Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council European - Transparency Initiative: the Register of Interest Representatives, one year after
Date: 2009-10-28
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU initiative, administrative transparency, directory, dissemination of information, interest group, professional association

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 28.10.2009 
COM(2009) 612 final 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL 

European Transparency Initiative: the Register of Interest Representatives, one year 
after 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL 

European Transparency Initiative: the Register of Interest Representatives, one year 
after 

In  its  Communication  on  the  follow-up  to  the  Green  Paper  "European  Transparency 
Initiative"1,  the  Commission  stated  that  the  Register  of  Interest  Representatives  would  be 
open in Spring 2008 and that a review of the system would be conducted one year later. 

Since the Register was launched, in June 2008, citizens have been able to appreciate the very 
wide  range  of  interests  represented  at  the  European  level.  They  have  seen  that  European 
policy makers do not operate in isolation from the civil society's concerns and interests, but 
interact  with  them  in  an  open  and  inclusive  fashion,  creating  a  level  playing  field  for  all 
categories  of  interests.  As  a  result,  the  European  Commission  today  is  one  of  the  relatively 
few public authorities in the world that has put in place practical frameworks for transparency 
in this field2. 

The  Commission  considers  that  the  results  obtained  so  far,  the  ongoing  overall  trend 
observed,  and  the  main  observations  formulated  in  this  Communication  underpin  the  basic 
choices that have been made for the system, namely: a voluntary approach, a reasonable level 
of financial disclosure, and declarations by organisations rather than individuals. The number 
of registrations reached shows that the Register provides a sound basis on which to build, and 
that further improvements could help to strengthen it. 

1. 

1.1. 

IMPROVING TRANSPARENCY: A STEADY RATE OF REGISTRATIONS 

Registration: the Register is a success, even if law firms and think-tanks are still 
lagging behind 

At this point in the process of the finalisation of the text, the overall number of registrations 
has already passed the 2 000 mark. The Commission has seen a steady influx of registrations 
during  the  past  16  months,  and  the  number  is  still  rising3.  Therefore,  the  coverage  of  the 
Register, though already quite significant at this stage4, has not yet achieved its full potential.  

Registrations  have  been  received  from  many  of  the  main  professional  players  lobbying  on 
behalf of clients in the Brussels arena. The Commission has insisted that all clients must be 
declared  in  order  for  the  registration  process  to  be  credible,  and  on  several  occasions  has 
suspended  entities  which  did  not  fulfil  this  requirement.  Over  time,  compliance  has  been 
achieved.  

1 
2 

3 
4 

COM(2007) 127. 
See for reference: “Self regulation and regulation of the lobbying profession” OECD – April 2009-07-
16: 
http://www.olis.oecd.org/olis/2009doc.nsf/ENGDATCORPLOOK/NT00002A56/$FILE/JT03263523.P
DF 
See graph in Annex 2. 
Some  organisations  have  had  hesitations  about  registration,  being  mindful  of  the  supposed 
consequences  such  a  registration  could  potentially  have  on  the  way  they  are  treated  by  national  tax 
authorities. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
                                                 
A  very  large  and  steadily  growing  number  of  trade  associations  that  are  active  in  lobbying 
have  registered,  as  well  as  “in-house”,  corporate  lobbyists,  and  this  trend  shows  no  sign  of 
saturation for the time being.  

Although some non-governmental organisations would have preferred a mandatory Register, 
a  similar  trend  is  seen  in  the  case  of  non-governmental  organisations,  especially  those 
belonging to European networks, and this also applies to a large number of those engaged in 
regular interaction with Commission services.  

In contrast to these favourable trends across the board it must be noted that, regrettably two 
subcategories of operators are still, for the most part, outside the Register: 
•  Law firms engaged in activities of interest representation as defined by the Commission5 
remain largely unregistered. Whilst lawyers and law firms quite rightly claim that rules on 
confidentiality  specifically  applying  to  them  prohibit  them  from  declaring  who  they 
represent  in  cases  where  they  act  as  lawyers,  i.e.  advise  and  represent  clients  in  legal 
proceedings  and  litigations,  most  –  if  not  all  –  Brussels-based  law  firms  also  engage  in 
lobbying  on  behalf  of  their  clients  in  a  similar  fashion  to  other  interest  representatives 
covered  by  this  initiative.  The  Commission  remains  convinced  that  a  level  playing  field 
must  be  established  for  the  Register  and  that  all  operators  engaged  in  similar  activities 
should be treated in a similar manner. The Commission has provided detailed information 
on  the  definition  of  activities  falling  within  and  outside  the  scope  of  the  Register  in  the 
case of lawyers and law firms (see 2.1.2.). This approach has already made matters clearer 
and should now make it easier for those in this category to register.  

