Green Paper - European transparency initiative
Date: 2006-05-03
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: access to EU information, administrative transparency, consultation procedure, fraud, operation of the Institutions, regulations for civil servants

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 3.5.2006 
COM(2006) 194 final 

GREEN PAPER 

EUROPEAN TRANSPARENCY INITIATIVE 

(presented by the Commission) 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
GREEN PAPER 

EUROPEAN TRANSPARENCY INITIATIVE 

I. 

INTRODUCTION 

The commitment to widen opportunities for stakeholders to participate actively in EU policy-
shaping  is  one  of  the  “Strategic  Objectives  2005–2009”  with  which  the  European 
Commission  launched  a  “Partnership  for  European  Renewal”1.  In  this  context,  the 
Commission  emphasised,  in  particular,  that  “inherent  in  the  idea  of  partnership  is 
consultation and participation”. 

By the same token, the Commission stressed the importance of a “high level of transparency” 
to ensure that the Union is “open to public scrutiny and accountable for its work”. 

The Commission believes that high standards of transparency are part of the legitimacy of any 
modern  administration.  The  European  public  is  entitled  to  expect  efficient,  accountable  and 
service-minded public institutions and that the power and resources entrusted to political and 
public bodies are handled with care and never abused for personal gain. 

Against  this  background,  the  Commission  launched  the  “European  Transparency  Initiative” 
(ETI) in November 20052. 

The Initiative is intended to build on a series of transparency-related measures already put in 
place  by  the  Commission,  in  particular  those  taken  as  part  of  the  overall  reforms  being 
implemented  since  1999  and  in  the  White  Paper  on  European  Governance.  Major 
achievements in this field are: 

– 

– 

– 

– 

1 
2 

the  “access  to  documents”  legislation  (Regulation  (EC)  No  1049/2001),  which 
provides  the  framework  for  access  to  the  unpublished  documents  of  the  EU 
institutions  and  bodies  through  register  of  documents  or  following  individual 
requests. The Commission has also created  a register of documents (as required by 
the  Regulation)  plus  a  special  register  of  documents  related  to  work  of  the 
‘comitology’ committees; 

the launch of databases providing information about consultative bodies and expert 
groups advising the Commission; 

wide  consultation  of  stakeholders  and  in-depth  impact  assessments  prior  to 
legislative  proposals.  These  help  to  ensure  that  proper  account  is  taken  of  the 
concerns of citizens and of all interested parties. They make essential contributions to 
implementing the Commission’s “better lawmaking” policy; 

the  Commission’s  “Code  of  Good  Administrative  Behaviour”,  which  is  its 
benchmark for quality service in its relations with the public. The professional ethics 

COM(2005) 12. 
SEC(2005) 1300. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
                                                 
of  Commission  staff  are  regulated  in  the  Staff  Regulations  and  its  implementing 
rules.  As regards the political level, the EC  Treaty includes clear provisions  on the 
ethical standards to be observed by Members of the Commission. These have been 
put into operation through the “Code of Conduct for Commissioners”. 

With  the  European  Transparency  Initiative,  the  Commission  has  launched  a  review  of  its 
overall approach to transparency. The aim is to identify and stimulate a debate on areas for 
improvement.  Consequently,  the  Initiative  covers  a  broad  spectrum  of  issues.  These  range 
from fuller information about management and use of Community funds to professional ethics 
in  the  European  institutions  and  the  framework  in  which  lobby  groups  and  civil  society 
organisations are operating. 

When  launching  the  Initiative  on  9  November  2005,  the  Commission  drew  a  distinction 
between three areas of action. 

In the first field, it decided to take the following immediate action: 

– 

– 

In order to allow better scrutiny of use of EU funds under centralised management, a 
dedicated  internet  site,  providing  easy  access  to  existing  information  about  the 
beneficiaries of projects and programmes, is being created. The site will also contain 
links to websites of the Member States where data on the beneficiaries of EU funds 
under shared management can be found. 

The Commission will improve the coverage of its register of documents, in particular 
with a view to making more documents directly available online. 

The second cluster will consist of a debate with the other European institutions on: 

– 

– 

– 

the  rules  and  standards  on  professional  ethics  of  public  office  holders  in  the 
European institutions; 

a review of the “access to documents” legislation. Inter-institutional cooperation on 
this subject will be backed up by a stakeholder consultation towards the end of 2006 
or early 2007 followed by a proposal from the Commission; 

revision  of  the  legal  framework  for  the  EU’s  Anti-Fraud  Office  (OLAF)  to  ensure 
that  Member  States  systematically  notify  the  Office  of  the  final  outcome  of  fraud 
cases reported to the national authorities. 

