Today, @EP_Justice adopted the report by @sophieintveld on the new criminalisation of sanctions evasion Directive. The position gives the proposal more teeth, a crucial step in deterring the enablers of sanctions violations.
➡️ Next step: negotiations with Council & Commission
⚠️The annual Rule of Law report published today only confirms our continued concerns regarding democratic backsliding in Hungary.
It shows once more the need for continued monitoring of the rule of law situation.
Together with @corporateeurope, Friends of the Earth Europe & @lobbycontrol we have written to @EP_President to complain about MEP Axel Voss’s conflict-of-interest risks.
How can an MEP have multiple paid side jobs in the same field as the legislation they’re working on?
https://transparency.eu/ngos-condemn-meps-side-activities-in-complaint-on-conflict-of-interest-risk/
The following complaint was sent on 28 June 2023 by Transparency International EU and the undersigned organisations. Read it in full here. Corporate Europe Observatory, Transparency International EU, Friends of the Earth Europe and LobbyControl have today written to European Parliament President Roberta Metsola to raise concerns about potential conflicts of interest regarding Member of the European Parliament Axel Voss. Mr. Voss, whose parliamentary activity is specifically focused on matters related to data protection and artificial intelligence, performs two paid side jobs for firms with an appreciable interest in Mr. Voss’s field of political work. According to his declaration of financial interests, Mr. Voss earns up to €6000 a month for activities outside his political mandate: he is a freelancer at the law firm Bietmann Rechtsanwälte Steuerberater, working on data protection law, as well as a member of the data protection advisory board at German telecommunications giant Deutsche Telekom. These outside financial interests overlap blatantly with Mr. Voss’s political work. He is the rapporteur for the European Parliament Committee on Legal Affairs (JURI) Opinion on the Artificial Intelligence Act, as well as a Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs Committee shadow rapporteur on the same proposal. His JURI Opinion makes additional references to data protection and proposes the President of the European Telecommunications Standards Institute, of which Deutsche Telekom is a member, as a “permanent observer” to the proposed European Artificial Intelligence Board. Mr. Voss was also previously the rapporteur on a European Parliament report on “Artificial Intelligence in a Digital Age”, for which he apparently held two meetings with Deutsche Telekom, as well as with other industry lobby groups of which Deutsche Telekom is a member. The meetings with Deutsche Telekom have since disappeared from his online declaration. Mr. Voss further held a meeting with a PR firm affiliated with Bietmann Rechtsanwälte Steuerberater in his work as shadow rapporteur on the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive. The above facts raise critical questions concerning the influence of Mr. Voss’s (substantially) paid side activities on his work on pivotal EU legislation. Citizens must have total confidence that legislation that affects them is being made in the public interest. Mr. Voss’s potential conflicts of interest show that such reassurance cannot be granted by European policymakers. Yet again, this has exposed the European Parliament’s lax approach to transparency and accountable policymaking. There is no limit on the number of paid side activities an MEP can perform, and MEPs are not required to provide precise details on how much they earn, specific information about the topics they work on, or their clients. Vetting of these activities is non-existent. The Parliament should now finally show a true commitment to safeguarding political integrity by stamping out both potential and actual conflicts of interest—through banning problematic side jobs. An MEP’s sole focus should be their democratic electoral mandate, not outside interests. We approached Mr. Voss regarding the concerns set out above, but by the time this press release was issued, he had not responded. Shari Hinds of Transparency International EU said: “Today’s revelations are yet more evidence that such side activities should be banned. Members should be unimpeachable; these kinds of side jobs put a question mark on who MEPs are representing: are they working on behalf of EU citizens, or their clients? It is imperative that the Code of Conduct for Members be reformed to address these critical situations. Yet the reforms are being discussed behind closed doors. MEPs must demonstrate that they are taking integrity seriously and discuss Code of Conduct reforms publicly.” Vicky Cann of Corporate Europe Observatory said: “Six months on from Qatargate, the public expects that conflict of interest risks such as those of Mr. Voss are urgently investigated. President Metsola must act, and be seen to act.” Paul de Clerck of Friends of the Earth Europe said: "The integrity of an MEP should never be up for grabs. This should automatically imply that they refuse any form of work or remuneration from companies or organisations with a vested interest in their decision-making roles. In light of Qatargate, we urge EP President Metsola to end these types of conflicts of interest in the European Parliament by banning such side hustles." Verena Leyendecker of LobbyControl said: “For many years, anti-corruption NGOs have been complaining to the President’s office about MEPs with problematic side jobs – but we have yet to see any consequences or changes made. This shows that not only the rules, but also the system of control and enforcement, lacks teeth.” Please direct press enquiries to [email protected]
Today, we are celebrating those who have come forward to speak out against abuse and corruption.
