ANNEX I Key normative and empirical data: Mapping Art 11 para 1 and 2 TEU in Law and Reality
Source of
Information
CATEGORY
"Regime"
I. General
Objectives
DESIRING to complete
(…) enhancing the
efficiency and democratic
legitimacy of the Union
and to improving the
coherence of its action”
Preamble, Treaty of
Lisbon
“DESIRING to enhance
further the democratic
and efficient functioning
of the institutions so as to
enable them better to
carry out, within a single
institutional framework,
the tasks entrusted to
them”
Preamble, Treaty on
European Union
“Democratic institutions
and the representatives of
the people, at both
national and European
levels, can and must try
to connect Europe with its
citizens. This is the
starting condition for
more effective and
relevant policies.”
“Democracy depends on
people being able to take
part in public debate. To
do this, they must have
access to reliable
information on European
issues and be able to
scrutinise the policy
process in its various
stages. … But the
institutions (…) also need
to communicate more
actively with the
general public on
European issues.”
“What is needed is a
reinforced culture of
consultation and
dialogue; a culture which
is adopted by all
European institutions and
Category and normative
inspiration
A
G
O
R
A
/
E
u
r
o
p
e
f
o
r
C
i
t
i
z
e
n
s
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
m
e
Open QU
Filter (terminology but not telos of
Art 11 TEU)
Closed
Questions
Left
blank
Not asked (necessity of limiting the number of questions confirmed by reply ratio)
Ombudsman
Individual DGs
DG Agri
Q 14 Where do you think this idea
of a civil dialogue comes from?
DGs: treaty provisions / Art. 11 TUE /
The EU civil dialogue was inspired by
national practices.The white paper on
governance developed a
comprehensive approach /
Need for accountability and better
ownership of policy / collecting
feedback
CSOs: Ancient Greece / Athens? /
culture and history and democracy /
The democratic charters of the EU /
democracy / It comes from the
people's interest to involve in the
welfare of their communities and on
their need/expectation for social
harmony /In order to make policy
which caters to the needs of the
population, one needs to know what
the population thinks / Need to
enhance citizen's participation in EU
decision making process / from
different organizations / pushed
forward by CSOs and EESC / NGOs
involvement / from the practices of
local development methods /
RAs: Ancient Athens democracy /
CD is a tool to implement the
principles of a democratic society:
openness, participation responsibility
efficiency and consistency / collecting
feedback
EUROPEAN COMMISSION PRESS RELEASE
Brussels, 18 July 2014
Letter to the European Commission
requesting an opinion in the European
Ombudsman's own-initiative inquiry
OI/6/2014/NF concerning the
composition of Commission expert
groups
“My own view is that the Commission has
already embraced a range of positive
initiatives that, if applied across the whole
spectrum of expert groups, would inject
much greater transparency and ensure
balance. The suggestions set out below
therefore seek to build on what the
Commission has already embarked upon
in various areas, from DG AGRI's civil
dialogue framework to its efforts on the
Transparency Register. While the
suggestions are detailed and ambitious, I
trust that you will find them useful and
feasible as you strive to build a model EU
administration.
The overall tenor of the contributions
received is negative as regards the current
situation. Stakeholders argue that there
are major deficiencies persisting with
regard to the composition and
transparency of Commission expert
groups. The main problems identified by
stakeholders are (i) the inconsistent
categorisation of organisations that are
members of expert groups, (ii) the
perceived continued dominance of
corporate interests in a high number of
expert groups, (iii) a lack of data on the
expert groups register, and (iv) the
appointment of individuals who are
closely affiliated with a specific
stakeholder group as experts in their
personal capacity, linked to the absence
of an effective conflict of interest policy.”
Strengthened and better balanced
civil dialogue groups to advice the
European Commission on agricultural
issues
“Civil dialogue groups provide an important
forum for consultation, providing high-level
input from a wide range of sources and
stakeholders in the form of opinions,
recommendations and reports,
complementing other sources, consultations
and in-house expertise of the European
Commission. DG AGRI is fully committed to
intensify the debate with the citizen trough
civil dialogue groups and in other
instances.”
Available at
http://europa.eu/rapid/pressrelease_IP-14-846_en.htm
DG Trade
1. We want to hear civil society's views
on trade issues
The European Commission is committed to
consulting interested parties when drawing
up policy and proposing action. DG Trade's
Civil Society Dialogue involves regular,
structured meetings to discuss trade policy
issues. The European Commissioner for
Trade or DG Trade officials attend the
meetings and inform participants of the
ongoing developments in EU trade policy,
and listen to and exchange views with them.
DG Trade encourages broad representation
in order to hear diverse opinions and
encourages civil society to participate
actively in the meetings.
2. We want to address civil society's
concerns on trade issues
Globalisation has been happening for
centuries, but its quickening pace in recent
years has given rise to questions and
concerns on a wide range of topics. People
are rightly keen to ensure that trade policy
does not negatively affect environmental
protection, labour rights, competitiveness,
poverty, and animal welfare. We believe it is
important to make time and resources
available to debate the issues, answer
questions and discuss possible course of
action. We organise meetings on topics of
current interest. The topics are chosen
together with an informal contact group,
comprising one representative from each of
the broad categories of organisations
involved in the civil society dialogue. Each
contact group member circulates information
to their constituents in their area of activity.
A
n
d
3. We want to improve how we make
policy
We want to have a good discussion with civil
society on the basis of sharing knowledge
and best practice. We value the opinions
and expertise of civil society: debating
topical issues that are shaping public opinion
is an important way of updating,
strengthening and deepening our knowledge
base. Such issues influence public
perceptions of trade policy, so it is essential
to discuss them, take them into account and
to respond to them when formulating policy.
We regularly provide feedback on the
meetings organised with civil society and the
minutes are posted on the DG Trade
website.
o
t
h
e
4. We want to improve transparency and
accountability
Transparency is an essential part of good
public administration and of public policy,
including trade policy. The European
Commission is committed to improving
transparency in the way EU trade policy is
DG Health
„Stakeholder
dialogue
Stakeholder dialogue is
a facilitated process
where DG Health and
Consumers sustains
dialogue with those
organisations that have
a stake in its activities.
Informal dialogue with
stakeholders prior to a
formal consultation is
often necessary to gain
an understanding of the
various issues, views
and perspectives to be
raised in the
consultation.”
Code of Good
PracticeFor
Consultation of
Stakeholders, 10.
65
which associates
particularly the European
Parliament in the
consultative
process, given its role in
representing the citizen. “
European
governance - A
white paper
(2001/C 287/01)
1. Civil dialogue in
general
“Civil society increasingly
sees Europe as offering a
good platform to change
policy orientations and
society. This offers a real
potential to broaden the
debate on Europe’s role.
It is a chance to get
citizens
more actively involved in
achieving the Union’s
objectives and to offer
them a structured channel
for feedback, criticism and
protest.”
European
governance - A
white paper
developed. Dialogue with civil society and
posting documents on the DG Trade website
are two ways we can do this. The
Transparency Register is an important
element in transparency because it requires
civil society to be open about their aims and
how they are funded.
r
s
u
c
h
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
m
e
s
a
r
e
n
o
t
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
a
s
“
d
i
a
l
o
g
u
e
Source:
http://trade.ec.europa.eu/civilsoc/csd_proc.cf
m
See above
What is the advantage of participatory
democracy? What is added value?
