DOCSLIB.ORG

2021 Study on the European Commission

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
2021 Study on the European Commission HIDING A FOREST BEHIND THE TREES Transparency, integrity and accountability at the European Commission 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 Editor: Leo Hoffmann-Axthelm Design: www.beelzePub.com Photography: Cover: Flags flown at half-mast in front of the Commission’s Berlaymont HQ by European Parliament, licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 Page 9: © Daniel Dumbrava via Unsplash Page 10: © Richard Parmiter, licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 Page 13: © European Parliament, licensed under CC BY 2.0 Page 15: Illustration © Wannapik Studio Page 18: © Ula Kuzma via Unsplash Page 19: © Quinn Dombrowski, licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0 Page 20: © Quinn Dombrowski, licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0 Page 22: © Daniel Dumbrava via Unsplash Page 29: licensed under CC0 Public Domain Page 32: © beasty, via Unsplash Page 34: © Susan Yin, via Unsplash Page 36: © Christian Schnettelker, licensed under CC BY 2.0 Page 38: © European Union Page 41: © Christian Schnettelker, licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0 Page 42: © Szilas, licensed under CC BY-SA 2.5 Page 48–49: © European Parliament, licensed under CC BY-NC ND 2.0 Page 50: © European Parliament, 2020 Page 51: © Jim Killock, licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0 Page 52: © Jakob Braun, via Unsplash © 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) 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. HIDING A FOREST BEHIND THE TREES Transparency, integrity and accountability at the European Commission Acknowledgments ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1 List of abbreviations ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 4 METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 6 POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 8 INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................10 ACCOUNTABILITY ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................11 Guardian of the Treaties or ‘Political Commission’? ........................................................................11 Shift since 2014 ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 11 Discretionary powers .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 12 Financial accountability and European budget .......................................................................................................................................................... 12 Election and accountability of Commissioners ................................................................................13 Election of candidates ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 14 2 ADMINISTRATIVE TRANSPARENCY ....................................................................................................................................................................................17 Internal structure and procedures ..................................................................................................17 Proactive transparency ....................................................................................................................18 Document registers and databases ......................................................................................................................................................................................20 Access to document requests .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 21 LEGISLATIVE TRANSPARENCY .................................................................................................................................................................................................25 Lobby transparency ........................................................................................................................ 25 Lobbying the European Commission ....................................................................................................................................................................................26 An EU Transparency Register for the Commission, Parliament and Council .................................................................................29 Pre-proposal transparency or “better regulation” .......................................................................... 32 Stakeholder consultations ..............................................................................................................................................................................................................33 Expert Groups .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................37 Delegated and implementing acts .................................................................................................. 39 Transparency and accountability .............................................................................................................................................................................................39 Delegated Acts ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 41 Implementing Acts ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • EU Commission Presidency Candidates: Taxation Will Remain High up on EU’S Agenda
    BRUSSELS I 6 MAY 2019 EU Commission Presidency Candidates: Taxation Will Remain High Up on EU’s Agenda In the run up to the EU elections, Politico Europe, Maastricht University and the European Youth Forum organised the Maastricht debate between the likely candidates for the post of EU Commission president. The debate was particularly aiming to target students and young Europeans, and in addition to digitalisation, climate change and sustainability, taxation was among the topics that raised interest and debate. Bas Eickhout (Netherlands, The Greens), Jan Zahradil (Czech Republic, Alliance of Conservatives and Reformists in Europe), Frans Timmermans (The Netherlands, Socialists & Democrats), Guy Verhofstadt (Belgium, Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe) and Violeta Tomić (Slovenia, Party of the European Left) met in Maastricht, with the notable absence of the Conservative frontrunner, Manfred Weber (Germany, European People’s Party) who chose to attend instead a Munich event celebrating the 80th birthday of Theo Waigel, a former German finance minister. Weber did attend another debate in Florence subsequently, where much of the discussions were revolving around the collective security and the need for a separate European army. All candidates at the Maastricht debate expressed their support for more regulation of the American tech companies operating in the Single Market as a matter of priority. Considering the public interest in the regulatory and enforcement powers of the European Commission vis-a-vis these businesses, it is likely that many related policy areas such as taxation, copyright and data protection will continue to be high-up on the next Commission’s agenda. With great power more responsibility should have come, apparently.
