TI calls for closing of ethics gap in Code of Conduct for European Commissioners

Filed under:

Transparency International (TI) is strongly concerned about the risk of conflict of interest when former European Commissioners assume lucrative positions in the private sector, and requests a review of the Code of Conduct for European Commissioners.

A fierce integrity debate flared up when ex-Commissioners Ferrero-Waldner, Verheugen, McCreevy and Kuneva assumed corporate jobs which may profit from their former roles within one year after they left office at the European Commission (EC). The current Code of Conduct for Commissioners stipulates that former European Commissioners may not assume roles related to their previous portfolios for a period of at least one year.

Ex-Commissioners are obliged to inform the Commission about their new jobs and, if there is a connection to their previous portfolios, the Commission will seek opinion from an Ad Hoc Ethical Committee. From the aforementioned cases, ex-Commissioner McCreevy's recent appointment at the low-cost airlines company Ryanair was approved by the committee, while decisions on ex-Commissioners Verheugen and Kuneva are expected in the coming weeks.

However, the committee lacks any formal criteria on which to base its judgments, and there are no systematic reporting arrangements or complaint procedures to address issues around post-office employment. Moreover, the Code of Conduct lacks a clear and effective enforcement mechanism.

The code’s shortcomings and the reputational risks it poses are clearly illustrated in a recent independent study commissioned by the European Parliament Committee on budgetary control. Last week, the Parliament once more stressed the need to revise the Code of Conduct in order to remedy its shortcomings.

Addressing these ethical gaps is critical to effectively prevent conflicts of interest and revolving doors between public and private office, promote ethical behaviour and ultimately build public trust in the Commission. The Commission has a unique chance to lead the field in post-office employment regulation, as many member states lack sufficiently robust legislation on cooling-off periods and look to the EU for guidance on how to regulate politicians' post-office employment in the private sector.

The following steps should be taken to prevent conflicts of interest and uphold the integrity of the European Commission:

  1. A cooling-off period of at least two years to mitigate the risk of a potential conflict of interest. A two-year post-office employment restriction reduces the possibility of 'insider information' and of EU Commissioners charged with potentially forging bridges between public and private sectors. Every three years, most key EU officials (and former staff members of Commissioners) change positions within the EC. Moreover, the EU debate and policy development advances to such a degree that insider information of a former EU official tends to lose most of its relevance. Thus, a period of at least 2 years represents a significant trade-off that balances the legitimacy of the Commission with the future entitlements of the Commissioner.
  2. A comprehensive, transparent and formal assessment procedure to assess whether post-office employment is compatible with former Commission duties, and to make the assessments public. Strict, public criteria would ensure the transparency of assessment procedures and significantly reduce potential conflicts of interest.
  3. Clear guidelines on enforcement in cases that breach post-office employment rules. Current instruments of enforcement include, but are not limited to, withholding pensions from former commissioners assuming incompatible post-office employment (framework of Treaty articles 213(2) in conjunction with Article 216,) and referring to national sanctions where ethical conduct infringes national or civil law. With this in mind, the Commission ought to consider using the instruments available or devising more politically viable enforcement alternatives.

“EU citizens’ trust in European institutions is at risk if its highest political representatives ignore their own Code of Conduct”, says Jana Mittermaier, the head of the TI EU office in Brussels. TI echoes the oath which every European Commissioner is required to take and which obliges them to “respect, both during and after the term of office, the obligations arising there from and, in particular, the duty to behave with integrity and discretion as regards the acceptance after they have ceased to hold office of certain appointments or benefits”.

###

Transparency International is the civil society organisation leading the fight against corruption

Press contact(s):

Brussels
Jana Mittermaier
T: +32 2 234 7723
E: .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

Berlin
Deborah Unger
T: +49 30 34 38 20 666
E: .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

Tags:

Stay informed

Related news

27
Feb
2014

Launch of new global campaign to stop secret government contracting

Today sees the launch of a new global campaign, Stop Secret Contracts, calling on world leaders to end secrecy in public contracting. The campaign is ...

24
Feb
2014

NEW AUTHORITIES MUST PROVE THAT INTEGRITY IS NOT A MERE SLOGAN

Transparency International Ukraine warmly congratulates the Maidan protesters on their victory in the fight for the right of Ukrainian people to live ...

21
Feb
2014

Transparency International ready to partner with government in fighting corruption

Transparency International welcomes the commitment expressed by the President to partner with the organisation in the fight against corruption.

Related publications

Publication cover image

Sierra Leone National Integrity System Assessment 2013

The 2013 Sierra Leone National Integrity System (NIS) Assessment finds in particular that Parliament and the Judiciary are weak in checking the ...

National Integrity System assessment published – Dec 2013

Publication cover image

New Zealand National Integrity System Assessment 2013

The 2013 New Zealand National Integrity System (NIS) Assessment finds that New Zealand’s national integrity system remains fundamentally strong. ...

National Integrity System assessment published – Dec 2013