(15)
DG: Better governance / larger range
of ensures broader support and
improves quality of policy /
transparency /more expertise/
stronger engagement / enhanced
legitimacy / Legitimises action /
empowerment/ Participatory
democracy helps overcoming the
shortcomings of representative
democracy by combining it with
elements of direct democracy /
democracy is valuable by itself
CSOs: Reducing the costs of some
investments / share views, knowledge
and best practice, resulting in better
policies / Broader knowledge base,
broader acceptance by the public /
policy examined from many
perspectives, kinds of expertise,
including experential. early warning of
negative effects / Potentially, all
stakeholders get a chance to express
their opinion, enriching the debate /
expertise by stakeholders can feed in
to the policy process / It serves as a
reality check for EC institutions -who
are far away from the daily reality /
bringing deeper knowledge and
balanced decision / good policies are
achieved when all the stakeholders
contribute/ Citizens are satisfied with
the choices made by the governance /
understanding what Brussels is up to /
getting real life feedback /
empowerment, understanding, dignity
Greater transparency and
accountability about policies / better
adequacy with the interest of the
population/ enhance the legimitacy of
EU policies / civic engagement / Any
decision, initiative, law, action is
backed up by the community, the
communities evolve based on citizen
direct involvement / It is a basic
condition of democracy to involve the
participation of civil society groups.
Without it there is no effective
democracy / It serves as a reality
check for EC institutions -who are far
away from the daily reality
RA: Added value is only present if the
dialogue invovles submitte comments,
ideas and a follow up as to how these
can/are taken forward / Mostly better
preparation and understanding of
legislation / more support for
legislation / Allows everyone to share
their views, get involved in policy
66
”
a
c
c
o
r
d
i
n
g
t
o
e
i
t
h
e
r
A
r
t
1
1
T
E
U
o
r
2. Art 11 para 1
„The institutions shall, by
appropriate means, give
citizens and
representative
associations the
opportunity to make
known and publicly
exchange their views in all
areas of Union action.”
making in some way / Citizens are
satisfied with the choices made by the
governance / Participatory democracy
is part of the ES model of society.
Participation is a civic right and
subsidiarity - a pillar of democracy /
democracy is valuable by itself / that
citizens can make their voice herd not
only as voters but also outside of
elections on topics that matter to them
Could the civil dialogue produce
negative effects?
DGs: (mostly no)/ expectations might
be high / Lack of openness of different
actors to different views creates
negative dynamic
CSOs: No. Citizens are perfectly able
to understand and comprehend what
is at stake only good for vested
interests who have time to participate
/ if it is hijacked in some way/ If
professional lobbyist actors are getting
too much space, it harms the true
nature of the democratic process / If
unbalanced in representation, it
could provide biased inputs / power
imbalances can be increased , if not
active in engaging the most
disadvantage , excluded & least
organised citizens /not the dialogue
nitself, but there is always a risk that a
minority dominates the (passive)
majority / someone can complain that
it takes time, or spoils the final effect.
But this is a judgement of one side
only. / Waste of organisational
capacities, contribution to
unnecessarily complex and overly
bureaucratic procedures / Lengthy and
protracted decision making / /being a
waste of time and taxpayers money /
dissatisfaction / by some it might be
perceived (as) undemocratic
RAs: Citizens are perfectly able to
understand and comprehend what is
at stake. / not everyone has equal
chances to participate as actively in
any aspect of the dialogue / could slow
things down if too cumbersome / if a
party/lobby wants to rule the dialogue
yes / If participants are selected by a
lack of transparency, have no
jurisdiction if only listen and not take a
direct part/ by some it might be
perceived undemocratic/ Time
consuming and lack of action
t
h
e
DGs: Dialogue between the civil
society organisations themselves
U
n
i
o
n
CSOs: citizens having dialogue with
each other on their views of policies/
dialogue between several civilists/
between associative structures on
the same level/consultation Exchange
and alignment of CSO positions and
input/ going beyond the sectoral and
institutional approaches/ cross sector
collaboration / Sectoral or specific
targeted/ take attention to the
problems for the officials / democracy
(plus 3 variations of don’t know)
T
r
e
ROs: Dialogue between European civil
society organizations for the
development of future European
policies / organizations involved in the
67
a
t
i
e
s
process discuss among themselves /
Mainly exchange amongst
stakeholders / citizens having
dialogue with each other on their views
of policies/ between the EU and
citizens
i
n
3. Art 11 para 2
“The institutions shall
maintain an open,
transparent and
regular dialogue with
representative
associations and civil
society.”
g
e
n
e
r
a
l
B
u
t
r
a
t
h
e
r
DGs: Dialogue between executive
and legislative authorities on one hand
and representative associations and
civil society on the other hand /
consultation / between the institutions
and representative associations and
civil society organisations
CSOs: Citizens having dialogue with
the institutions on their views of
policies / dialogue from and to policy
makers / between civil society
organisations and EU authorities /
Bottom-up dialogue crossing all levels
of the society from citizen, grassroot
org, to civil society, umbrella structures
and public bodies / improving links
between local, regional, national and
European level / Ancient Greece/
consultation / To know what's going on
at the population
RAs: Citizens having dialogue with
the institutions on their views of
policies / Structured and regular
dialogue between the organizations
and the EU / Exchange between
stakeholders and the EC / between
citizens
a
f
o
r
m
o
f
II. Objectives met
C & R VII
1. Civil dialogue in
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
(15, RA) We do not consider the EU
dialogues - at least the ones we have
68
general
C & R XI
o
n
)
a
n
d
a
r
e
followed closely- as transparent or as
democratic as they should be (16,
DGs) not everyone has equal chances
to participate as actively in any aspect
of the dialogue/ Lack of openness of
different actors to different views
creates negative dynamic (16. CSOs)
only a very small community can really
contribute, since you need time and
knowledge to take part / Too strong
temptation for policy makers to
manipulate and abuse the participation
of stakeholders to serve their own
interests (24, CSO) The EU has a long
way to go in establishing democratic
legitimacy.
t
h
e
r
e
f
o
r
e
n
o
t
2. Art 11 para 1
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
(compare answers in I.2.)
i
n
3. Art 11 para 2
4. Performance in
meeting the
t
h
i
s
m
a
p
p
i
(compare answers in I.3.)
How do you perceive the reality of the
civil dialogue in action in your own
area of expertise? Do you think civil
dialogue is effective? If so, why? (17,
69
objectives
C & R XII
n
g
19)
DGs: (17) Range from “good and
useful” to disappointing
(19) Yes. On partners' side: it
enhances ownership. On the side of
the authorities: increased coherence,
more targeted action / yes, it bring
COM closer to citizens and
stakeholders / forum would be better
than survey and live meeting even
better / Effective, stimulates debate,
has helped deliver greater
transparency in both directions,
informs us of wider politics of trade
DG AGRI changed its system to make
the dialogue more effective. The initial
feedback is good
CSOs: (17) We have been calling for
structured diallogue within Education &
Training without success / satisfactory
in the process of local development,
disappointing in higher level of territory
/ satisfactory- it is exciting to
participate in building a new type of
democracy (otherwise range as
above)
(19) No. The agenda of the dialogue is
very limited and set by only one side of
the dialogue / A civil dialogue is not
effective. There is a lack in practice ,
especially resources to adequately
perform a dialogue in a short time. /
Not at our European level / it is good in
getting some information, we do not
really dialogue a lot though/ No, there
are to less people who knows about it.