•  Most think-tanks make valuable contributions to the European institutions by producing 
high quality data based on scientific and academic research and, therefore, do not want to 
be assimilated to specific or profit-oriented interests. However, their contributions may be 
aimed  at  influencing  the  choices  and  courses  of  action  orientations  of  the  European 
institutions.  A  number  of  think-tanks  promote  membership  by  offering  their  potential 
members "unparalleled networking opportunities" and "the chance to communicate directly 
with high-level personalities". They also offer "guaranteed participation in a wide range of 
high-level events" and debates to enable members to "voice their opinion on a range of hot 
topics". The Commission recalls that the Register covers all interests represented, be they 
specific or general and therefore expects think-tanks to register (see 2.2.).  

Overall, the Commission considers that the Register has come a long way in both quantitative 
and qualitative terms in its first 'pilot' year. As the system is still in its expansion phase, it is 
not possible to draw a final conclusion purely on the basis of quantitative data. The universe 
of  interest  representation  is  itself  volatile  and  unlimited.  Overall,  the  voluntary  approach  is 
working and should therefore be maintained. 

1.2. 

This  evolution  reflects  the  fact  that  registration  is  becoming  a  normal  process 
for more and more organisations 

The  steady  growth  in  registrations  confirms  that  more  and  more  organisations  are  seeing 
registration as a normal step for those intending to interact with the European institutions in 
full  compliance  with  the  principles  of  good  governance  and  transparency.  Discussions  have 
now  moved  on  from  “Why  do  we  need  a  registration  system?”  to  “How  can  the  system  be 
improved?”. 

5 

"… activities carried out with the objective of influencing the policy formulation and decision-making 
processes of the European institutions" - COM(2007) 127. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
A significant element is the fact that registered operators, who have voluntarily committed to 
a transparent relationship with the European Institutions, now  adhere  to a  common Code of 
Conduct, introduced by the Commission, or to other codes with similar contents. This situates 
the  interaction  between  interest  representatives,  public  office  holders  and  officials  (who  are 
themselves bound by strict rules and codes on ethics) in a stronger ethical context. The fact 
that  a  number  of  organisations  choose  to  go  even  further,  by  committing  themselves  to 
specific  professional  codes  going  well  beyond  the  common  Code6,  or  by  providing 
information about themselves beyond what was requested, sends a positive signal in terms of 
the ethical trend in European public affairs.  

Following the European Transparency Initiative, the issue of regulating interest representation 
has given rise to various debates and works in several EU countries and organisations7. The 
Commission's initiative has also attracted the interest of academic circles.  

1.3. 

The Register becomes a reference for Commission services 

Commission  staff  have  been  informed  about  the  Register  and  training  sessions  have  been 
offered on it. Internal instructions invite all staff to use the Register and to promote it in their 
contacts with interest representatives. These awareness-raising and information activities will 
be maintained. 

Commission  services  are  using  the  Register  as  a  reference  in  their  contacts  with  interest 
representatives. "The Register is voluntary. However, when choosing to consult in the context 
of advisory groups or consultative committees, DGs have the possibility to introduce criteria 
including  a  minimum  level  of  transparency  towards  the  public"8,  such  as  signing  up  to  the 
Register.  

The Commission considers that extending registration to most actors will result naturally from 
the practical use of the Register by its services. This will result in a plus for anyone wishing to 
take part in any dialogue or participatory process going beyond basic public consultations.  

1.4. 

The  self-regulatory  approach,  reinforced  by  the  guidance  issued  by  some 
organisations, remains a key element of the system 

Self-regulation should remain a key component of the system. In this regard the Commission 
notes that several major, horizontal networks have recommended to their members that they 
should register. The Commission encourages this attitude. 