Finally, the Commission identified three key components of the ETI which should be driven 
forward  on  the  basis  of  a  future  open  public  consultation  and  which  are  the  subject  of  this 
Green Paper. 

•  The  need  for  a  more  structured  framework  for  the  activities  of 

interest 

representatives (lobbyists) 

Openness  has  always  been  the  Commission’s  guiding  principle  for  contacts  with  interest 
representatives.  In  recent  years  the  Commission  has  reinforced  and  further  developed  its 
policy on participation by civil society organisations and other stakeholders, in particular 
by adopting the “White Paper on European Governance” and the “General Principles and 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
 
 
Minimum Standards for the Consultation of Interested Parties”3.  

At the same time, the Commission has stressed the principle that “with better involvement 
comes  greater  responsibility”4.  Relations  between 
interest 
representatives  must  be  open  to  outside  scrutiny.  Therefore  it  was  considered  timely  to 
review the framework for activities of interest representatives and seek views on the need 
for new initiatives. 

the  Commission  and 

•  Feedback on the Commission’s minimum standards for consultation 

The  Commission’s  consultation  standards  contribute  to  ensuring  transparent  interaction 
between  interest  representatives  and  the  Commission.  It  is  now  three  years  since  the 
standards were first applied. 

The  Commission  would  like  to  add  to  its  own  internal  monitoring  of  application  of  the 
standards by seeking external feedback. 

•  Mandatory  disclosure  of  information  about  the  beneficiaries  of  EU  funds  under 

shared management 

In addition to the abovementioned internet portal, the question has been raised of whether 
Member States should be legally obliged to disclose the beneficiaries of EU  funds under 
shared management. 

Interested  parties  are  invited  to  submit  their  views  on  these  subjects  by  answering  the 
questions contained in the specific chapters on each of the three issues. 

The consultation opens on 3 May and closes on 31 August 2006. 

Contributions  are  to  be  sent  to  the  Commission  via  a  dedicated  website,  where  further 
information  about  the  consultation  process  is  available.  The  Commission  will  also  consult 
stakeholders through its representations in Member States. 

All contributions will be published on the site. 

3 
4 

COM(2002) 704. 
European Commission White Paper on European Governance. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
II. 

1. 

TRANSPARENCY AND INTEREST REPRESENTATION (LOBBYING)  

Definitions and basic framework 

For  the  purposes  of  this  Green  Paper,  “lobbying”  means  all  activities  carried  out  with  the 
objective  of  influencing  the  policy  formulation  and  decision-making  processes  of  the 
European institutions. 

Accordingly,  “lobbyists”  are  defined  as  persons  carrying  out  such  activities,  working  in  a 
variety  of  organisations  such  as  public  affairs  consultancies,  law  firms,  NGOs,  think-tanks, 
corporate lobby units (“in-house representatives”) or trade associations. 

For a meaningful discussion on how to frame lobbying at EU level, it is necessary to define 
the  basic  framework  on  which  the  relationship  between  the  EU  institutions  and  lobbyists 
should be built. The Commission views the following components as essential: 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

2. 

Lobbying  is  a  legitimate  part  of  the  democratic  system,  regardless  of  whether  it  is 
carried out by individual citizens or companies, civil society organisations and other 
interest  groups  or  firms  working  on  behalf  of  third  parties  (public  affairs 
professionals, think-tanks and lawyers). 

Lobbyists  can  help  bring  important  issues  to  the  attention  of  the  European 
institutions. In some cases, the Community offers financial support in order to ensure 
that  views  of  certain  interest  groups  are  effectively  voiced  at  European  level  (e.g. 
consumer interests, disabled citizens, environmental interests etc.). 

At the same time, undue influence should not be exerted on the European institutions 
through improper lobbying. 

When lobby groups seek to contribute to EU policy development, it must be clear to 
the general public which input they provide to the European institutions. It must also 
be clear who they represent, what their mission is and how they are funded. 

Inherent  in  the  European  institutions’  obligation  to  identify  and  safeguard  the 
“general  interest  of  the  Community”5  is  their  right  to  hold  internal  deliberations 
without interference from outside interests. 

Measures in the field of transparency must be effective and proportionate. 