We need better informations. / I think it
is not substantive enough / yes, but
not enough of it; civil dialogue means
bunch of work, and COM tries to avoid
/ partly effective due to conflicts of
interests/ It is effective. Helps to better
manage the communities and puts
pressure on decidents. / at Brussels
level yes ( It does provide an
opportunity for civil society groups to
make their voice heard with the
Commission and Parliament./ yes,
promotes more informed & democratic
decision making / No, there are to less
people who knows about it. We need
better informations. /
The questions aren't right: dialogue
works with the people we work with
directly but not with the hierarchy.
RAs: (17) wide range, mostly
satisfactory
(19) No. The agenda of the dialogue is
very limited and set by only one side of
the dialogue / Not effective, as there is
a lack of transparency and non-equal
treatment among the DG and
organisations / Depends on type of
people involved, needs to be broad
and involve new people. / Yes, if just
seen as an exchange platform / Yes,
because efficiency is one of the
principles of management of civil
dialogue. / yes,it can influence
decision making /
It does highlight The Commissions
important work areas
III. Specific tasks
70
1. Civil dialogue in
general
19b, 20b
Dialogue:
DGs: A structured and meaningful
mutual exchange/two way flow;
engagement to listen/engagement in
discourse (conversation) intended to
enhance understanding and reach
amicable agreement/ interactive/ need
two way exchange
CSOs: Two sides hearing each other
and replying to each others arguments
/ a two way street /listening and
talking.. on both sides / dialogue is
limited by the economic interests and
has a non visible part / procedure to
getting constructive solutions/
exchanging views and knowledge / A
fruitful exchange of information,
experiences, opinions / mutual,
intensive, efficient / democratic
listening to each other and make
action plans Civil dialogue is the way
to get information and reflect
2. Art 11 para 1
3. Art 11 para 2
IV. Aims
RAs: a two-way process /
conversation / Two sides hearing each
other and replying to each others
arguments/ Despite the original
meaning of the greek work diaologos,
it can be discussions to find a
consensus among more than two
parties / interactive/ interaction with
stakeholders and decision makers to
influence a decision / The dialogue is
more based on the Commission
lecture instead of a real discussion
(compare answers in I.2.)
.
.
(compare answers in I.3.)
DGs: Give citizens and representative
associations the opportunity to make
known and publicly exchange their
views (cf. art. 11 TUE) / to make
known their views in all areas related
to CAP/ engagement, transparency
CSOs: To let citizens be heard /
involve stakeholders / give
stakeholders opportunity to express
views; contribute to open and
transparent policy making process /
Provide a platform for qualified
participation to CSOs into EU policies /
to show transparency and participation
/ Enable the democratic participation in
policy making of those concerned /
THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the
Functioning of the European Union,
Whereas:
(3) With a view to increase transparency
and provide for a better balancing of
represented interests it is necessary to
review the dialogue in the advisory
groups dealing with agriculture issues
and to provide for the framework of a
civil dialogue in the field of agriculture
and rural development, including the
international aspects thereof, and to
71
Enhance democratic participation of
civil society / Exchange of information
and expert advice to the DG / To
establish democratic influence,
transparency/ To make sure the voice
and interest of EU Citizens are taken
into account/ understand our diversity,
increase public engagement in
Europe, and take account of different
voices in decision making
(output oriented): more understanding,
better regulations / Improving
gouvernance and leading policy in
better adequacy/ the quality of
legislation / the individuals' quality of
life and make the communities
sustainable/ find a better solution /
Good governance for the people /
Make use of experts and grassroots
knowledge/ balanced policy making /
structured support by NGOs
define their tasks and structure.
(4) The civil dialogue groups should
assist the Commission and help to hold a
regular dialogue on all matters relating
to the common agricultural policy,
including rural development, and its
implementation, and in particular the
measures which the Commission is
called on to take in that context,
including the international aspects of
agriculture, bring about an exchange of
experience and good practice, advise on
policy, deliver an opinion on specific
matters upon request of the DirectorateGeneral for Agriculture and Rural
Development or on their own initiative
and monitor policy developments.
RAs: let citizens be heard/ to make
the voice of citizens through organized
civil society heard / Give citizens/orgs
the opportunity to share their opinions
on EU related issues/work / To
express our opinion. Active
participation for better state of
agriculture in Europe / opportunity to
make known and publicly exchange
their views in all areas of Union action
(output oriented): improvement of the
quality of legislation / Sustaining the
EC in the elaboration of an adequate
legislation, improving its understanding
amongst stakeholders and its
implementation.
setting up a framework for civil
dialogue in matters covered by the
common agricultural policy and
repealing Decision 2004/391/EC
COMMISSION DECISION
of 16 December 2013
(2013/767/EU)
V. The criteria of
11 para 2
C & R XV
1. Open
C & R XII
Principles of
Governance: Openness
“The institutions should
work in a more open
manner. Together with
the Member States, they
should actively
communicate what the EU
does and the decisions it
takes. They should use
language that is
accessible and
understandable for the
general public. This is of
particular importance in
order to improve the
confidence in complex
institutions.”
European
governance - A
white paper
DGs: not restricted to certain
categories or lobbies / Based on
clearly defined rules, without
unjustified barriers / fully transparent /
An open dialogue is one which is open
to the all interested parties to hear and
participate in / Open to not for profit
organisations in EU Transparency
Register
CSOs: for all to be part of it / open to
every contribute / A wide range of
stakeholders have access to the
dialogue. / access to everybody on the
documents, allowing all NGOs to
participcate, but not having many,
many people per one interest group /
open to non economic interests / both
'sides' can put items on the agenda... /
democratic listening to each other /
The wide public can see it freely and
media can easily dig deeper /
administrative "imposibility" / Prior
disclosure of relevant information
about what is at stake
• Efforts should be made
to involve a
representative crosssection of stakeholders
in policy development,
since different sections
or groups of
stakeholders across the
EU have different needs
and views.
Code of Good
PracticeFor
Consultation of
Stakeholders, 8.
ROs: no restriction / accessible / open
to all interested organizations / Broad
access / The wide public can see it
freely and media can easily dig
deeper.
72
2. Transparent
(32) DGs: Publicly available
information, unambiguous rules/
openness / public /Open meetings,
records published, potentially
webstreamed
CSOs: Information about agendas,
meetings,decision making milestones /
the fact that each partner of the
dialogue is clearly displayed.
