EurActiv Logo
EU news & policy debates
- across languages -
Click here for EU news »
EurActiv.com Network

BROWSE ALL SECTIONS

Commission probed over ‘revolving door’ lobbying allegations

Printer-friendly version
Send by email
Published 14 February 2013, updated 15 February 2013

The European Ombudsman will today (14 February) launch a formal investigation into allegations that the European Commission is failing to clamp down on conflicts of interest amongst staff who leave the EU executive to take up jobs as lobbyists and consultants.

An original complaint was filed to the Ombudsman in October last year by NGOs Corporate Europe Observatory, Greenpeace, Lobbycontrol and Spinwatch, claiming that the Commission is unwittingly allowing private interests undue influence in public policymaking.

The Ombudsman is due to launch a formal investigation, and will seek previously undisclosed details of all cases in the last three years where Commission staff have left to take up jobs in the private sector where conflicts may occur.

Commission has power to ban and impose conditions

Under current rules, staff leaving the EU executive should be vetted for conflicts of interest before taking up private-sector jobs, and monitored for two years afterwards where such positions could lead to a conflict with the “legitimate interests of the institution”.

If such a potential conflict is uncovered then the EU executive has the power to ban the move, or impose conditions on it.

The original complaint set out 10 examples of perceived abuses of the revolving-door system. These included the cases of John Bruton, the former EU ambassador to the United States and Petra Ehrler, the head of cabinet to the former Enterprise and Industry Commissioner, Günther Verheugen.

The document said that Bruton, who went on to become a senior advisor to Brussels-based lobby consultancy Cabinet DN, failed to inform the Commission of his move and later said he did not know he was supposed to.

Ehrler set up an EU lobby consultancy with Verheugen immediately after leaving her post, but only applied for permission to do so four months later, claiming that she had not been made aware of this requirement, according to the complaint.

Ombudsman could recommend stricter rules

“If there are indications of a systemic problem, I will close the inquiry into the present complaint and open an own-initiatives inquiry, thereby giving me greater procedural flexibility to pursue my inquiry in the public interest,” the Ombudsman told the complainants in correspondence dated 1 February.

After the investigation, the Ombudsman could make recommendations as to how the Commission carries out its duties.

“Dalligate has shown us that personal contacts in the Commission are extremely useful to lobbyists wishing to promote their interests,” said Rachel Tansey, a campaigner with Corporate Europe Observatory.

Tansey was referring to the case of the former health commissioner, John Dalli, who was forced to resign last year amid allegations that he was influenced by lobbyists. 

“Many lobby consultancies head hunt Commission staff because they provide them with invaluable inside knowledge and contacts. It is a profitable business strategy and one the Commission cannot afford to ignore,” Tawnsey added.

The NGOs are calling on the Commission and the European Parliament to require lobby groups, companies and consultancies signed up to the EU’s transparency register to disclose if their lobbyists have previously worked as EU officials.

The EU register is currently under review, two years after it was launched.

Positions: 

“The Ombudsman investigation based on our complaint is good news for transparency,” said Jorgo Riss, a director at Greenpeace EU.

“For too long, the Commission has turned a blind eye to the conflicts of interest that can arise when EU bureaucrats change job to become lobbyists, or when lobbyists start working in the EU administration. The Ombudsman’s investigation should lead the Commission to close the revolving door to private lobbyists who put the public interest at risk.”

Next steps: 
  • 14 Feb.: EU Ombudsman to launch investigation into "revolving door" in the EU Commission
Jeremy Fleming

COMMENTS

  • I've just read the complaint made to the Ombudsman. It seems that the main basis for this complaint is Article 16 of the EU staff regulations:

    "Article 16
    An official shall, after leaving the service, continue to be bound by the duty to behave with integrity and
    discretion as regards the acceptance of certain appointments or benefits.
    Officials intending to engage in an occupational activity, whether gainful or not, within two years of leaving the
    service shall inform their institution thereof. If that activity is related to the work carried out by the official
    during the last three years of service and could lead to a conflict with the legitimate interests of the institution,
    the Appointing Authority may, having regard to the interests of the service, either forbid him from undertaking
    it or give its approval subject to any conditions it thinks fit. The institution shall, after consulting the Joint
    Committee, notify its decision within 30 working days of being so informed. If no such notification has been
    made by the end of that period, this shall be deemed to constitute implicit acceptance."