Potential problem areas 

Concerns  have  been  voiced  by  the  media,  academics  and  interest  representatives  about 
lobbying  practices  which  are  considered  to  go  beyond  legitimate  representation  of  interests. 
This applies not only to practices which are clearly unlawful (fraud and corruption) but also to 
other improper lobbying methods which abuse the EU institutions’ policy of openness or are 
plainly misleading. 

5 

Cf. Article 213 of the EC Treaty. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Examples often quoted in this context are: 

•  Distorted  information  is  provided  to  the  EU  institutions  about  the  possible  economic, 

social or environmental impact of draft legislative proposals. 

•  Modern communication technologies (internet and e-mail) make it easy to organise mass 
campaigns for or against a given cause, without the EU institutions being able to verify to 
what extent these campaigns reflect the genuine concerns of EU citizens. 

•  The  legitimacy  of  interest  representation  by  European  NGOs  is  sometimes  questioned 
because some NGOs seem to rely on financial support from the EU budget as well as on 
political and financial support from their members. 

•  By contrast, according to many NGOs, there is no level playing field in lobbying because 

the corporate sector is able to invest more financial resources in lobbying. 

•  In general terms, there is criticism about the lack of information about the lobbyists active 

at EU level, including the financial resources which they have at their disposal. 

3. 

Existing measures and options 

The  Commission’s  existing  policy  on  transparency  in  lobbying  is  based  on  two  different 
categories  of  measures.  On  the  one  hand,  there  is  the  information  provided  to  the  general 
public  about  the  relations  between  interest  representatives  and  the  Commission  in  order  to 
allow outside scrutiny. On the other, there are the rules on integrity which govern the proper 
conduct of those being lobbied and of the lobbyists themselves. 

3.1. 

Outside scrutiny 

External  scrutiny  can  act  as  a  deterrent  against  improper  forms  of  lobbying.  Transparency 
measures  can  provide  information  about  who  is  engaged  in  lobbying  activities  and  the 
positions they take when lobbying the European institutions. 

The  European  Commission  has  contact  with  a  wide  variety  of  stakeholders,  experts  and 
lobbyists.  This  section  deals  with  participation  by  interest  representatives  in  public 
consultation processes. 

In this area, the Commission already has a well-established policy on transparency, which is 
laid  down  in  the  “General  principles  and  minimum  standards  for  the  consultation  of 
interested parties”. 

The  minimum  standards  require  that  participants’  contributions  to  public  consultations  be 
published  on  the  internet  (see  also  Chapter  III).  The  consultation  standards  also  contain 
requirements with regard to transparency about the nature of interest groups. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
General principles and minimum standards for consultation 

“Openness and accountability are important principles for the conduct of organisations when 
they are seeking to contribute to EU policy development. It must be apparent: 

•  which interests they represent 

•  how inclusive that representation is. 

Interested parties that wish to submit comments on a policy proposal by the Commission must 
therefore  be  ready  to  provide  the  Commission  and  the  public  at  large  with  the  information 
described  above.  This  information  should  be  made  available  either  through  the  CONECCS 
database  (where  organisations  are  eligible  for  this  database  and  wish  to  be  included  on  a 
voluntary  basis)  or  through  other  measures,  e.g.  special  information  sheets.  If  this 
information is not provided, submissions will be considered as individual contributions”6. 

CONECCS7 is the Commission’s voluntary database on European civil society organisations. 
“Civil  society  organisations”  is  a  wide-ranging  concept  and  includes  trade  unions  and 
employers’  federations,  NGOs,  consumer  groups,  organisations  representing  social  and 
economic players, charities and community-based organisations8. CONECCS can therefore be 
regarded as a database on European interest (lobby) groups. 

CONECCS  is  used  as  an  information  source  for  Commission  departments  and  the  general 
public.  However,  there  is  no  requirement  or  incentive  for  a  civil  society  organisation  to 
register. Equally there is no disincentive against failing to register. 

The European Commission runs neither an accreditation system nor a compulsory register of 
organisations that have dealings with the Commission. 

By  contrast,  the  European  Parliament  (EP)  has  an  accreditation  system  for  all  needing 
frequent access to this institution (defined as five or more days per year). This system allows 
physical access to the Parliament. Special passes are issued by the Quaestors and are valid for 
one  year.  These  state  the  holder’s  name,  the  name  of  the  firm  the  holder  works  for  and  the 
organisation the holder represents. A register of accredited lobbyists is published on the EP 
website. It is simply an alphabetical list and provides only the names of the badge holders and 
of the organisations they represent. It gives no indication of the interests for which a lobbyist 
is acting. 