Dissemination of the results and the
arguments of the decision. /
Accessability of agendas , minutes
and list of participants / clear goals,
actions and procedure and
dissemination of information / all
documents are available It is clear in
advance and afterwards, how the
dialogue affects the decision making
and how other factors influence it /
minutes should be available to the
public / On the record so that those
with contrary views can have an
opportunity to challenge information
exchanged / clear reporting / no
hidden agenda, willingness to be open
about the issues and interests / this
concerns especially the invitation
policy / completely open to everibody /
lack of responsiveness /
RAs: It is clear in advance and
afterwards, how the dialogue affects
the decision making and how other
factors influence it / open to public
scrutiny / truth / Equal access to
participation and documents / Open,
non-prejudiced, neutral, objective,
respectful to all parties / that it is
visible for all those interested / public
3. Regular
(33) DGs: Recurring at fixed, uniform,
or normal intervals / at sufficient close
intervals as to be beneficial for all
parties involved periodic, as necessary
–
2-3 times per year and more if
necessary by modern IT tools /several
times each year / We try to ensure
monthly contacts
CSOs: As regular as decisions are
made and agendas are set. / Before,
during and after the process / regular
meetings are held / a fact/ organised,
planned / action/procedure that is
common, repetable, based on a
periodicity / more often than once /
every X weeks/months / continous /
meaning not only a one off occasion
but several times when new input is
needed / Recurrent, constant over
time / defined by rules / regular
depends on context , should involve
dialogue at all points of assessment or
policy change
Can be anything from monthly to
biannual / at least twice a year and
before changes in key policies
Letter to the European Commission
requesting an opinion in the European
Ombudsman's own-initiative inquiry
OI/6/2014/NF concerning the
composition of Commission expert
groups
I note with great satisfaction that
the new Commission has taken a
number of initiatives to enhance the
transparency of its work. According
to the working methods of the new
Commission, Members of the
Commission must not, as a rule, meet
professional organisations or selfemployed individuals which are not
registered in the Transparency
Register. In addition, since 1
December 2014, meeting agendas of
Commissioners, their cabinet
members, as well as of DirectorsGeneral, with organisations or selfemployed individuals on issues
relating to policy-making and
implementation in the Union are made
public. What is more, the revised
interinstitutional agreement
between the Commission and the
European Parliament on the
Transparency Register applies since
1 January 2015. The new agreement
improves upon the established
categorisation of stakeholders by
providing more detailed descriptions
on the Transparency Register's
different sections, with a view to better
enabling registrants to choose the right
category for registration. It also
establishes explicit links to
Commission expert groups by (i)
requiring registrants to enter their
membership in expert groups on the
register, as well as by (ii) providing
that the Commission may offer
incentives to registrants with regard to
expert groups in order to encourage
registration.
Highly transparent legal basis as
posted in the DG’s online information on
its civil dialogue:
“Transparency is an essential part of good
public administration and good public
policymaking, including for trade policy.”
http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/civildialogue-groups/index_en.htm (April 7,
2015)
Annual Report 2013, Civil society dialogue
and trade, 10.
Transparency
The Commission will publish all relevant
documents such as agendas, minutes,
conclusions, partial conclusions or working
documents on the activities carried out by
the civil dialogue groups dealing with
matters covered by the CAP.
Exceptions to systematic publication will be
made where disclosure of a document would
undermine the protection of a public or
private interest as defined in Article 4 of
Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 regarding
public access to European Parliament,
Council and Commission documents.
• Consultations should
be transparent about
their scope.
• Consultation exercises
should be clear on what
has taken place in the
development of the
policy prior to the
consultation, how the
consultation will be run
and, as far as is
possible, what can be
expected after the
consultation has formally
closed.
Code of Good
PracticeFor
Consultation of
Stakeholders, 7.
Available at
http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/civildialogue-groups/index_en.htm
“DG Trade’s CSD involves regular and
structured meetings”
Mettings 2013:
Annual Report 2013, Civil society dialogue
and trade, 1,10.
73
no big regulatory work should be done
without liasing with the civil society /
lack of vision and good will
RAs:
As regular as decisions are made and
agendas are set / frequent / normal,
standard, permanent, stable / that it
happens regularly
At least twice a year / several times
each year
VI.
Considerations
(„wish list“ general)
What issues could be improved to
achieve greater effectiveness? (21
in part)
DGs: Extension of the culture and
practice of civil dialogue in all EU
member states./ more periodic
dialogue; not only CDG per se;
openness and frank approach/ forum
would be better than survey and live
meeting even better
CSOs: agenda sent well in advance;
input on agenda possible; targeted
discussion on specific issues; followup / agenda set by us. / Structured
dialogue instead of one huge meeting
per year / a more institutionalized
involvement of CSOs / More media
work, more forums / less meetings,
less people in meetings, more
technical discussions, more concrete
questions of commission what they
want from us / Carefull selection of the
leaders. More information for the
electorate. / The assistance of
independent scientific experts / More
effort and money on our side / no way
to learn political skills since unions
collapsed / more involvement of the
parliament members
RAs: Dialogue should be way more
extensive, inclusive and the agenda
set by us./ Proper dialogue with
feedback - instead of university style
lecturing on the part of the
Commission /
Wishes expressed in response to
other questions:
16: RA: Should not be used by EC to
refrain organising proper consultation
processes, impact studies and
evaluations of (possible) EU legislation
VII. "Legal
Nature"
1. Hard law
Are you aware of any legal
obligation why the civil dialog must
be conducted? If so, where does
the obligation stem from? (22 and
23)
Y
DGs: EU Treaty / Article 11(2) of the
TEU / Art. 11 TUE as well as
obligations stemming from sectorspecific secondary legislation / it stems
from participatory democracy as a
fundamental democratic principle of
the EU
CSOs: Treaty of Lisbon stresses the
need for dialogue with various groups /
Art. 11 / in the treaty of lisbon / not
specifically / Art 11(1) and 11(2) of the
74
Treaty on European Union / Art 11
TEU, Art 41-44 EU Charter,
Regulation on Access to Documents /
From the constitution(s) / From the
constitution(s) / Constitutional Treaty
ROs: Treaty of Lisbon / Yes, art. 11
TEU / Art 11 / Art 11(1) and 11(2) of
the Treaty on European Union /
Lisbon Treaty, human rights treaties /
Treaty agreements signed by the EU
2. Soft law
Nature
(24, CSOs )Best practices in EU states
are the additional incentives to
effective civil dialog / EP Report on the
perspectives for developing civil
dialogue under the Treaty of Lisbon
3. Non-legal
obligation / Code
of Ethics
Do you believe that an obligation
other than legal exists in light of the
EU’s democratic legitimacy? (24)
“The Code is a good
practice guide. DG
Health and Consumers
will apply the Code to
the consultations which
we decide to launch,
according to the specific
circumstances of each
case.If it is necessary to
deviate from the Code,
DG Health and
Consumers will be open
about such deviations,
stating the reasons for
them and the measures
used to make the
exercise as effective as
possible in the given
circumstances. The Code
does not have legal
force and does not
prevail over statutory or
mandatory
requirements.”
DGs: (several times yes)/ EU
democratic process and tradition / the
CDGs are an asset in ensuring that
people are active in shaping their
society
CSOs: (several times yes, less
frequently no)/ for sure, Europe lost
the link to its citizens / A moral
obligation exists indeed /yes, a moral
and popular obligation / yes, ethical
and duty to citizens / yes a democratic
one towards the citizens and who
represents them / Yes, democracy is
based on listening to the population - it
is the most basic prinicple / a moral
obligation for transparency and
legitimacy / All the big words about
democracy, transparency and rights
must have just a shred of reality in
order not to be completely ridiculous / i
don't think so
RAs: (“yes” twice) / A moral obligation
exists indeed. As EU has competence
in many topics / I hope so!