    [Show full text]
  • Poisoned Heritage for the New Commission: the Rule of Law Question György Fóris
    DISCUSSION PAPER EUROPEAN POLITICS AND INSTITUTIONS PROGRAMME 10 DECEMBER 2019 Poisoned heritage for the new Commission: The rule of law question György Fóris Credit: ARIS OIKONOMOU / POOL / AFP Table of contents Executive summary 3 The rule of law question in a politicised EU 3 An incomplete and overrated mechanism 4 Balancing between legal basis and political will 7 A narrow path to follow for the new Commission 8 Conclusion 10 Endnotes 11 ABOUT THE AUTHOR György Fóris has been monitoring, analysing, reporting and lecturing on EU affairs since 1992, when he started working as a news agency correspondent in Brussels, where he is still based. He is an independent EU policy analyst today, and also regularly teaches at Eötvös Loránd University in Budapest, Hungary. DISCLAIMER The support the European Policy Centre receives for its ongoing operations, or specifically for its publications, does not constitute endorsement of their contents, which reflect the views of the authors only. Supporters and partners cannot be held responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein. Executive summary The rule of law question will most likely become contribute to the debate. Neither of these two options a central EU issue during the mandate of the new can materialise alone. European Commission. Member states are increasingly beginning to question, attack and/or ignore previously The Commission should avoid pretending that the agreed common policies, political priorities or College is the key to solving national challenges to common principles. These challenges are usually the rule of law, given that it is not the decisive political more political – sometimes even ideological – than player.
    [Show full text]
  • Review of the Juncker Commission
    AT A GLANCE Plenary – October II 2019 Review of the Juncker Commission Prior to his election as President of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker set out the policy priorities that would serve as the political mandate for the Commission's 2014-2019 term of office. Although the new Commission will not take office on 1 November as scheduled, Juncker is due to make a statement during the October II plenary session on his term as President, and a debate will review the work of his Commission. Background In July 2014, President-elect Juncker published an Agenda for jobs, growth, fairness and democratic change to mark a 'new start for Europe'. The aim of those political guidelines was to make a difference and deliver concrete results for citizens on ten priorities, ranging from the digital single market and energy union, to justice and fundamental rights, migration and security. Changes and challenges Since the Juncker Commission took office in November 2014, every year has brought its share of changes and challenges. For example, 2015 started with a series of terrorist attacks, followed later that year by record-high numbers of migrants and asylum-seekers arriving in the European Union. In 2016, the UK's referendum vote to withdraw from the EU, and the election of a new administration in the United States, required the EU to adapt its priorities in several areas, from security and defence to trade. Furthermore, ensuring energy independence, guaranteeing the respect of the rule of law in Member States and strengthening economic and monetary union were additional challenges influencing the agenda and ultimately forcing the Commission to adapt, through its annual work programmes and State of the Union addresses, its response and initiatives to an ever-changing environment.
    [Show full text]
  • Factsheet: Delivering on the Capital Markets Union
    Delivering on the CAPITAL MARKETS UNION #CMU | #InvestEU WHAT IS THE CAPITAL MARKETS UNION? The Capital Markets Union aims to get money - investments and savings - flowing across the EU so that it can benefit consumers, investors and companies. It is part of the Juncker Commission’s ambition to sustain growth in Europe. The Capital Markets Union aims to break down barriers that block cross-border investments in the EU and make it easier for companies and infrastructure projects to get the finance they need, regardless of where they are located. It also sets out to foster sustainable finance by directing investment to environmentally friendly projects. WHY CAPITAL MARKETS UNION MATTERS? More integrated financial markets create a cushion to absorb sudden shocks, and allow risk to be shared by private actors across EU borders, making the Economic and Monetary Union stronger and more resilient. This, in turn, can create an incentive for market participants to use the euro, therefore reinforcing its international role. WHAT ARE THE CURRENT ISSUES? Start-ups and small and High fixed costs EU households Investors European businesses medium-sized enterprises of up to 15% of save heavily, face many highly depend on banks need more funding for the amount raised but do not barriers for their financing (50% innovation and growth makes access make the when inves- of total financing), with (market-based sources of to stockmarkets most of their ting in other few alternative funding finance are currently less especially costly for savings EU countries sources than 15%) small businesses “The Capital Markets Union has a key role to play in strengthening Europe's Economic and Monetary Union and the euro.