Within  the  EU,  the  German  Bundestag  is,  for  the  time  being9,  the  only  parliament  that  has 
adopted specific formal rules on registration of lobbyists. Each year a public list is drawn up 
of all groups wishing to express or defend their views. Interest groups are required to provide 
the following information in order to register: their name and seat, composition of the board 
of  management  and  directors,  sphere  of  interest,  number  of  members,  names  of  their 

6 
7 

8 

9 

COM (2002) 704. 
CONECCS – Consultation, the European Commission and Civil Society 
http://europa.eu.int/comm/civil_society/coneccs/index_en.htm. 
The Commission has drawn largely on the definition used by the European Economic and Social 
Committee (EESC). 
Compulsory systems are currently under consideration in some of the new EU Member States. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
representatives  and  the  address  of  their  office.  There  is  no  requirement  to  provide  any 
financial information. The register is available on the internet. 

In principle, lobbyists cannot be heard by parliamentary committees or be issued with a pass 
admitting  them  to  parliamentary  buildings  unless  they  are  on  the  register.  However,  the 
Bundestag can also invite organisations that are not on the register to present information on 
an ad hoc basis. 

Some  non-EU  countries  (the  USA  and  Canada)  have  established  a  compulsory  register  of 
lobbyists, i.e. they impose an obligation on public relations firms and lobby groups to list their 
clients, the issues they deal with and the money they are paid by each client to perform their 
tasks. Lobbyists must also submit a regular report. The data are made available to the public 
on the internet. 

Reinforcing external scrutiny 

A  number  of  options  can  be  considered  for  reinforcing  the  external  scrutiny  of  lobbying. 
Providing more extensive information on who has contributed to the development of a policy 
or legal framework and developing an incentive-based registration system are the options that 
seem most appropriate to the European Commission. 

Improved information  

First, emphasis should be placed on consistent application of the existing rules in the field of 
open  public  consultations.  This  means  that  the  Commission  will  ensure  that  in  this  type  of 
consultation  interest  groups  are  systematically  asked  to  provide  information  about  their 
objectives, sources of funding and the interests represented. 

Application of these existing transparency requirements could be improved by developing an 
electronic  tool  (questionnaire),  which  would  allow  the  Commission  to  gather  more 
information on participants in web-based open public consultations. 

Such  a  ready-made  tool  would  be  used  by  all  Commission  departments  for  their  internet 
consultations. 

Registration – A voluntary system with incentives to register 

The Commission could develop and manage a web-based voluntary registration system for all 
interest  groups  and  lobbyists  who  wish  to  be  consulted  on  EU  initiatives.  Groups  and 
lobbyists which register certain information about themselves would be given an opportunity 
to  indicate  their  specific  interests  and,  in  return,  would  be  alerted  to  consultations  in  those 
specific  areas.  Consequently,  only  lobbyists  who  have  registered  would  be  automatically 
alerted  by  the  Commission.  To  qualify  for  entry  in  the  register,  applicants  would  need  to 
provide  information  on  who  they  represent,  what  their  mission  is  and  how  they  are  funded. 
Applicants would also have to subscribe to a code of conduct (see Section 3.2.), which would 
be  enforced  credibly  and  transparently.  From  the  point  of  view  of  the  general  public,  the 
register  would  provide  a  general  overview,  open  for  public  scrutiny,  of  groups  engaged  in 
lobbying the Commission.  

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
3.2. 

Integrity rules: Codes of conduct for lobbyists 

Alongside  external  scrutiny  of  contacts  with  lobbyists,  integrity  rules  are  another  essential 
contribution to transparency in lobbying. 

Current situation 

The  traditional  concept  at  European  level  has  put  the  onus  on  the  ethical  behaviour  of  the 
representatives  of  the  institutions  themselves  rather  than  laying  down  additional  legally 
binding  rules  on  the  conduct  of  lobbyists.  Therefore  Members  of  the  Commission  and  the 
staff of European institutions are bound by strict rules ensuring their impartiality. The relevant 
provisions are contained in the Treaty establishing the European Communities and the Staff 
Regulations (see Annex). 

These rules are enforced by special monitoring and sanction mechanisms. 

The Commission has taken the view that voluntary codes of conduct for lobbyists can play a 
useful  supporting  role.  The  Commission  has  so  far  opted  for  a  self-regulation  policy  in  this 
field. In the 1992 Communication on special interest groups, lobbyists were invited to adopt 
their  own  codes  of  conduct  on  the  basis  of  minimum  criteria  proposed  by  the  Commission. 
The main features of these criteria can be summarised as follows: 

•  Lobbyists should act in an honest manner and always declare the interest they represent. 