“We expect stakeholders
to identify themselves
and who they represent
when taking part in
public consultations, and
in informal contacts with
the services of DG
Health and Consumers.
Code of Good
PracticeFor
Consultation of
Stakeholders, 5, 7.
4. Regulatory
regime (beyond Art
11 TEU)
What kind of regulatory regime
currently regulates civil dialogue in
your area of work/expertise? Please
describe the exact legal basis for
the regime currently in place in your
area of work/expertise (25 and 26)
Letter to the European Commission
requesting an opinion in the European
Ombudsman's own-initiative inquiry
OI/6/2014/NF concerning the
composition of Commission expert
groups
DGs: EU secondary legislation /
Commission decision of 16 december
2013 / Art. 5 of Regulation 1304/2013 ;
Commission Decision setting up the
ESI Funds structured dialogue group
of experts C(2014) 4175 / setting up a
framework for civil dialogue in matters
covered by the common agricultural
policy and repealing Decision
2004/391/EC / COM decision (AGRI) /
The rules of procedure complement
the operation rules of the civil dialogue
group as set up in the Decision
Since December 2013, DG AGRI's
civil dialogue groups, a specific type of
Commission expert group, have been
governed by a new framework. I
consider that this legal framework, the
implementation of which is subject to
review in the context of own-initiative
inquiry OI/7/2014/NF, presents clear
advantages over the horizontal rules
governing Commission expert groups.
I would like to highlight the following
points. The framework for DG AGRI's
civil dialogue groups is legally binding.
• Consultation shall be
undertaken at the
earliest possible stage in
the decision-making
process, when there is
scope to influence the
policy outcome. The link
to decision- making on a
specific policy or
implementing measure
will be made clear.
COMMISSION DECISION
of 16 December 2013
setting up a framework for civil
dialogue in matters covered by the
common agricultural policy and
repealing Decision 2004/391/EC
(2013/767/EU)
Annual Report 2013, Civil society dialogue
and trade, 5
• The consultation shall
make clear its purpose,
context and the process
that will ensue after it
closes.
• Contributors to
consultations should be
75
2013/767/EC / CONSTITUTION AND
INTERNATIONAL LAW
CSOs: decision of commission / DG
decisions / 23 April 2004 Decision of
the Commission / Rules of procedures
defined by the DG and agreed on by
participants to the dialogue / values
and communication system
(methodically and democratically) / as
part of various EU programmes. out of
habit / The Law of Associations and
Foundations no. 26/2000 /The Law of
Associations and Foundations, the
Civil Code and the Fiscal Code /
(variations of none)
RAs: DG decisions / National
legislation, which is mostly not
implemented / lack of dialogue regime
/(variations of no/none)
5. Remedy
It provides that these groups have to
have a balanced representation of
interests, in particular a balance
between economic and non-economic
interests. The framework for DG
AGRI's civil dialogue groups also
requires that, in order to be eligible to
be appointed as a member of such a
group, an organisation must be
registered in the Transparency
Register. Moreover, the framework
requires a mandatory call for
applications for each group. Given
these advantages, I consider that the
legal framework for DG AGRI's civil
dialogue groups should be used as a
benchmark for any future amendment
of the Commission's horizontal rules
governing expert groups
informed of any
limitations that the
Commission faces.
• Consultation should be
targeted to make sure
that the relevant
stakeholders are
involved.
• The method of
consultation should be
appropriate, and staff
should have the
necessary competence.
Code of Good
PracticeFor
Consultation of
Stakeholders, 7.
Please describe legal recourses
currently available to actual as well
as aspiring participants of civil
dialogues in your area of
work/expertise (27)
DGs: the standard ones for the
advisory groups of the Commission /
don`t know /NA
CSOs: only the TEU is a resource,
apart from that we stand very very
weak / outsourced externally /
Mediator / focus groups, public
hearings, referendum, promotion of
citizen initiatives, consultation process
on law drafts / (variations of don’t
know)
RAs: only the TEU is a resource, apart
from that we stand very very weak /
(variations of don’t know)
VIII. Performance
of the Regulatory
regime
2. Considerations
on the legal
nature/regulator
regime („wish-list“)
Letter to the European Commission
requesting an opinion in the European
Ombudsman's own-initiative inquiry
OI/6/2014/NF concerning the
composition of Commission expert
groups
I consider that it is an opportune
moment for me to propose that the
Commission consider putting in
place a new framework for
Commission expert groups, in order
for the composition of expert groups to
be better balanced and transparent in
76
the future, as well as to provide for the
possibility of review of their
composition.
(…)
In my view, it is important that the
framework for Commission expert
groups is made legally binding.
Laying down the horizontal rules in a
legally binding text would, first of all,
ensure consistency between the
handling of DG AGRI's civil dialogue
groups and the Commission's expert
groups in general. There is no obvious
reason for the framework for a specific
type of Commission expert group to be
legally binding, while the framework for
other groups is not. What is more,
adopting a legally binding text on the
framework for expert groups would
confirm the Commission's commitment
to having balanced expert groups and
would enable it to remove the
uncertainty that is inherent in the
wording of the currently applicable
Commission Communication.
In practical terms, making the
framework for expert groups legally
binding could be done by adopting a
Commission decision on the
horizontal rules governing expert
groups.
(more details in the letter)
IX. Selection
C & R IX.
1.
Notification and
Criteria for
participation
C & R XIII
Q 34 What do you think about
specific qualifying criteria for
admissibility?
DGs: They allow better structuring the
dialogue, ensure representation and
avoid discrimination / necessary to
have in order to have a wellfunctioning dialogue / ok but it is a bit
artificial that religious org cannot
register as such but only through a
representative / spelt out in decision
CSOs: Needed, to prevent
fragmentation and wildgrowth /
necessary / Important / qualifying
criteria enhance the applicants to
achieve a minimum level of
expectations. They are usefull / In
principle good / in principle this is fine
as long as the threshold is not too high
/ the formal criteria are not as
important as the actual conditions
under which civil society has to
operate - usually lack of resources /
not respected
RAs: Needed, to prevent
fragmentation and wildgrowth / Can
not properly be assessed for
representatives / It would be good to
call qualified experts to dialogues, if a
professional issue is concerned
Q 35 Which criteria would you
reject?
DGs: Any criteria that impinge on a
fundamental right / any that aims to
exclude a category of EU citizenss /
Letter to the European Commission
requesting an opinion in the European
Ombudsman's own-initiative inquiry
OI/6/2014/NF concerning the
composition of Commission expert
groups
1. Following the example of the
Commission's legal framework for DG
AGRI's civil dialogue groups, the
Commission should publish a call
for applications for every expert
group.