A  number  of  networks  have  even  provided  direct  guidance  to  their  members  about  how  to 
handle  the  registration  process  itself.  The  Commission  has  been  made  aware  of  particular 
efforts  in  this  context,  including  those  developed  by  the  European  Public  Affairs 
Consultancies'  Association  (EPACA)  and  the  Society  of  European  Affairs  Professionals 
(SEAP)  for  professional  practitioners,  but  also  those  of  EU  Civil  Society  Contact  Group  in 
cooperation  with  the  Alliance  for  lobbying  transparency  and  ethics  regulation  in  the  EU 
(AlterEU).  They  range  from  a  simple  explanatory  document  to  more  detailed  guidelines  on 
the  items  to  be  covered  for  financial  disclosure  and  on  how  to  present  the  requisite 
information.  

6 

7 
8 

List of professional codes of conduct which have been declared by registrants as having rules 
comparable to the Commission's Code of Conduct: 
https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/transparency/regrin/infos/codeofconduct.do?locale=en 
France, Ireland, Italy, United Kingdom, as well as work within OECD. 
Letter from VP Kallas to Confederation of European Paper Industries (CEPI aisbl) dated 7 April 2009. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The Commission encourages all networks to follow these good practices, as this will lead in 
time to a consistent implementation of the system. It expects the authors of such guidelines to 
make them public so that this work can also be done in a fully transparent manner. 
In some cases9, as part of an active campaign to promote the extension of the requirement in 
the Register to include  such  information, the guidance provided suggests going  further than 
simply  providing  the  minimum  information  required.  In  the  Commission's  view,  such 
practices are part and parcel of the voluntary and self-regulatory dimension of the system. The 
blank spaces in the registration forms leave more room and greater flexibility for anyone who 
wishes to include additional information. 

2. 

IMPROVEMENTS  

Since the launch of the Register in June 2008, the Commission has made it clear that it is open 
to  constructive  criticism.  Any  such  criticisms  have  been  published  on  the  website  of  the 
Register. 

Technical  comments  on  subjects  not  related  to  the  basic  principles  (such  as  the  user-
friendliness of the website, presentation of information, availability of PDF forms for internal 
processes,  etc.)  are  incorporated  as  part  of  the  ongoing  improvements  being  made  to  the 
system by the Commission.  

Some  remarks  are  of  a  more  substantive  nature,  highlighting  possible  improvements  or 
corrections to be made to the system in the light of experience. These issues – as well as the 
guidelines in the work being done on the establishment of a single, inter-institutional register 
– are listed below. 

It  should  be  noted  that  the  adjustments  presented  in  this  Communication  do  not  affect  the 
compliance of the Register with the personal data protection rules.  

2.1. 

Financial disclosure: how to make the Commission's expectations clearer 

Scope of eligible activities 

2.1.1. 
Those registering in category II10 still point to the difficulties they are having in making  an 
estimate in good faith of the "cost associated with the direct lobbying of EU institutions"11. 
They  want  more  specific  guidelines  on  which  costs  are  to  be  taken  into  account  in  the 
definition of "direct lobbying" and they see the current situation as a source of considerable 
uncertainty, fearing that their declaration could be challenged at any moment.  

More generally, registrants in the other categories are also calling for more specific guidelines 
about the activities and costs to be taken into account. On the basis of this experience and of 
the  guidelines  established  by  some  associations,  the  current  guidance  given  in  the 
Commission's interpretative documents (such as the Frequently Asked Questions published on 
the internet) needs to be made more specific, along the following lines: 

•  Registrants  should  disclose  all  expenditures  covering  actions  initiated  with  the  aim  of 
influencing European policy formulation or decision-making processes, irrespective of the 
communication  channel  or  medium  it  is  using  (whether  direct  or  indirect,  using 
outsourcing,  media,  contracts  with  professional  intermediaries,  think-tanks,  "platforms", 

9 

10 
11 

EU Civil Society Contact Group in cooperation with the Alliance for lobbying transparency and ethics 
regulation in the EU (AlterEU). 
Corporate lobbyists and trade associations/ federations. 
COM(2007) 127. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
fora, campaigns, etc.). Social events or conferences fall within the scope of the Register if 
invitations have been sent to staff or members of European Institutions.  