•  They should not disseminate misleading information. 

•  They should not offer any form of inducement in order to obtain information or to receive 

preferential treatment. 

As a result of the system of self-regulation encouraged by the Commission, various umbrella 
organisations  of  European  public  affairs  practitioners  (consultants  and  consultancy  firms) 
have  adopted  voluntary  codes  of  conduct.  These  are  based  on  the  minimum  standards 
proposed  by  the  Commission  and  are  very  similar  in  tone  and  content.  In  2005  the 
organisations added to their codes internal sanction mechanisms, ranging from a reprimand to 
limited or indefinite expulsion. 

Up  to  now  no  cases  of  misdemeanour  have  been  reported  in  the  context  of  these  voluntary 
codes  of  conduct.  Another  important  point  to  note  is  that  only  consultants  adhere  to  such 
codes. Neither lobbyists who are permanent employees of interest groups nor other groups of 
interest  representatives  who  occasionally  engage  in  lobbying  activities  (e.g.  law  firms  and 
think-tanks) fall within the scope of such voluntary codes of conduct. Compared to the whole 
lobbying community in Brussels, the coverage of the voluntary codes has consequently been 
limited.  Furthermore,  as  the  current  system  relies  on  self-discipline  it  appears  necessary  to 
consolidate the existing codes and put in place a common enforcement and sanction system 
trusted  by  all.  This  could  include  a  common  code  of  conduct,  applicable  to  all  lobbyists, 
monitored  by  a  special  umbrella  organisation  and  possibly  coupled  with  a  Commission-led 
registration  system.  It  has  also  been  suggested  that  the  EU  institutions  should  be  willing  to 
impose formal sanctions on any lobbyist breaking the code of conduct. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
The  European  Parliament  has  a  compulsory  code  of  conduct10  for  all  seeking  accreditation 
(see above). Any breach could lead to the withdrawal of accreditation, i.e. of the possibility of 
physical access to the premises of the EP. 

No compulsory codes of conduct currently exist in the EU Member States11. Canada appears 
to be the only non-EU country to apply such a system. In terms of substance, the Canadian 
code  covers  the  same  areas  as  the  minimum  criteria  for  a  voluntary  code  proposed  by  the 
Commission.  The  Canadian  law  provides  that  when  the  “Registrar  of  Lobbyists”  has 
reasonable  grounds  to  suspect  a  breach  of  the  Lobbyist's  Code  of  Conduct,  he  must 
investigate  that  breach  and  report  to  Parliament.  The  results  of  those  investigations  are 
available  to  the  public.  (In  2003-2004  four  complaints  were  investigated,  all  four  of  which 
were found to be without substance.) Violation of the law can lead to a prison term or a fine 
of up to €66 000. 

The way forward 

Against this background, the Commission considers that  greater  transparency in lobbying is 
necessary. It considers that a credible system would consist of: 

–  A voluntary registration system, run by the Commission, with clear incentives for lobbyists 
to  register.  The  incentives  would  include  automatic  alerts  of  consultations  on  issues  of 
known interest to the lobbyists. 

–  A common code of conduct for all lobbyists, or at least common minimum requirements. 
The code should be developed by the lobbying profession itself, possibly consolidating and 
improving the existing codes. 

–  A system of monitoring and sanctions to be applied in case of incorrect registration and/or 

breach of the code of conduct. 

The  Commission  does  not  consider  that  a  compulsory  registration  system  would  be  an 
appropriate  option.  A  tighter  system  of  self-regulation  would  appear  more  appropriate. 
However,  after  a  certain  period,  a  review  should  be  conducted  to  examine  whether  self-
regulation  has  worked.  If  not,  consideration  could  be  given  to  a  system  of  compulsory 
measures – a compulsory code of conduct plus compulsory registration. 

Questions: 

•  Do you agree that efforts should be made to bring greater transparency to lobbying? 

•  Do you agree that lobbyists who wish to be automatically alerted to consultations by the 
EU  institutions  should  register  and  provide  information,  including  on  their  objectives, 
financial situation and on the interests they represent? Do you agree that this information 
should be available to the general public? Who do you think should manage the register? 

•  Do  you  agree  to  consolidating  the  existing  codes  of  conduct  with  a  set  of  common 

minimum requirements? Who do you think should write the code? 