Given that the potential response to a
public call for applications cannot
reasonably be predicted, it is difficult to
see how and in which specific
circumstances the Commission could
come to the conclusion, from the
outset, that a public call for
applications would not serve a useful
purpose.[5]
2. What is more, interested
stakeholders must be able to access
calls for applications easily. The
Commission should create a single
portal on which calls for applications
are published. The single portal should
be created on the model of the
Commission's website for
consultations[6] and should be
interlinked with the expert groups
register.
In practice, developing this single
portal would mean, in the
Ombudsman's view, adding the
following functions to the expert
groups register's "news" section:
- Indicative planning for calls for
applications
A call for applications (see below)
Annual Report 2013, Civil society dialogue
and trade, 3
• Ways of engaging
stakeholders who are
‘hard-to-reach’ or are
seldom heard will be
actively sought,
including using the
voluntary and NGO
sectors to channel
consultations to hard-toreach groups.
Code of Good
PracticeFor
Consultation of
Stakeholders, 8.
77
inconsistent treatment/categorisation
of organizations appointed /
CSOs: financial, age, focus on
national organisations / NGOs
including public authorities in their
membership / registered association,
focus of the NGO relevant to the
dialogue
RAs: Small budget / financial, age,
focus on national organisations / Non
relevant to our profession or to an
issue parties, authorities / any that
aims to exclude a category of EU
citizens
- Calls for applications by policy
area
- E-mail alert system for new calls
for applications
3. The Commission should introduce a
standard deadline for all calls for
applications. This should enable
organisations with limited funding
and/or human resources to plan
accordingly and be able to submit the
required documents in time. A
deadline of 6 weeks would appear to
be a reasonable minimum.
Q 36 Which criteria would you
favor?
DGs: Criteria related to
representativeness and relevant
expertise, provided they are
objectively verifiable /
representativeness / the ones
published in the call for applications by
DG AGRI
CSOs: Democratic structure of
organisation, a certain
representativeness and public interest
/ representativeness, internal
democracy and metadialogue /
democratic listening to each other /
proof of working on european level /
balance between economic and noneconomic interests
RAs: representativitiy / Close contact
with people in the area / Evidence of
the subject's good knowledge,
authorised participation to executive
committees
2. Responsibility
and Criteria for
selecting members
Article 4
Membership appointment
1. The Director-General shall decide
on the composition of the groups, on the
basis of a call for applications.
2. The groups shall be composed of at
least European-level nongovernmental organisations,
including representative
associations, socioeconomic
interest groups, civil society
organisations and trade unions that
are registered in the Transparency
Register. Membership of the groups
shall be open to those organisations
representing any kind of relevant
interest
3. Taking into account the interest of the
civil society in the common agricultural
policy the Director-General shall decide
on the number of groups and their size.
The list of groups shall be published in
the Register of Commission expert
groups and other similar entities (‘the
Register’) and on a dedicated website.
Director-General shall ensure a balanced
representation of all expressed interests
referred to in paragraph 2. In particular,
he/she shall ensure a balance between
economic and non-economic interests.
78
COMMISSION DECISION
of 16 December 2013
setting up a framework for civil
dialogue in matters covered by the
common agricultural policy and
repealing Decision 2004/391/EC
(2013/767/EU)
3.Publication of the
selection/ the
selected members
“With better
involvement comes
greater responsibility.
Civil society must itself
follow the principles of
good governance, which
include accountability and
openness.”
European
governance - A
white paper
Letter to the European Commission
requesting an opinion in the European
Ombudsman's own-initiative inquiry
OI/6/2014/NF concerning the
composition of Commission expert
groups
Inconsistent labelling/categorisation of
organisations appointed to expert
groups is one of the main obstacles to
reviewing whether the composition is
balanced or not. The fact that the
same organisation may be labelled
differently in different expert groups is
difficult to comprehend. Furthermore,
the labelling of organisations in the
expert groups register differs from
registrants' categorisation in the
Transparency Register. The latter
divergence is especially problematic
for membership of expert groups
which requires registration in the
Transparency Register.
I acknowledge that it can be a complex
task to label a particular organisation.
The Transparency Register, however,
contains well-defined categories and
subcategories of stakeholders. The
delimitation of those categories and
subcategories has further been
strengthened since 1 January 2015, as
mentioned above. The crucial
advantage of the Transparency
Register, moreover, is that registrants
label themselves by choosing the
appropriate section of the register to
sign up to.
1. Given that registration in the
Transparency Register is already a
prerequisite for membership of certain
Commission expert groups, and given
also that it is expected that a
mandatory Transparency Register will
be introduced in the near future, I
propose that the Commission use
the Transparency Register's
categorisation to categorise
members in Commission expert
groups.[7]
2. Moreover, in light of the working
methods of the new Commission and
the anticipated mandatory
Transparency Register, the
Commission's horizontal rules for
expert groups should require
registration in the Transparency
Register for appointment to expert
groups.
This requirement would, of course,
concern only those expert group
members who are eligible for
registration in the Transparency
Register. Already today, Members of
the Commission must not meet
professional organisations or selfemployed individuals which are not
registered in the Transparency
Register. If the Commission deems it
inappropriate for its Members to meet
Article 4
Membership appointment
8. The names of member organisations
shall be published in the Register of
Commission expert groups and other
similar entities and on a dedicated
website.
COMMISSION DECISION
of 16 December 2013
setting up a framework for civil
dialogue in matters covered by the
common agricultural policy and
repealing Decision 2004/391/EC
(2013/767/EU)
79
organisations and self-employed
individuals not registered in the
Transparency Register, it should also
deem it inappropriate that those
organisations and self-employed
individuals influence the Commission's
policy and decision-making through
their participation in expert groups.
Concretely, the Commission should
require registration in the case of all
organisations and of all selfemployed individuals to be
appointed to expert groups either as
representatives of a common interest
shared by stakeholders or as
individual experts in their personal
capacity.
As regards individual experts who are
not self-employed and who are
appointed to represent a common
interest shared by stakeholders, one
could assume that they will most likely
be employees of, or otherwise closely
affiliated with, organisations that are
part of the group of stakeholders
whose common interest they
represent.
Even though these individuals are not,
by definition, meant to represent those
organisations, they will necessarily
bear those organisations' interests in
mind when acting as members of the
relevant expert groups. I am therefore
of the view that it would appear
reasonable, in a situation of close
affiliation, to require that the
relevant organisations themselves
register in the Transparency
Register.
3. The proposed linking of the
Commission expert groups to the
Transparency Register would
considerably increase data reliability.
However, for this to work properly, it
would appear necessary for the
Joint Transparency Register
Secretariat to systematically check
whether, prima facie, registrants
sign up to the right section of the
Transparency Register. This most
likely would require an increase in
resources for the Secretariat. For any
other information provided by
registrants, the currently existing
system of quality checks, together with
the overhauled alerts and complaints
system for the detection of incorrect
information in the Transparency
Register, appears to be a step
forward.
4. On a practical note, the Commission
should link each member of an expert
group to his/her/its profile in the
Transparency Register so that the
public can easily access this data.
5. Individuals who are not selfemployed and who are appointed to
expert groups as individual experts
in their personal capacity fall
outside the scope of the
Transparency Register. Given that
those individual experts "shall [act]
independently and [express] their own
personal views", the Commission
should, as part of a revised conflict of
interest policy, publish a sufficiently
detailed CV and a declaration of
interests for each individual expert
concerned on the expert groups
80
register (see the heading D. below).