•  The activities to be declared for the financial disclosure of the Register are those aimed at 
all European institutions and bodies, their members, and their services, as well as European 
agencies  and  their  personnel.  These  activities  also  include  activities  directed  at  the 
Permanent  Representations  of  the  Member  States,  including  the  Council  Presidency. 
However, activities aimed at influencing Member States' authorities in the capitals or any 
sub-national authority are deemed to be outside the scope of the Register. 

•  Hence, in order to determine whether an activity falls within the scope of the declaration, 
two  questions  have  to  be  answered:  What  is  the  purpose  of  the  activity  and  who  is  its 
target? In the light of an earlier clarification provided by a Communication in 200812 where 
the  Commission  excluded  from  the  scope  all  activities  that  are  a  "response  to  the 
Commission's  direct  request",  a  third  question  can  be  added,  namely:  "Who  took  the 
initiative to launch the activity?" 

Subject  to  these  clarifications,  the  word  "direct"  will  be  removed  from  the  definition  of  the 
expenditures  to  be  declared  by  registrants  of  category  II13,  as  it  has  caused  confusion.  The 
categories of exemptions identified in previous communications remain unchanged. 

2.1.2.  Clarification of the scope of the exemption on legal advice and assistance 
A  number  of  operators  in  category  I14  have  called  for  a  more  precise  definition  of  the 
exemption  which  applies  to  some  of  their  activities.  This  concerns  in  particular  the  specific 
activities of lawyers, which fall outside the scope of the Register.  

The  following  text,  which  already  appeared  in  an  exchange  of  letters  with  a  stakeholder, 
provides the necessary clarification and will be incorporated into the explanatory documents 
(such  as  the  Frequently  Asked  Questions):  "N'entrent  pas  dans  le  champ  du  registre  des 
représentants d'intérêts (quels qu'en soient les acteurs) les activités de conseil et les contacts 
avec  les  instances  publiques,  destinés  à  éclairer  un  client  sur  une  situation  de  droit,  sur  sa 
situation  juridique  spécifique,  sur  l'opportunité  ou  la  recevabilité  d'une  initiative  de  nature 
judiciaire  ou  administrative  dans  le  cadre  du  droit  en  vigueur,  y  compris  les  conseils 
prodigués à un client en vue de l'aider à organiser ses activités dans le respect de la loi. Il en 
va de même des représentations faites dans le cadre d'une conciliation ou d'une médiation en 
vue  d'éviter  qu'un  litige  soit  porté  devant  une  instance  juridictionnelle  ou  administrative. 
Cette approche vaut pour tous les secteurs d'activité de la Commission et n'est pas limitée à 
certaines procédures particulières (concurrence)"15. 

2.1.3.  Transparency and double counting 

Numerous  questions  have  been  raised  about  "double  counting",  i.e.  the  fact  that  the  same 
costs  are  declared  several  times  by  different  registrants16.  The  following  change  should  be 
made: 

12 
13 

14 
15 
16 

COM(2008) 323. 
According to COM(2007) 127, "in-house" lobbyists and trade associations active in lobbying need to 
provide "an estimate of the cost associated with the direct lobbying of EU institutions". 
Professional consultancies and law firms involved in lobbying EU institutions. 
Letter from VP Kallas to Délégation des Barreaux de France (DBF) dated 6 April 2009. 
A company could include in its declaration the amount billed by a public affairs company to which it 
has given instructions. The latter must publish the list of its clients, including the relative weight of each 
client in its turnover. The same amount of money would therefore be published twice. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Double  counting  is  no  longer  excluded.  Registrants  are  expected  to  ensure  transparency  by 
describing  such  situations  in  their  declaration,  using  the  text  fields  of  the  declaration  in 
particular to provide specific explanations such as: "Our estimated costs include our contracts 
with lobbying firm X, our membership fees to our trade association Y" or "We contributed in 
kind (staff, services etc.) to the lobbying activity of our federation Z". 