10 
11 

Article 3 of Annex IX to the EP’s Rules of Procedure. 
In Slovakia and Hungary States compulsory approaches are being considered. 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
                                                 
•  Do  you  agree  that  a  new,  inclusive  external  watchdog  is  needed  to  monitor  compliance 

and that sanctions should be applied for any breach of the code? 

III. 

FEEDBACK ON APPLICATION OF THE MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR 
CONSULTATION  

Wide consultation allows involvement of interested parties in the policy-shaping process. It is 
an  essential  tool  for  improving  the  quality  of  the  Commission’s  legislative  proposals.  The 
Commission’s minimum standards form a key part of the Better Lawmaking action plan, the 
primary objective of which is to improve the quality of EU legislation. 

The  Commission  adopted  a  Communication  on  the  minimum  standards  for  consultation  in 
December 200212. The objective was to create a transparent and coherent general framework 
for consultation, yet one that was flexible enough to allow Commission departments to adapt 
their consultation methods to particular policy areas. The overall rationale was to ensure that 
interested parties are properly heard in the Commission’s policy-making process. 

The minimum standards apply to consultations on the Commission’s major policy proposals 
for  which  an  impact  assessment  is  required;  these  proposals  are  listed  in  the  Commission’s 
Annual  Work  Programme13.  The  minimum  standards  also  apply  to  consultations  on  Green 
Papers14.  Commission  departments  are  encouraged  to  apply  these  standards  to  other 
consultation  exercises  as  well.  However,  certain  consultation  tools  are  exempted  from 
application of the minimum standards. These include decisions taken by a process involving 
formal consultation of the Member States (i.e. the committees procedure), consultation under 
the “social dialogue” (Articles 137 to 139 of the EC Treaty) and consultations required under 
international  agreements.  The  general  principles  and  minimum  standards  are  not  legally 
binding. 

The  Communication  defines  “consultations”  as  those  processes  through  which  the 
Commission wishes to trigger input from interested parties for the shaping of policy prior to a 
decision  by  the  Commission.  “Interested  parties”  means  all  who  wish  to  participate  in 
consultations run by the Commission, whether they are organisations or private citizens. 

The minimum standards have been in force since the beginning of 2003. By the end of 2005 
the  Commission  had  completed  more  than  one  hundred  major  proposals15  to  which  the 
minimum standards applied. In addition, the Commission published 26 Green Papers16 over 
these three years, to which the standards also applied. 

Over  this  period,  the  general  assessment  was  that  overall  compliance  is  good.  The  Better 
Lawmaking reports17 state that most of the minimum standards have been properly applied by 

12 
13 

14 
15 

16 
17 

COM(2002) 704. 
“Work Programme” website http://europa.eu.int/comm/atwork/programmes/index_en.htm; 
“Impact Assessment” website http://europa.eu.int/comm/secretariat_general/impact/index_en.htm. 
Green Papers website: http://europa.eu.int/comm/off/green/index_en.htm. 
These proposals are available on the impact assessment site: 
http://europa.eu.int/comm/secretariat_general/impact/practice_en.htm  
Green Papers are available on the following site: http://europa.eu.int/comm/off/green/index_en.htm. 
The  “Better  Lawmaking”  reports  report  on  application  of  the  minimum  standards  for  consultation: 
2003 report http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/com/rpt/2003/com2003_0770en01.pdf 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
the Commission departments. In particular, the single access point for consultation, the “Your 
Voice in Europe” web portal18, is widely used to publicise new open public consultations. The 
minimum  time  limits  for  responses  seem  to  have  been  met  in  most  cases.  The  impact 
assessment reports reported on the consultation processes and results in a transparent manner. 
However,  contributions  to  open  public  consultations  were  not  published  on  the  internet  in 
every  case.  There  were  also  cases  of  insufficient  feedback  on  how  comments  received  via 
consultations  were  or  were  not  taken  into  account  in  the  final  policy  proposal  from  the 
Commission. 

It is important for the Commission to seek feedback from the participants in the consultation 
processes  -  interested  parties  who  have  first-hand  experience  of  consultations  and  of  the 
application of the consultation standards, bearing in mind that these standards apply only to 
(i) major policy proposals on which an impact assessment is required and (ii) Green Papers. 
This  feedback  will  enable  the  Commission  to  identify  possible  room  for  improvement  in 
application of these standards and to consider possible further steps to tighten up application 
of the standards. 

Question: 

In your view, has the Commission applied the general principles and minimum standards for 
consultation in a satisfactory manner? You may refer to the individual standards (provided, 
for ease of reference, in Annex 2). 