4. Considerations
on the selection
“The European
Parliament, (…)
8. Takes the view that the
rules applicable to
representatives of public
authorities and of
organisations working in
the public interest which
are bound by
constitutional provisions
and fundamental rights
must not be the same as
those applicable to
representatives of special
interests; maintains, in
particular, that only
autonomous public bodies
should be asked to
register, and not public
authorities themselves”
Interinstitutional
agreement on a
common Transparency
Register between the
Parliament and the
Commission
P7_TA-PROV(2011)0222
(partial overlap with 1.)
Taken from: What issues could be
improved to achieve greater
effectiveness? (21)
DGs: ensuring a balanced
representation of interests CSOs: /
Better balancing the interests
between economic and non-economic
interests / Balanced representation of
all interests. / Dialogue should be way
more extensive, inclusive / / reaching
& involving disadvantaged &
uneducated. RA: Neutral and objective
approach by the DGs towards all
representative organisations / Must
involve practitioners and real farmers. /
that not only employers and
employees organizations are involved
in employment issues but also other
NGOs, like family/women
organizations / increasing the imput
through online options
Taken from 16: DGs: the CDGs should
have balanced composition so to avoid
the overrepresentation of certain
interests for example economic in the
dialogue
Letter to the European Commission
requesting an opinion in the European
Ombudsman's own-initiative inquiry
OI/6/2014/NF concerning the
composition of Commission expert
groups
“The overall tenor of the contributions
received is negative as regards the
current situation. Stakeholders argue
that there are major deficiencies
persisting with regard to the
composition and transparency of
Commission expert groups. The main
problems identified by stakeholders
are (i) the inconsistent categorisation
of organisations that are members of
expert groups, (ii) the perceived
continued dominance of corporate
interests in a high number of expert
groups, (iii) a lack of data on the
expert groups register, and (iv) the
appointment of individuals who are
closely affiliated with a specific
stakeholder group as experts in their
personal capacity, linked to the
absence of an effective conflict of
interest policy.”
“Having regard to the Treaty on the
Functioning of the European Union,
Whereas:
(3) With a view to (…) provide for a
better balancing of represented
interests it is necessary to review the
dialogue in the advisory groups dealing
with agriculture issues and to provide for
the framework of a civil dialogue in the
field of agriculture and rural
development, including the international
aspects thereof, and to define their tasks
and structure.
(5) The civil dialogue groups should be
composed of at least European-level
non-governmental organisations,
including representative associations,
socioeconomic interest groups, civil
society organisations and trade unions
that are registered in the joint European
Transparency Register.”
COMMISSION DECISION
of 16 December 2013
setting up a framework for civil
dialogue in matters covered by the
common agricultural policy and
repealing Decision 2004/391/EC
(2013/767/EU)
81
X. Stable and
Flexible Fora
(Duration of
tenure/ Filling
vacant seats
Article 4
Membership appointment
5. Member organisations are appointed
for
seven
years.
A
member
organisation may be replaced within a
group before the end of the seven-year
mandate where:
(a) it is no longer able to contribute
effectively to a group’s deliberations;
(b) it withdraws from the group;
(c) it does not regularly designate
experts for the meetings of the group;
(d) it no longer complies with the
conditions set out in paragraph 2; or
(e) it does not comply with the nondisclosure requirement relating to
information covered by the obligation of
professional secrecy laid down in Article
339 of the Treaty.
COMMISSION DECISION
of 16 December 2013
setting up a framework for civil
dialogue in matters covered by the
common agricultural policy and
repealing Decision 2004/391/EC
(2013/767/EU)
XI. Dialogue
Procedure
1. Structuring of
participants General
Article 5
Operation
1. Each group shall at its first
meeting elect a chairperson and
two vice-chairpersons from among its
members by a two- thirds majority of
the experts present in the case of a first
ballot, and by a simple majority of the
experts present in the case of
subsequent ballots. The vicechairpersons shall be chosen from
among the representatives of other
organisations than the one to which the
chairperson belongs. The two vicechairpersons shall originate from two
82
different organisations. The elections
shall be held under the authority of a
Commission representative by secret
ballot, unless all the experts present
expressly decide otherwise.
2. The chairperson and the two vicechairpersons shall serve a term of one
year, which shall be renewable. The
chairperson shall not serve more than
two consecutive terms. When choosing
new chairpersons, the group shall
ensure that they do not originate from
the same organisation as their
predecessor.
6. In agreement with the DirectorateGeneral, the group may set up
working groups to examine specific
questions on the basis of terms of
reference adopted by the group. (…)
7. The Directorate-General may invite
experts from outside the group with
specific competences relating to a
subject on the agenda to participate in
the work of the group or working group
on an ad-hoc basis. In addition, the
Commission’s representative may grant
observer status to individuals or
organisations as defined in Article 4(2),
in so far as they do not threaten the
balance of the groups or working
groups. They shall have the right to
speak, when invited to do so by the
chairperson with the consent of the
highest-ranking Commission
representative present. Individuals or
organisations enjoying observer status
shall not participate in the elections
referred to in paragraph 1.
COMMISSION DECISION
of 16 December 2013
setting up a framework for civil
dialogue in matters covered by the
common agricultural policy and
repealing Decision 2004/391/EC
(2013/767/EU)
2. Implementation
and structuring of
sub/working
contact groups
Horizontal rules governing
Commission expert groups
set out in (Commission
Communication):
Framework for
Commission Expert
Groups: Horizontal Rules
and Public Register,
10.11.2010 (C(2010) 7649
final, SEC(2010) 1360).
Letter to the European Commission
requesting an opinion in the European
Ombudsman's own-initiative inquiry
OI/6/2014/NF concerning the
composition of Commission expert
groups
“I consider that it is currently not
possible adequately and
consistently to review the
composition of specific expert
groups because of deficiencies in
the framework governing such
groups, as well as in the expert
groups register. I note that there is
no consistent
labelling/categorisation of
organisations appointed to expert
groups and that the vague category
'association' appears to be frequently
used as a fall-back category. What is
more, the Commission has so far
not developed any general criteria
for delimiting different groups of
stakeholders. In particular, there are
no criteria for the broader
Article 5
Operation
6. (…) Commission representatives shall
chair the meetings of the working
groups. Such working groups shall be
dissolved as soon as their mandate is
fulfilled.
7. The Directorate-General may invite
experts from outside the group with
specific competences relating to a
subject on the agenda to participate in
the work of the group or working group
on an ad-hoc basis. In addition, the
Commission’s representative may grant
observer status to individuals or
organisations as defined in Article 4(2),
in so far as they do not threaten the
balance of the groups or working
groups. They shall have the right to
speak, when invited to do so by the
chairperson with the consent of the
highest-ranking Commission
representative present. Individuals or
83
categorization of which groups of
stakeholders are deemed to represent
economic and non-economic interests
respectively.”
organisations enjoying observer status
shall not participate in the elections
referred to in paragraph 1.
