Esta es la versión HTML de un fichero adjunto a una solicitud de acceso a la información 'Correspondence with Eurogas and FTI consulting'.



[...] ‘by contacting MEPs and offering to donate money to Unicef in exchange for meetings, Eurogas 
aisbl - contracting FTI Consulting to act on its behalf - breached the code of conduct. They indeed 
tried to obtain information (or did obtain if they managed to meet with some MEPs) by use of 
inappropriate behaviour. By offering to donate money to Unicef, if MEPs met with them, FTI - acting 
on behalf of Eurogas aisbl - put pressure on MEP by introducing a monetary dimension to the 
interaction. The choice of donating money to UNICEF adds even more confusion to Eurogas and 
FTI Consulting’s intention as promoting the use of fossil fuels has very little to do with the protection 
of children’s rights.’
 
 
In support of the allegation relating to point f), FOEE claims that: 
 
[Eurogas] ‘did not respect the implementation of code and good governance practices by persuading 
MEPs with donations in exchange for meetings. If they didn’t intend to use the donations as a way to 
persuade and influence MEPs, there was no reason for FTI to mention the donation in the first 
place.’
 
 
In support of the allegation relating to point g), FOEE claims that:  
 
‘Eurogas and FTI acting on its behalf breached point g of the code of conduct by inducing MEPs to 
contravene the rules and standards of behaviors applicable to them. Indeed, MEPs should not meet 
with lobbyists for any kind of compensation. Even if, in this case, the compensation is not given to the 
MEP directly, the donation to UNICEF is still linked to a meeting with an MEP, which involved them 
in the money exchange indirectly and therefore pushes them to contravene to the standards of 
behavior.’.
 
 
As  regards  the  alleged  breach  of  points  f)  and  g),  the  JTRS,  after  a  thorough  analysis  of  the 
complaint,  did  not  consider  it  admissible  on  these  grounds.  However,  it  finds  the  complaint 
admissible on the grounds of alleged violation of point b) of the Code of Conduct. In fact, the JTRS 
sees enough reasons to examine the propriety of trying to influence a politician’s decision whether or 
not to accept a meeting invitation by highlighting an intention to grant a monetary donation to a third 
party.  
 
The  JTRS  would  like  to  underline  that  while  it  respects  the  freedom  of  interaction  of  interest 
representatives  and  their  right  to  contribute  to  a  diversity  of  views  in  the  political  process,  such 
activities need to be carried out in accordance with the Code of Conduct, which the registrants in the 
Transparency Register have committed to abide by in their relations with the EU institutions. 
 
Moreover,  where  an  intermediary  represents  clients  professionally,  it  has  accepted  to  act  in 
compliance  with  the  Code  of  Conduct  laid  down  in  Annex  III  of  the  Interinstitutional  Agreement 
(IIA) on the Transparency Register and, where relevant, to list any professional Code of Conduct by 
which  it  is  bound  (FTI  Consulting  is  also  bound  by  the  Codes  of  Conduct  of  EPACA  and  SEAP, 
according to its registration in the Transparency Register).  
 
Although  not  directly  related  to  this  complaint,  the  EPACA  Code  stipulates  that  public  affairs 
practitioner shall ‘neither directly nor indirectly offer or give any financial inducement to any elected