    [Show full text]
  • The Roots and Consequences of Euroskepticism: an Evaluation of the United Kingdom Independence Party
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Scholarship at UWindsor University of Windsor Scholarship at UWindsor Political Science Publications Department of Political Science 4-2012 The roots and consequences of Euroskepticism: an evaluation of the United Kingdom Independence Party John B. Sutcliffe University of Windsor Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/poliscipub Part of the Political Science Commons Recommended Citation Sutcliffe, John B.. (2012). The roots and consequences of Euroskepticism: an evaluation of the United Kingdom Independence Party. Geopolitics, history and international relations, 4 (1), 107-127. https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/poliscipub/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Department of Political Science at Scholarship at UWindsor. It has been accepted for inclusion in Political Science Publications by an authorized administrator of Scholarship at UWindsor. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Geopolitics, History, and International Relations Volume 4(1), 2012, pp. 107–127, ISSN 1948-9145 THE ROOTS AND CONSEQUENCES OF EUROSKEPTICISM: AN EVALUATION OF THE UNITED KINGDOM INDEPENDENCE PARTY JOHN B. SUTCLIFFE [email protected] University of Windsor ABSTRACT. This article examines the causes and consequences of Euroskepticism through a study of the United Kingdom Independence Party. Based on an analysis of UKIP’s election campaigns, policies and performance, the article examines the roots of UKIP and its, potential, consequences for the British political system. The article argues that UKIP provides an example of Euroskepticism as the “politics of oppo- sition.” The party remains at the fringes of the political system and its leadership is prepared to use misrepresentation and populist rhetoric in an attempt to secure sup- port.
    [Show full text]
  • Europe's Two-Faced Authoritarian Right FINAL.Pdf
    1 Europe’s two-faced authoritarian right: ‘anti-elite’ parties serving big business interests 15 May 2019 INTRODUCTION If the more pessimistic projections are to be believed, authoritarian right-wing politicians will do well in the upcoming European Parliament elections, reflecting a surge in EU scepticism and disillusionment with establishment parties, many of whom have overseen a decade or more of punishing austerity. These authoritarian right parties are harnessing this disillusionment using the rhetoric of ending corruption, tackling ‘elite’ interests, regaining ‘national’ dignity and identity, and defending the rights of ‘ordinary people’. However, the contrast between this rhetoric and their actual actions is stark. From repressive laws to dark money funding; from corruption scandals to personal enrichment; from corporate deregulation to enabling tax avoidance, the defence of ‘elite’ interests disguised as the defence of disaffected classes is a defining characteristic of Europe’s rising authoritarian right parties. After the election, Europe could well see the formation of a new axis by these parties across the EU institutions, simultaneously becoming a significant force in the European Parliament, while having a strong voice in the Council and European Council, and nominating like-minded commissioners to the EU’s executive. Such an alliance could undermine or prevent action to tackle some of the most pressing issues facing us such as climate change, whilst working against workers’ rights, and measures to regulate and tax business
    [Show full text]
  • Germany's European Imperative
    Chapter 21 | Germany’s European Imperative 139 Germany’s European Imperative Wolfgang Ischinger enry Kissinger once suggested that political decisions should be guided by two core questions: “What are we Htrying to achieve?” and “what are we trying to prevent?”1 For Germany, the answers to both questions are clear. What we need to prevent at all costs is Europe falling apart, paving the way for a return of nationalism, which has brought war twice in the past century. What we want to achieve is equally clear: we want Europe to be able to defend its political, economic, and societal model. This is why Germany must now embrace a “European imperative”2 as the basis for its decision-making. Whatever Berlin intends to do, it should first ask what its actions would mean for Europe’s ability to recover from the crisis and for Europe’s capacity to protect its values, interests, and sovereignty on the world stage. The pandemic has upended plans for the current German presidency of the Council of the EU. The primary task will be that of “maintaining EU integration as such.”3 The pandemic risks deepening rifts between Europe’s hard-hit south and the countries of the north, it threatens to widen fissures between eastern and western EU member states over migration and the rule of law, and it generally risks strengthening Euroskeptic forces across member states. And as if this were not enough, emboldened external actors—Russia and China in particular—are eager to exploit the pandemic in efforts “to undermine democratic debate and exacerbate social polarization”4 in Europe to advance their own agendas.
