Background Note
Independent ethics body
Based on an idea by Transparency international and was endorsed by Ursula
von der Leyen during her election campaign.
EP proposal
In September 2021,
Parliament adopted a resolution on the creation of an
IEB.
The proposed IEB would
investigate breaches of ethics rules by MEP’s,
Commissioners, and staff of EP and Commission and
make non-binding
recommendations to the institutions1 (also through own-initiative
investigations).
Other responsibilities:
o Help to establishing a common definition for “conflict of interest”.2
o “Vetting” of Commissioners-designate
o To issue ethics guidance and participate in awareness-raising on
ethics matters.
o Oversee obligations from the transparency register.
“Appropriate investigative powers” and “access to administrative documents”
foreseen
No new ethics rules for the institutions foreseen, IEB will instead use the
respective existing rules of the institutions.
Participating institutions would be
EP and Commission, other institutions
would be invited to join in the future.
The body should
not duplicate or interfere with the work of OLAF, EPPO, ECJ,
CoA or the Ombudsman.
Composed of
nine members
o three selected by the Commission,
o three elected by Parliament
o three assigned
de jure from former Presidents of the ECJ, the CoA and
European Ombudsmen (unclear what the procedure will be).
1 Under current rules, the institutions can already impose sanctions on current and former members, including
the deprivation of pension and other rights and “public shaming”.
2 OECD defines conflict of interest as: ‘when an individual or a corporation (either private or governmental) is
in a position to exploit his or their own profession or official capacity in some way for personal or corporate
benefit’
1
Background Note
Commission reply
Commission replied to EP Resolution in March 2022.
o Warned that the IEB would might duplicate functions of existing bodies
OLAF, EO, EPPO, ECA
o Emphasised that IEB should be an advisory body with
no decision-
making powers and no investigative function, that should not be able
to propose sanctions and a very limited scope (to avoid work overload)
o Argued against a common set of ethics rules for all institutions. All
institutions should have their own rules.
o Said that findings of the body should not be published.
o Proposed that the IEB should only have 5 members.
Line to take
The creation of an IEB is an important step, given the weak ethics monitoring
systems of the institutions.
EP and Commission seem to have very different ideas of its setup and powers;
it seems that there is no agreement in sight.
Ombudsman and the future IEB may be able deal with similar cases, but from
a
different angle. The IEB is designed to
investigate individuals’ behaviour
(Commissioners, MEPs, Staff),
the Ombudsman inquires into the
institutions
handling these cases
.
Past Ombudsman’s inquiries that the IEB could have dealt with as a first
instance are mainly
“revolving doors” inquiries, such as the cases related to
Oettinger and Barroso.
The
IEB and the Ombudsman should complement each other, with the
Ombudsman overseeing the IEB’s work. In principle, the Ombudsman could
inquire into both the IEB and the institutions implementing its
recommendations.3
There are still are
many open questions:
o
Powers of investigation: Will the IEB have the power to call individuals
to testify and have access to personal or business documents? How will
it monitor post-employment activities?
o How will the
members of the IEB
be
selected?
o How will the
Ombudsman be able to
oversee the work of the IEB?
Inquiries into the IEB directly or into parent institutions? Cases in which
the IEB decides not to act?
3 This is clarified in Article 228 of the TFEU.
2