Please give reasons for your reply and, where appropriate, provide examples. 

IV. 

DISCLOSURE OF BENEFICIARIES OF COMMUNITY FUNDS 

The European Commission is committed to raising awareness of the use made of EU money, 
notably  by  explaining  better  what  Europe  does  and  why  it  matters.  The  Commission  is 
responsible for implementing the EU budget. It is accountable to the taxpayer and considers it 
to be in the general public interest to provide information on how EU funds are spent.  

Although modern mass communication tools open up unprecedented opportunities for public 
access  to  information,  European  citizens  regrettably  feel  that  they  have  relatively  limited 
knowledge about the European Union. At the same time, citizens have growing expectations 
of greater transparency in public institutions. As is increasingly the case in other spheres of 
life,  the  public  expects  to  be  able  to  access  desired  information  “on  demand”  in  a  user-
friendly form. The EU, as a driver of change and modernity, wishes to be at the forefront of 
this development. 

Preparing  information  for  release  to  the  public  is  often  associated  with  an  additional 
administrative burden. The Commission considers that this is a necessary investment in public 
support. 

The  Commission  already  provides  this  information  for  the  EU-funded  policies  which  it 
manages centrally and directly and has given a commitment to do so in a more user-friendly 

18 

EN 

report 

2004 
and Annex http://europa.eu.int/comm/civil_society/docs/SEC_2005_0364_1_EN.pdf 
http://europa.eu.int/yourvoice/consultations/index_en.htm. 

http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex/LexUriServ/site/en/com/2005/com2005_0098en01.pdf 

12 

   EN 

 
                                                                                                                                                         
manner.  However,  the  majority  of  the  EU  budget  is  not  spent  centrally  and  directly  by  the 
Commission but in partnership with the Member States (“shared management”). The common 
agricultural and fisheries policies, the Structural Funds, the Cohesion Fund and the European 
Refugees  Fund  are  implemented  under  this  shared  management  formula.  Taken  together, 
these policies managed in partnership with Member State authorities, make up 75.7% of the 
EU budget, i.e. €86.6 billion a year. 

It  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  meaning  of  “beneficiary”  varies  considerably  from  one 
policy  to  another,  ranging  from  individual  farmers,  fishermen,  etc.  to  NGOs,  training 
providers or national Ministries, who initiate or implement certain action. 

Information on beneficiaries of Community funds spent in partnership with Member States is 
currently in the hands of each Member State and any disclosures on the subject are left to their 
discretion. The extent to which information is made public differs significantly. 

In the absence of an overall obligation at EU level, it is naturally difficult to form a complete 
picture of the exact situation for each programme or project in each Member State. In the case 
of  the  Common  Agricultural  Policy  for  example,  information  on  beneficiaries  is  currently 
available  in  eleven  Member  States  (Belgium,  Denmark,  Estonia,  France,  Ireland,  the 
Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Slovenia, Sweden and the UK)19, but with wide variations in the 
degree  of  detail  available  and  the  procedures  for  providing  this  information  (ranging  from 
total and direct access to partial access on request). For the Structural Funds, the basic data on 
beneficiaries are collected by Member States but neither centralised nor made available to the 
public.  Information  on  beneficiaries  of  the  Financial  Instrument  for  Fisheries  Guidance  is 
available  in  some  Member  States  (e.g.  on-line  information  in  Denmark,  Ireland,  Lithuania, 
Spain and Sweden). 

Citizens often turn to the European Commission for information on the use of the EU budget 
down to the beneficiaries, if this information is not disclosed at regional or national level. This 
puts the Commission in a difficult position, since it either does not have this information or 
does  not  have  the  right  to  hand  it  out  without  the  prior  agreement  of  the  Member  State 
concerned.  The  existing  legal  framework  explicitly  bars  the  Commission  from  publishing 
information on beneficiaries. 

Moreover, the restrictive approach taken to publicity by some Member States is often based 
on  national  law  or  practices  on  data  protection,  which  vary  from  one  country  to  another 
beyond  the  minimum  requirements  set  at  EU  level20  and  are  often  determined  by  different 
national traditions and cultural perceptions and sensitivities. 

Any coherent overall obligation on Member States would therefore have to be based on a new 
EU legal framework, directly applicable in all Member States, to ensure a consistent approach 
to all beneficiaries of EU funds. 