    [Show full text]
  • Litigious Paranoia: Sense of Justice, Bureaucracy, and Media
    ADMINISTORY ZEITSCHRIFT FÜR VERWALTUNGSGESCHICHTE BAND 3, 2018 SEITE 201–217 D O I : 10.2478/ADHI-2018-0037 Litigious Paranoia: Sense of Justice, Bureaucracy, and Media RUPERT GADERER Sense of Justice ›Quarrelers‹, according to the president of the German justice in connection with the Anglo-American law-and- Federal Administrative Court between 1958 and 1969, emotion debate,3 which in German-speaking countries should not be judged with the same standards as a has been discussed for the most part under the concept common citizen.1 People who take excessive legal action ›Rechtsgefühl‹ (sense of justice). In Germany, most of the and fle countless complaints are – in his opinion – contributions have come from the feld ›legal sociology‹ usually sick. Still today forensic psychiatry assumes that and in recent years research has been carried out in such querulous behavior is the result of a pathological the cultural and literary sciences.4 The present media- increase in an emotion, or more specifcally a pathological historical investigation of litigious paranoia takes these increase in a person’s ›sense of justice‹.2 Litigious results into consideration and emphasizes three aspects paranoia is said to be an obsessive endeavor to realize in particular. First, the question of the historicity of justice and a concept of justice – the origin of which can emotions is pursued, the temporally and spatially be found in the human psyche. It is precisely the legal dependent power derived from emotions to take action system and psychiatry that, in the history of litigious and the social contextualization of emotions.5 Second, paranoia or paranoia querulans, have dealt extensively those media are shifted from the periphery to the center with this behavior, after all they, as the observers of of cognitive interest which are brought into play to society and the authorities for pronouncing judgments, transfer the fury, the hate, but also the desperation and were and are most afected by it.
    [Show full text]
  • CCIA Europe AI Letter
    Ms. Margrethe Vestager Executive Vice-President, Europe fit for the Digital Age, European Commission Mr. Valdis Dombrovskis Executive Vice-President, An Economy that Works for People, European Commission Ms. Věra Jourová Vice President, Values and Transparency, European Commission Mr. Thierry Breton Commissioner, Internal Market, European Commission Ms. Mariya Gabriel Commissioner, Innovation, Research, Culture, Education and Youth, European Commission Ms. Ylva Johansson Commissioner, Home Affairs, European Commission Mr. Didier Reynders Commissioner, Justice, European Commission Sent by email Brussels, 31st March 2021 Dear Executive Vice-Presidents, Vice-President, Commissioners, The Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA Europe) looks forward to the European Commission’s forthcoming legislative proposal on trustworthy Artificial Intelligence (AI). We welcome the Commission’s dual emphasis on building European excellence and trust in AI. Your efforts are crucial in ensuring that AI can support Europe’s economic recovery, green and digital transitions, and help Europeans, e.g. through improved healthcare. In anticipation of your forthcoming AI proposal please allow us to share our recommendations: ● A proportionate and risk-based EU approach can maximise the benefits of AI, while also mitigating risks. ● New legal requirements should focus on a narrowly defined set of so-called ‘high-risk’ AI applications. Determinations of what constitutes high-risk AI applications should focus on specific use cases rather than blanket technology categories and not conflict with planned or pending regulations that are already being developed to ensure safety and trustworthiness. CCIA Europe, Rue de la Loi 227, 1040 Brussels, Belgium. EU Transparency Register: 15987896534-82. www.ccianet.org ● We recognise the importance of having a robust system in place to ensure companies are held responsible for testing their products before they are introduced into the EU market.
    [Show full text]
  • La Sorbonne: Host of the 2018 European Reformists Summit
    SOMMET DES réformistes européens European Reformists SUMMIT 2019 the democratic challenge in Europe 16 & 17 November 2018 – Draft programme European Reformists SUMMIT The European Reformists Summit entitled “2019, the Democratic Challenge in Europe“ will be held on the 16th & 17th of November 2018. This event is co-organised by the progressive think tanks Les Gracques, Terra Nova, Mouvement Européen France, Fondation pour l’innovation politique and Fondation Jean-Jaurès, in partnership with several European think tanks. It aims at gathering high-ranking international leaders in order to discuss the most pressing political, economic and social issues ahead of the crucial European elections. The Summit builds on the European Reformists Summit held in Lyon in 2016 and hosted by its Mayor, Gérard Collomb. Just after Brexit and at the dawn of several electoral challenges all over Europe, we were convinced of the urgent need to make all pro-European reformists of good will stick together. Two years later, after a gathering in Berlin last year, as fragmentation risks remain and populism keeps on rising, it is high time to gather around a European Reformists Summit in Paris in preparation for the coming European elections. French and international political leaders, mayors of major cities, representatives of unions and civil society, economists and business leaders will meet to debate in private sessions. The results of the discussions will be presented to the media and the public during the conclusive part of the event, on Saturday 17 November afternoon. Our partners all around Europe have already assured us of their support to help us get the best out of this event in terms of original ideas, propositions and commitments.