COMMISSION DECISION
of 16 December 2013
setting up a framework for civil
dialogue in matters covered by the
common agricultural policy and
repealing Decision 2004/391/EC
(2013/767/EU)
4. Structuring of
topics (agenda
setting)
Article 5
Operation
3. The chairperson, in agreement with
the Directorate- General, in close
consultation with the vice-chairpersons,
and in consultation with the
organisations represented in the group,
shall determine the items to be included
on the agenda for the meetings of the
group at least 25 working days before
each meeting. The Directorate-General
shall send out the agenda to the
organisations as a general rule 20
working days before the meeting,
preferably by electronic means.
COMMISSION DECISION
of 16 December 2013
setting up a framework for civil
dialogue in matters covered by the
common agricultural policy and
repealing Decision 2004/391/EC
(2013/767/EU)
5. Communication
of steps in and
results of the
Dialogue
Article 5
Operation
10. The Commission publishes all
relevant documents such as agendas,
minutes, conclusions, partial conclusions
or working documents on the activities
carried out by the groups via a link from
the Register of Commission expert
groups and other similar entities to a
dedicated website. Exceptions to
systematic publication should be made
where disclosure of a document would
undermine the protection of a public or
private interest as defined in Article 4 of
Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the
European Parliament and of the Council
( 2 ).
We shall: (8.)
Communicate the
consultations and their
results clearly and
directly, with a focus on
relevance and using
plain language.
Code of Good
PracticeFor
Consultation of
Stakeholders, 9.
COMMISSION DECISION
of 16 December 2013
setting up a framework for civil
dialogue in matters covered by the
common agricultural policy and
repealing Decision 2004/391/EC
(2013/767/EU)
XII. Venues for civil
dialogue
“Information and
communication
technologies have an
important role.
Accordingly, the EU’s
Europa website, is set to
evolve into an interactive
Article 5
Operation
9. The meetings of the groups and
working groups shall in general be held
on Commission premises. The
Commission shall provide secretariat
services. Meetings of the groups and
working groups shall be convened by the
Directorate-General. Other Commission
We shall:
(4) Organise
consultations in ways
which are convenient
and accessible to the
people whose views we
are seeking.
Code of Good
PracticeFor
84
platform for information,
feedback and debate,
officials with an interest in the
proceedings may attend meetings of the
groups and its working groups.
linking parallel networks
across the Union.”
Consultation of
Stakeholders, 9.
COMMISSION DECISION
“The aim should be to
create a trans-national
‘space’ where citizens
from different countries
can discuss what they
perceive as being the
important challenges for
the Union.”
of 16 December 2013
setting up a framework for civil
dialogue in matters covered by the
common agricultural policy and
repealing Decision 2004/391/EC
(2013/767/EU)
European
governance - A
white paper
XIII. Conflict of
Interest Policy
Letter to the European Commission
requesting an opinion in the European
Ombudsman's own-initiative inquiry
OI/6/2014/NF concerning the
composition of Commission expert
groups
In many of the contributions made to
my public consultation, stakeholders
expressed concern over the
appointment of individuals, who are
affiliated with a specific stakeholder
group ('lobbyists'), as experts in their
personal capacity.
According to the Commission, those
individual experts "shall [act]
independently and [express] their own
personal views".
The Commission has however
acknowledged, in the context of its
collection and use of expertise, that
"[i]t is a truism that no one is entirely
'independent': individuals can never
entirely set aside all thoughts of their
personal background - family, culture,
employer, sponsor, etc. Nevertheless,
as far as possible, experts should be
expected to act in an independent
manner. Experts can, of course, still
bring to the table knowledge they hold
by virtue of their affiliation, or
nationality: indeed, experts may
sometimes be selected for this very
reason. Nevertheless, the aim is to
minimise the risk of vested interests
distorting the advice proffered by
establishing practices that promote
integrity, by making dependencies
explicit, and by recognising that some
dependencies - varying from issue to
issue - could impinge on the policy
process more than others"[8].
In light of the above statement, what
needs to be guaranteed is that
individual experts appointed in their
personal capacity do not find
themselves in a conflict of interest
situation.
In my view, the Commission's
horizontal rules for expert groups do
not provide for sufficient safeguards to
this effect. In order to avoid situations
in which individuals are appointed as
members of expert groups in their
personal capacity when, in reality, they
have ties to stakeholders that make
them unsuited for that role, it appears
85
necessary for the Commission to
revise its conflict of interest policy
in this area. The Commission should
take measures with preventive as
well as corrective effect.
1. Checking on
possible conflicts,
consequences
“The European
Parliament, (…)
9. Requests that its
Bureau devise a
system whereby all
lobbyists who fall
within the scope of the
register and who have
obtained a meeting
with a relevant
Member about a
specific legislative
dossier are recorded as
having done so in the
explanatory
memorandum to the
report or
recommendation
relating to the relevant
draft legislative act;”
Interinstitutional
agreement on a
common
Transparency
Register between
the Parliament and
the Commission
P7_TAPROV(2011)0222
Answer on Q 34 What do you think
about specific qualifying criteria for
admissibility? (CSO): regulations of
industrial lobbying (RAs): Journalists
should be allowed to attend
Annswer on Q 35 Which criteria would
you reject? (CSOs) criterias based on
personal CVs and not on organisations
Letter to the European Commission
requesting an opinion in the European
Ombudsman's own-initiative inquiry
OI/6/2014/NF concerning the
composition of Commission expert
groups
The Commission should revise its
conflict of interest policy and take
the following measures.
1. Carefully assess individuals'
backgrounds with a view to detecting
any actual, potential or apparent
conflicts of interest.
2. Ensure that no individual with any
actual, potential or apparent conflict
of interest will be appointed to an
expert group in his/her personal
capacity.
3. Consider, in a situation of conflict of
interest, the possibility to appoint an
individual as a representative of a
common interest shared by
stakeholders or to appoint his/her
organisation of affiliation to the expert
group.
4. Publish a sufficiently detailed CV
of each expert appointed in his/her
personal capacity on the expert groups
register.
5. Publish a declaration of interests
of each expert appointed in his/her
personal capacity on the expert groups
register.
E. Improvement of data availability
on the register:
1. Re-design the 'statistics' tab on
the expert groups register.
2. Publish documents on expert
groups' and their subgroups' work on
the expert groups register in a
systematic and timely manner.
3. Publish, on the expert groups
register, sufficient information on
the interest that an individual expert
represents as a representative of a
common interest shared by
stakeholders.
4. Seek to ensure that the minutes
that are produced to record expert
groups' and their subgroups'
meetings, including deliberations,
are as detailed as possible.
On the basis of the above, the
Commission should consider
(i)
adopting a decision
in 2015 laying down
the general
framework for expert
groups and
reviewing the composition of expert
groups which are active or on hold,
once this decision has been
adopted.
We expect stakeholders
to identify themselves
and who they represent
when taking part in
public consultations, and
in informal contacts with
the services of DG
Health and Consumers.
Code of Good
PracticeFor
Consultation of
Stakeholders, 7.
2. Impact of
vertical dialogue
86
XIV. Review
1. Review in place
(ii)
We shall: (10.) Evaluate
our consultations and
review our process to
inform future
consultations and feed
into good practice
standards.
Code of Good
PracticeFor
Consultation of
Stakeholders, 9.
2. Considerations
on possible review
mechanisms
87