on this subject and that the Committee on Foreign Affairs and Security and the Committee on Budgets had been requested to deliver opinions.
  • Relations Between the European Council and the European Parliament

    Relations Between the European Council and the European Parliament

    Relations between the European Council and the European Parliament Institutional and political dynamics STUDY EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service Author: Desmond Dinan European Council Oversight Unit PE 630.288 – November 2018 EN Relations between the European Council and the European Parliament Institutional and political dynamics This study explores the development of relations between the European Council (of Heads of State or Government) and the European Parliament, two institutions that have become increasingly central to the operation of the European Union political system, especially since the 2009 Lisbon Treaty. It explains the Treaty framework for relations between the two institutions and traces their practical evolution over time, including an analysis of the roles of the presidents of each institution in such interaction. It also examines points of contention in the relationship to date, including in relation to 'legislative trespassing' by the European Council and the Spitzenkandidaten process. EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service AUTHOR This study has been written by Desmond Dinan, Ad Personam Jean Monnet Chair and Professor of Public Policy at George Mason University, Virginia, United States, at the request of the European Council Oversight Unit of the Directorate for Impact Assessment and European Added Value of the European Parliamentary Research Service (EPRS). Professor Dinan completed this work during his half-year as a Visiting Fellow at EPRS. ADMINISTRATOR RESPONSIBLE Astrid Worum, European Council Oversight Unit, EPRS To contact the publisher, please e-mail [email protected] LINGUISTIC VERSIONS Original: EN Manuscript completed in September 2018. DISCLAIMER AND COPYRIGHT This document is prepared for, and addressed to, the Members and staff of the European Parliament as background material to assist them in their parliamentary work.
  • Andreas Maurer

    Andreas Maurer

    Ludwigkirchplatz 3−4 k 10719 Berlin Telefon +49 30 880 07-0 Fax +49 30 880 07-100 www.swp-berlin.org SWP Andreas Maurer COSAC, national parliaments and their contribution to a European strong public First and incomplete draft, please do not cite. Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politi 1. Conceptual problems.....................................................................................................2 2. Organizational conditions for interparliamentary cooperation......................................6 2.1. Efficiency of the Community decision-making and legislative processes........................................................................................................................6 2.2. The principle of reciprocal facilities.......................................................................7 3. The application of principles.........................................................................................8 3.1. Officialisation and Formalisation ...........................................................................8 3.2. Conceptualization of interparliamentary contacts ................................................11 3.2.1. The option of 'synchronized control' by the national parliaments and the European Parliament................................................................11 3.2.2. The systematization of contacts .....................................................................11 3.2.3. The programming of contacts ........................................................................12 3.3. Parliamentary
  • European Parliament Made Simple

    European Parliament Made Simple

    THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT MADE SIMPLE 2014-2019 The European Parliament Made Simple is produced by the American Chamber of Commerce to the European Union (AmCham EU) as a introduction to the workings of the European Parliament for amateurs and experts alike. Production Team Editor and project manager Giovanni Mastrobuono Senior Communications Officer Editorial assistance Alexandrine Gauvin Communications Officer Eli Corso-Phinney Communications Intern The information contained in this publication has been compiled in good faith and is accurate according to the most recent sources available at the time of going to press. Photographs used with the kind permission of the Audiovisual Libraries of the European Commission, Council of the European Union and the European Parliament. First edition, 2014 ISBN: 978-2-9146856-7-2 Printed in Belgium American Chamber of Commerce to the European Union (AmCham EU) Avenue des Arts 53, B-1000 Brussels Telephone: +32 (0)2 513 68 92 Fax: +32 (0)2 513 79 28 [email protected] www.amchameu.eu Foreword Susan Danger Managing Director American Chamber of Commerce to the European Union t is with great pleasure that I present AmCham EU’s newest guide, The European Parliament Made Simple. The Lisbon Treaty, signed in 2009, gave the European Parliament greater power in EU Idecision-making and an increased role in selecting and approving the European Commission. As a result, this year’s European election has a greater democratic influence than ever before. With this in mind, AmCham EU has published The European Parliament Made Simple to explain the Parliament’s expanded powers and roles, for both the Brussels policy community and public affairs professionals in the EU and US.
  • Chronicle of an Election Foretold: the Longer-Term Trends Leading to the ‘Spitzenkandidaten’ Procedure and the Election of Jean-Claude Juncker As European

    Chronicle of an Election Foretold: the Longer-Term Trends Leading to the ‘Spitzenkandidaten’ Procedure and the Election of Jean-Claude Juncker As European