    [Show full text]
  • Letter to EU Telecom and Trade Ministers and to European Commissioners Thierry Breton, Margrethe Vestager and Valdis Dombrovskis
    Letter to EU telecom and trade ministers and to European Commissioners Thierry Breton, Margrethe Vestager and Valdis Dombrovskis We, the undersigned Members of the European Parliament from five different political groups, share a common concern regarding 5G security in Europe and unfair competition between European and Chinese 5G vendors. Therefore, we send this letter to you in preparation of the upcoming informal TTE Council on 15 October, urging you to take action on the points raised. We have learnt from the COVID-19 crisis that maintaining know-how, capacity and some level of independence in critical sectors, including medical/pharmaceutical, food supplies, and utilities, i.e. energy, water and communications infrastructure is indispensable for our survival. In the area of connectivity, COVID-19 has demonstrated how vital fixed and mobile connectivity is to help fight the crisis and to keep the economy and essential services running to the extent possible. The European Commission has, already pre-crisis, launched a number of initiatives to preserve our security and sovereignty, which today prove to be more relevant than ever before. These include a renewed industrial strategy with digitization and connectivity at its heart, increased funding proposals for connectivity, cyber security and AI, the investment screening framework to avoid harmful foreign take-overs of critical EU businesses, trade policy initiatives promoting reciprocity, and more concretely, the 5G security joint risk assessment and toolbox of mitigating measures. 5G is a central element in Europe’s digital sovereignty and the EU 5G security initiative rightly has the aim of safeguarding the security of 5G as a critical infrastructure for Europe.
    [Show full text]
  • COUNCIL for the FUTURE of EUROPE Presented by the In
    COUNCIL for the FUTURE of EUROPE FISCAL DISCIPLINE AND PUBLIC INVESTMENT IN EUROPE Presented by the Council for the Future of Europe in cooperation with the Friends of Europe The Hotel, Boulevard de Waterloo 38, Brussels 10 December 2014 (2.30pm - 5.00pm) 13:00 Lunch for Speakers and Guests Location: Private Salon 26th Floor Speaker: Heinz Wismann 14:30 Seminar: Fiscal Discipline and Public Investment Location: Park Ballroom, 1st Floor, The Hotel Welcome remarks: Viscount Etienne Davignon, President Friends of Europe Introduction: Fiscal Discipline and Public Investment Mario Monti, Chairman CFE The perspectives of the IMF and the European Commission Jean-Claude Juncker, President, European Commission The perspectives of Member States Pier Carlo Padoan, Minister of Economy and Finance, Italy, President of Ecofin Council Jörg Asmussen, State Secretary, Ministry of Labour, Germany Mateusz Szczurek, Minister of Finance, Poland Panel Discussion Benoit Coeuré, Executive Board, European CentralBank Marcel Fratzscher, President DIW, Berlin Guy Verhofstadt, President, ALDE Group, European Parliament Debate with the guests Moderator: Paul Taylor, Reuters Conclusion: Sylvie Goulard, EU Representative and Senior Advisor for the Council of the Future of Europe 17:00 Adjourn Fiscal Discipline and Public Investment in Europe policy workshop Brussels, Wednesday 10th December 2014 Discussion Summary On December 10, 2014, the Council for the Future of Europe of the Berggruen Institute and the Friends of Europe, collaborated to organize a seminar on the topic of Fiscal Discipline and Investment. The seminar included many leaders and important stakeholders including Jörg Asmussen, State Secretary, Ministry of Labour, Germany, Mateusz Szczurek, Minister of Finance, Poland, Benoit Coeuré, Executive Board, European CentralBank and Marcel Fratzscher, President DIW, Berlin among many others.
    [Show full text]