19 
20 

See for example the information available at: http://www.farmsubsidy.org/60.html. 
Directive  95/46/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  24  October  1995  on  the 
protection of  individuals  with  regard  to  the  processing of  personal  data and on  the free  movement  of 
such data (OJ L 281, 23.11.1995, p. 31). 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Questions: 

•  Do  you  agree  that  it  is  desirable  to  introduce,  at  Community  level,  an  obligation  for 
Member States to make available information on beneficiaries of EU funds under shared 
management?  

•  If so, what information should be required at national level? What would be the best means 
to  make  this  information  available  (degree  of  information  required,  period  covered  and 
preferred medium)? 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
Annex 1 

Integrity: the EC Treaty and the Staff Regulations 

Article 213(2) of the EC Treaty 

“The  Members  of  the  Commission  shall,  in  the  general  interest  of  the  Community,  be 
completely independent in the performance of their duties. 

In  the  performance  of  these  duties,  they  shall  neither  seek  nor  take  instructions  from  any 
government  or  from  any  other  body.  They  shall  refrain  from  any  action  incompatible  with 
their duties. […] 

The  Members  of  the  Commission  may  not,  during  their  term  of  office,  engage  in  any  other 
occupation, whether gainful or not. When entering upon their duties they shall give a solemn 
undertaking that, both during and after their term of office, they will respect the obligations 
arising  there  from  and  in  particular  their  duty  to  behave  with  integrity  and  discretion  as 
regards  the  acceptance,  after  they  have  ceased  to  hold  office,  of  certain  appointments  or 
benefits.” 

Staff Regulations 

Article 11: “An official shall carry out his duties and conduct himself solely with the interests 
of  the  Communities  in  mind;  he  shall  neither  seek  nor  take  instructions  from  any  […] 
organisation or person outside his institution. He shall carry out the duties assigned to him 
objectively, impartially […].” 

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  […] 
either forbid him from undertaking it or give its approval subject to any conditions it thinks 
fit.” 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
Annex 2 

The general principles and minimum standards in detail21 

The  general  principles  for  consultation  are  participation,  openness,  accountability, 
effectiveness  and  coherence.  In  practice,  this  means  ensuring  that  the  Commission  consults 
widely and that its consultation processes are transparent, efficient and consistent. 

The five minimum standards focus on different aspects of the consultation process: 

A. Clear content of the consultation process 

“All communications relating to consultation should be clear and concise, and should include 
all necessary information to facilitate responses.” 

B. Consultation target groups 

“When defining the target group(s) in a consultation process, the Commission should ensure 
that relevant parties have an opportunity to express their opinions.” 

C. Publication 

“The  Commission  should  ensure  adequate  awareness-raising  publicity  and  adapt  its 
communication  channels  to  meet  the  needs  of all  target  audiences.  Without  excluding  other 
communication  tools,  open  public  consultations  should  be  published  on  the  internet  and 
announced at the “single access point.”22 

D. Time limits for participation 

“The Commission should provide sufficient time for planning and responses to invitations and 
written contributions. The Commission should strive to allow at least 8 weeks for reception of 
responses to written public consultations and 20 working days notice for meetings.” 

E. Acknowledgement and feedback 

“Receipt of contributions should be acknowledged. Results of open public consultation should 
be displayed on websites linked to the single access point on the internet. […] Contributions 
to open public consultations will be made public on the single access point. Results of other 
forms of consultation should, as far as possible, also be subject to public scrutiny on the single 

21 

22 

For the full content of the principles and standards, see COM(2002) 704, Chapter V. 
http://europa.eu.int/comm/secretariat_general/sgc/consultation/index_en.htm. 
The  “Your  Voice  in  Europe”  portal  (http://europa.eu.int/yourvoice/consultations/index_en.htm)  was 
subsequently set up as the Commission’s single access point for consultation. It consists of two parts: 
on  its  home  page  the  Commission  departments  have  an  opportunity  specially  to  promote  their 
consultations.  Most  consultations  are  posted  only  on  the  pages  for  individual  policy  activities, 
maintained  by  the  relevant  Commission  departments,  which  are  equally  linked  to  the  single  access 
point. 

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
                                                 
access point on the Internet. The Commission will provide adequate feedback to responding 
parties and to the public at large.”23 

23 

Feedback  should  be  provided  in  explanatory  memoranda  accompanying  legislative  proposals,  in 
communications  following  a  consultation  process  and  in  impact  assessment  reports.  For  these 
documents in 2003-2005, see the impact assessment site: 
http://europa.eu.int/comm/secretariat_general/impact/practice_en.htm. 

EN 

17 

   EN