    LSE ‘Europe in Question’ Discussion Paper Series Chronicle of an Election Foretold: The Longer-Term Trends leading to the ‘Spitzenkandidaten’ procedure and the Election of Jean-Claude Juncker as European Commission President Martin Westlake LEQS Paper No. 102/2016 January 2016 LEQS is generously supported by the LSE Annual Fund Editorial Board Dr Joan Costa-i-Font Dr Vassilis Monastiriotis Dr Jonathan White Dr Katjana Gattermann Dr Sonja Avlijas All views expressed in this paper are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the views of the editors or the LSE. © Martin Westlake Chronicle of an Election Foretold: The Longer-Term Trends leading to the ‘Spitzenkandidaten’ procedure and the Election of Jean-Claude Juncker as European Commission President Martin Westlake* Abstract By focusing on the near-term campaign in the 2014 European elections analysts have tended to over-look a series of longer-term trends that were jointly and inexorably leading to the Spitzenkandidaten (lead candidate) process and to some at least of the subsequent structural reforms to the Commission. The paper argues that those longer-term trends continue and that the (s)election of Jean-Claude Juncker as President of the European Commission and the structural reforms he subsequently introduced are better understood as steps in ongoing processes rather than fresh departures. Thus, what will happen in 2019 will have been conditioned not only by 2014, but also by previous elections and previous developments, as considered in this paper. Keywords: European Commission Presidency, Jean-Claude Juncker, Spitzenkandidaten, European Parliament, Longer-Term Trends * Visiting Professor, College of Europe, Bruges Senior Visiting Fellow, European Institute, London School of Economics and Political Science Houghton Street, London WC2A 2AE Email: [email protected] The Longer-Term Trends leading to the ‘Spitzenkandidaten’ procedure Table of Contents 1.
  • 3. Die Dienstleistungsrichtlinie Und Die Öffentlichen Dienstleistungen

    3. Die Dienstleistungsrichtlinie Und Die Öffentlichen Dienstleistungen

    DISSERTATION Titel der Dissertation: „Ideologie oder Nationalität? Positionierung und Kooperation im Europäischen Parlament bei der Behandlung öffentlicher Dienstleistungen“ Verfasser Mag. phil. Erik Damon Tajalli angestrebter akademischer Grad Doktor der Philosophie (Dr. phil.) Wien, Jänner 2014 Studienkennzahl lt. Studienblatt: A 092 300 Dissertationsgebiet lt. Studienblatt: Politikwissenschaft Betreuerin: Univ. Prof. Dr. Sieglinde Rosenberger 2 INHALTSVERZEICHNIS INHALTSVERZEICHNIS .......................................................................................... 2 Abbildungsverzeichnis ................................................................................... 6 Tabellenverzeichnis ....................................................................................... 7 Abkürzungsverzeichnis ................................................................................. 9 1. EINLEITUNG : ERKENNTNISINTERESSE UND FORSCHUNGSFRAGE ....................... 11 1.1. Erkenntnisinteresse und Forschungsstand........................................... 11 1.2. Forschungsfragen und Forschungsziele .............................................. 17 1.3. Überblick und Gliederung der Arbeit .................................................... 19 2. FORSCHUNGSKONZEPT – THEORIE , HYPOTHESEN , METHODEN ......................... 21 2.1. Kapitelüberblick .................................................................................... 21 2.2. Theorie und Hypothesen .....................................................................
  • Members of Parliament Pangbourne Purley on Thames Royal County of Berkshire

    Members of Parliament Pangbourne Purley on Thames Royal County of Berkshire

    Members of Parliament for Pangbourne and Purley on Thames in the Royal County of Berkshire Project Purley Publication no 21 Goosecroft Publications June 2010 Members of Parliament for Pangbourne and Purley on Thames in the Royal County of Berkshire Goosecroft Publications June 2010 Goosecroft Publications 5 Cecil Aldin Drive Purley on Thames Berkshire RG31 6YP England First published 2010 ©2010 Project Purley Project Purley Publication 21 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of the publishers Introduction This booklet identifies the majority of the Members of Parliament who have represented an area including Pangbourne and Purley in Berkshire. The two villages have always had the same parliamentary representation despite one being the eastern extremity of the constituency and the other the western extremity at various times. Initially the Parliament was called for a specific purpose, usually to grant money to the King, It met where the King’s court happened to be for a period ranging from a day or two to several months and then dispersed. In the list the date the Parliament was called is given and the place it was held until it found a permanent home at Westminster. At the end are the names of Members of the European Parliament in the period when British Members were elected to serve a constituency. The first Council was called in 1213 and the Sheriff of each county was ordered to send four knights to represent the county.
  • Transnational Electoral Lists

    Transnational Electoral Lists

    Transnational electoral lists Ways to Europeanise elections to the European Parliament STUDY EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service Author: Maria Diaz Crego Members' Research Service PE 679.084 – February 2021 EN Transnational electoral lists Ways to Europeanise elections to the European Parliament The creation of a pan-European constituency, comprising the whole territory of the European Union, in which a number of Members of the European Parliament would be elected from transnational electoral lists, figures high among proposals to enhance the European dimension of the elections to the European Parliament. Although the idea to create a European constituency gained momentum with 73 seats in the European Parliament due to become vacant as a consequence of the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the European Union, the proposal is far from new and has been debated in the European institutions and academia since the 1990s. This paper analyses the main proposals to create a European constituency (or constituencies) that have been discussed in the European Parliament, other European institutions and academia, and details the legal changes that would be needed at European and national level to bring the idea to fruition. EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service AUTHOR María Díaz Crego, Members' Research Service, European Parliamentary Research Service (EPRS), European Parliament. Giulio Sabbati, Samy Chahri and Lucille Killmayer (EPRS) are responsible for the graphics. The author would like to thank the following policy analyst from the Members' Research Service for providing information in relation to the following Member States: the Netherlands and Finland (Ingeborg Odink); Czechia (Marketa Pape); Germany (Hendrik Alexander Mildebrath); Luxembourg (Marie-Laure Augère- Granier); Malta (Denise Chircop); Hungary (Gabriella Zana-Szabo); Poland (Rafal Manko); Croatia (Kristina Grosek); Slovenia (Anja Radjenovic).