Our message to the European Parliament is clear: protect staff whistleblowers, or continue to allow potential corruption to be swept under the rug. #SupportWhistleblowers
Today is World Whistleblowers’ Day!
It’s a reminder that protections for European Parliament staff *still* do not live up to the EU’s own Whistleblower Directive.
How many more cases of corruption have we missed because MEP assistants are afraid to lose their jobs? #WWBD2023
The EU institutions are taking decisive steps towards recovering more assets from criminals.
Our Senior Policy Officer for Illicit Financial Flows, Roland Papp, has the breakdown: 👇
Last week marked the start of the asset recovery directive negotiations. The Council and the European Parliament have adopted their respective positions, and now, together with the European Commission, they will negotiate to finalise the text of the directive. Both the Council and the European Parliament (EP) supported many of the key points of the European Commission's initial proposal, with certain improvements on some key issues. This sets a positive tone for the negotiations, which will last at least until the end of the year. The Commission’s proposal for the revision of the directive on asset recovery and confiscation was published in May 2022, which Transparency International EU welcomed. The proposal had some shortcomings, which we outlined in our briefing. Rules for asset confiscation matter. Authorities need to be able to take profits away from criminals, be they members of organised crime groups or corrupt officials. The directive addresses all steps of asset recovery. This begins with tracing and identifying assets, and then freezing them. Before a court can decide whether these assets are to be confiscated, assets in the hands of the authorities (such as a cars or houses) must be maintained and managed. The new directive strengthens these processes for freezing and confiscation and delineates clearly defined tasks for authorities in each EU Member State. Confiscated assets are to be owned by the state, but governments can decide on specific, targeted further use or restitution of these assets. Rules on the further use of assets remain a key question, left unaddressed by the Commission’s proposal in a detailed way. We believe it is essential that stolen assets can be returned to the victim population. When a state confiscates an asset from criminals, this asset should be used in helping the victims of these criminal acts, instead of ending up in the general state budget. Italy already has great examples of reusing assets in a socially responsible way: a house previously owned and used by the mafia can become a new community house. Such systems should apply to money stolen both inside and outside the EU: when Tunisia’s former dictator hid his assets in Europe, that money was stolen from the people of Tunisia. It is only right that this stolen money is returned to the people of Tunisia. It is crucial that in cases where illicit wealth stems from a non-EU country, the Member State concerned ensures, in a transparent and responsible way, that the recovered assets will not be diverted again. These points, which are in line with international standards, are all present in the European Parliament’s position, and we hope that the final text of the directive will also include these provisions as harmonised rules for all Member States. Compensating victims should not be optional. While the Council acknowledged that victims’ rights for compensation should be taken into consideration, this is not enough. There is another avenue to try to confiscate assets. If courts have initiated a criminal proceeding but are unable to deliver a criminal judgement against the person, the assets still can be confiscated in certain cases. These are so-called non-conviction based confiscations. The Council rightly signified that, beyond some very specific circumstances (such as the death of the accused person), Member States may specify additional options pertaining to such cases. The Parliament’s position limits the scope of non-conviction based confiscations to very specific circumstances. A further important new tool proposed by this directive is the so-called unexplained wealth order. Some criminal investigations might not be able to prove how or when a specific crime occurred, but be able to uncover the proceeds of a crime. For example, if a low-level state official drives a Ferrari, and it is disproportionate to their legal income, this asset should be confiscated if the court is convinced it was financed illicitly. Doing so is often difficult, unless prosecutors can prove who bribed whom for what and when. Unfortunately, the Commission’s proposal would only allow this tool to be used in the context of investigations related to organised crime. While this would certainly have great use in fighting mafia and other criminal organisations, perpetrators of corruption-related crimes are distinct cases. Such a tool would be beneficial in serving justice in these cases, too. National criminal justice systems have different traditions. While this directive is therefore only able to approximate national laws, all national transpositions should improve to achieve our common objectives, by achieving more confiscations, eliminating proceeds from criminal activities and helping law enforcement and judicial systems work. This is why it would be crucial to ensure that Member States create a strong and detailed National Strategy on asset recovery. The EP’s position would create solid ground for such work, with clearly