In support of the allegation relating to
point b) of the Code of Conduct, MEP Ziluaga claims that:
‘In the email attached, FTI Consulting requests an interview on Eurogas. In addition, it is specified
that: "For each response Eurogas will donate €50 to UNICEF." To my understanding, this
constitutes a breach of the Code of Conduct for lobbyists, in particular Annex II, article b) [...]. By
mentioning that Eurogas will give money to UNICEF, FTI Consulting and Eurogas believe that this
will have an impact on the willingness of the MEP to meet with them, as it will give the MEP a 'feel
good'
moment.’
MEP Ziluaga concludes that:
‘This can be considered as giving an immaterial gift to the MEP to influence his behaviour, which is
inappropriate. Therefore, I ask you to take the appropriate measures to sanction FTI Consulting and
Eurogas and prevent this type of practices.’
In support of the allegation relating to
point b) of the Code of Conduct, FOEE further claims that:
[...]
‘by contacting MEPs and offering to donate money to Unicef in exchange for meetings, FTI
Consulting - acting on behalf of Eurogas - 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 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:
FTI Consulting [..]
‘did not respect the implementation of code and good governance practices by
persuading MEPs with donations in exchange for meetings. If [FTI Consulting]
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 g) of the Code of Conduct, FOEE claims that:
‘FTI Consulting - acting on behalf of Eurogas - 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.’
2
FOEE concluded that:
‘This behaviour is unethical and damaging to other interest groups. Introducing a financial
dimension to lobby interactions leads to a dangerous path and a lack of sanction from the
transparency register’s services will set a precedent therefore potentially leading to others doing the
same. Given the emails received by MEPs the non-compliances were completely intentional, clearly
stating « For each response, Eurogas will donate €50 to UNICEF »’. 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
or appointed public official, or staff of their institutions and political groups,’3 with a similarly
worded provision in Article 1.3 of the SEAP Code of Conduct.4 In light of the above, the JTRS
considers that the elements brought to its attention merit an investigation in order to determine
whether a breach of point b) of the Code of Conduct has occurred.
The view of the complainant is that FTI Consulting 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 JTRS agrees that a perception audit regarding the
activities of Eurogas ‘
has very little to do with the protection of children’s rights,’ as put forward by
the complainant. The mentioning of a donation to a third party may indeed create confusion as to the
real goal of the meeting and, as a result, be perceived as inappropriate behaviour.
3 https://epaca.org/code-of-conduct/
4 https://seap.be/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/SEAP-code-2016.pdf
3