    Ok, fair enough, some individuals (like Bruton) failed to inform the Commission that they took up private sector jobs after working temporarily for the EU. It happens, probably more than we realise, and not just in this area (seriously, how many of us mentally retain each and every element of our employment contracts when we finish a job and move on to the next thing?)

    But more importantly, is it really the fault of the COMMISSION if a (former) staff member fails to comply with the staff regulations? As I read Article 16, it seems that the onus is on the staff member to comply.

    More generally, I notice that the NGOs behind this complaint seem to think that 'lobbyists' can only come from the private sector. What about the NGOs themselves? Are they not (powerful, relentless, agenda-laden) lobbyists in their own right?

    Example: Go onto the Transparency International website and look at the profiles of the Board of Directors. I see plenty of high-profile people who worked in governments and international institutions before joining that NGO. Ok, so working for an NGO focused on transparency is unlikely to prejudice the interests of the public sector organisations for which these people worked, but the point is that people go in and out of the public sector from both the business and the NGO end. The idea that only people in the private sector can have a conflict of interest due to their position is a bit rich, if you ask me.

    By :
    Oli
    - Posted on :
    14/02/2013
  • On behalf of Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO), one of the NGOs behind the complaint to the Ombudsman about the Commission's handling of the revolving door, I would clarify that we do not think lobbyists can only come from the private sector. As indicated by the fact that all four NGOs who submitted the complaint have signed up to the EU's voluntary lobby register (the Joint Transparency Register for "interest representatives" - take a look http://ec.europa.eu/transparencyregister/public/consultation/search.do )

    In our complaint, we argue that the Commission does not properly implement its own rules. This is based on ten well documented cases showing a repeated tendency of the Commission to fail to impose restrictions or cooling-off periods when there is clear risk of conflicts of interest from a new job, or to ensure staff were made fully aware of their obligations under the rules (as indeed, "how many of us mentally retain each and every element of our employment contracts when we finish a job?)". Cases which also illustrate the failure to impose sanctions when rules are breached and a systematic absence of proper scrutiny of the moves.

    At CEO we research and campaign to expose and challenge the privileged access and influence enjoyed by corporations and their lobby groups in EU policy making. The other groups who submitted the Ombudsman complaint - Lobbycontrol, Spinwatch and Greenpeace - work on similar topics, as well as environmental and other issues. As pointed out above, people do go in and out of the public sector from both the business and the NGO end - and of course, any individual leaving the Commission and coming to work for any of our organisations would, and should, be screened for conflicts of interest by the Commission as well. But as it is also noted above, working for an NGO focused on transparency is unlikely to prejudice the interests of the public sector organisations for which these people worked.

    We do not present the idea that "only people in the private sector can have a conflict of interest due to their position". Nonetheless, the risk of conflicts with the legitimate interests of the institution, for those seeking to influence legislation in their own business interests/ private profit seeking agenda are self-evidently higher than those engaged in non-profit, transparently conducted, public interest and pro-openness, transparency and democracy work.

    By :
    Rachel Tansey
    - Posted on :
    14/02/2013
  • ^Rachel, thank you for the clarification

    By :
    Oli
    - Posted on :
    14/02/2013
The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
In and Out
Background: 

In 2011, the European Commission and the European Parliament launched a joint online register for lobbyists working in Brussels, hoping to bring more transparency to the EU policymaking process by shedding light on those trying to influence it.

The launch of the register, which went online in June 2011, represented the culmination of years of discussions between the two EU institutions on setting up a joint lobby register.

Until then, lobbying activity had been subject to separate voluntary registers in the Commission and Parliament. The EU Council of Ministers, which represents member states, said it was ready to join but needed more time to prepare.

>> Read our LinksDossier on the EU's Transparency Initiative

More on this topic

More in this section

Advertising