defined minimum requirements for national strategies and additional information about statistics to be collected and aggregated at EU level. One important divergence between the positions of the two institutions is the role of asset recovery offices when it comes to detection and tracing of assets in the context of violation of EU sanctions. The Council wants to delete this reference and believes that it does not fall under the category of criminal matters. The EP would like to keep it, which in our view is a better approach. Those trying to conceal the assets of sanctioned individuals are committing a crime. These crimes need to be pursued with criminal justice tools. The EP’s suggested provisions would seek to create a strong register of cases with accurate and detailed information on frozen and confiscated assets. The Council’s, in contrast, leave the decision on creating a register up to Member States. The Council’s position leaves a significant part of collecting statistics optional. This solution would maintain widely divergent national systems, where, without proper information, future decision makers would have less evidence on whether progress has been made at all. Moreover, the Council wants to delay the transposition deadline (36 months instead of a year) and allow even more time for creating national strategies. In practice, this delay would mean that statistical information about the work of the authorities under a new strategy would be seen in 2029 the earliest. While all institutional changes require time, given the fact that confiscation of frozen assets can only occur after lengthy court proceedings in the first place, such a timeline seems rather encouraging for criminals seeking to enjoy the proceeds of their crimes for as long as possible. While finalising the text at the interinstitutional negotiations will take at least several months, both the Council and the European Parliament’s support for a strong system for confiscating the assets of criminals represents a good sign for European democracies. Criminals trying to hide their wealth in Europe should start worrying.
Integrity Watch Germany has been launched! It offers easy-to-read, interactive insight into the German lobbying landscape, including lobbyists and their funds.
Check it out for yourself👇
The @EU_Commission today announced its long-awaited ethics body.
It amounts to a talking shop that upholds a self-policing status quo. We know this doesn’t work.
https://transparency.eu/transparency-international-eu-watered-down-eu-ethics-body-lacks-credibility/
8 June 2023, Brussels The EU ethics body proposed by the European Commission today would not be able to clean up the mess left by Qatargate. In 2019, European Commission President von der Leyen said: “If Europeans are to have faith in our Union, its institutions should be open and beyond reproach on ethics, transparency and integrity. I will support the creation of an independent ethics body common to all EU institutions.” But nothing happened. Four years later, the biggest corruption scandal ever to hit the EU institutions, Qatargate, highlighted once again the inability of the EU institutions to police themselves and the urgent need for independent external oversight. President von der Leyen repeated her promise to create an EU ethics body common to all EU institutions. And then nothing happened. Today the Commission has finally tabled its proposal, and it’s a far cry from what was expected or promised. Instead of a body that proactively monitors integrity across the institutions and investigates alleged breaches of ethics rules, what we are left with is a toothless talking shop, without any power to investigate or sanction. The role of the independent experts in the proposal is only advisory – the body needs to have an independent Chair. The system is based on self-assessment – but we know self-policing doesn’t work. Transparency International EU (TI EU) welcomes the aim of harmonising ethics standards across the European institutions. This will force the Parliament in particular to raise its game. But standards are futile if they are not properly implemented and enforced, and today’s proposal once more leaves enforcement in the hands of the institutions themselves. We need a body with full investigative powers, and the institutions can deliver that when they negotiate this proposed agreement. Nicholas Aiossa, Deputy Director and Head of Policy and Advocacy at TI EU, said “This proposed ethics body reinforces the EU’s business-as-usual, self-policing approach to misconduct. Implementing far-reaching ethics reform should be a top priority ahead of the European elections taking place in a year’s time. If the EU is to be serious about combatting corruption within its own ranks, it must ensure that any independent oversight body has the power and resources to investigate and sanction members engaged in wrongdoing.” TI EU believes the EU institutions cannot afford to wait for an ethics body to come into effect before putting their own house in order. The European Parliament in particular should immediately overhaul the Code of Conduct for MEPs, including regulation of side activities, post-mandate employment, meetings with lobbyists and corruption prevention mechanisms. Please direct press inquiries to [email protected].
Our analysis finds
❌no reform impacts sitting MEPs
❌no progress on mitigating MEP conflicts of interest
❌no progress on regulating lobbying of the European Parliament
❌no progress on protecting parliamentary staff whistleblowers
🟠insufficient progress on revolving doors