This approach seems to be the simplest and best way to address the issue of double counting: 
If the aim of the Register were to provide details of the total amount of money spent on all 
lobbying activities vis-à-vis the European institutions, double counting would be a problem, 
as it would result in an over-estimation of this amount. In fact, the aim of the Commission's 
policy  is  not  to  achieve  a  consolidated  analysis,  but  to  provide  transparency  at  the  level  of 
each  individual  registrant.  Therefore,  the  inclusion  of  the  same  costs  declared  by  different 
entities does not affect the Register's basic purpose, which is to provide information on how 
much each individual entity spends on lobbying.  

2.1.4.  Financial disclosure: adjust the requirements for the category I 

Those  registering  in  the  first  category  are  asked  to  disclose  the  turnover  they  generate,  by 
lobbying the European institutions, as well as the full list of their clients.  

If  they  decide  to  show  the  turnover  in  brackets,  the  second  highest  range  available  in  the 
current set-up is "€ 950 000 – € 1 000 000" and th
level  of  transparency  expected  from  registrants  with  a  smaller  turnover  is  therefore  higher 
than for registrants generating a higher turnover. To ensure a more level playing field for all 
registrants, the list of ranges should be extended beyond the current limit of € 1 000 000. 

e highest is "> € 1 000 000". In practice, the 

Registrants  are  also  asked  to  declare  the  relative  weight  of  their  clients  in  this  turnover  by 
placing  all  their  clients  in  brackets.  Currently,  the  brackets  are  expressed  in  bandwidths  of 
either € 50 000 or 10 %-points.  

This system means that registrants who choose to use the percentage brackets are not being 
treated equally, a point which has been underlined by many smaller public affairs consultants 
and  NGOs.  Registrants  with  a  very  large  turnover  and  many  clients,  who  choose  the 
percentage  option,  are  de  facto  allowed  to  be  significantly  less  transparent  than  registrants 
with  a  smaller  turnover  and  only  a  few  clients.  They  can  offer  their  clients  a  much  higher 
degree of confidentiality about the size of their contracts than smaller firms can. Some see this 
as discriminatory, since virtually all clients of the biggest registrants fall within the 0%-10% 
bracket,  whereas  the  weight  of  the  clients  of  smaller  registrants  will  often  be  spead  more 
widely across the percentages grid. To correct this bias the Commission intends to abolish the 
percentage option and to introduce differentiated brackets instead, according to the amount of 
the turnover declared. The grid will be as follows: 

Level of turnover in € 

Bracket size in € 

0 – 500 000 

50 000 

500 000 – 1 000 000 

100 000 

> 1 000 000 

250 000 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
 
Facilitating the registration of think-tanks 

2.2. 
Registrants may choose from among four categories17. Think-tanks are expected to register in 
category III ("NGOs and think-tanks"). Within this category there is a dedicated subcategory 
for  "think-tanks"  so  there  should  be  no  actual  confusion  with  NGOs.  To  reinforce  this 
distinction,  the  category  of  "NGOs  and  think-tanks"  should  be  divided  in  two  and  a  new 
specific category for think-tanks should be created.  

2.3. 

Estimating the number of individuals concerned 

The  question  "How  many  individuals  are  representing  interests  with  the  EU  institutions?" 
continues  to  attract  outside  attention.  Many  stakeholders  also  argue  that  the  number  of 
individuals  that  can  be  mobilised  is  an  important  aspect  of  the  transparency  offered  by  the 
register.  Many  current  registrants  have  in  fact  disclosed  individual  names  on  a  voluntary 
basis,  as  is  already  required  for  lobbyists  accredited  to  access  the  European  Parliament. 
Therefore, while the current focus on organisations will remain, registrants will be asked to 
estimate the number of collaborators involved in interest representation as defined under the 
Register. 

2.4.  Monitoring and enforcement mechanism 

During the past months, 10 complaints have been filed, four of which were deemed to make a 
sufficiently strong case to justify an administrative inquiry. In three cases, no violation of the 
Code of Conduct was established. One registrant has agreed to rectify its declaration after a 
short  suspension;  one  gave  a  convincing  explanation  allowing  the  Commission  to  close  the 
investigation without further action.  

As some stakeholders have asked for the mechanism to be clarified, the Commission intends 
to issue a more detailed description of this administrative process in an explanatory note. 

3. 

INTER-INSTITUTIONAL COOPERATION 

The European Parliament and the European Commission are endeavouring to work together 
towards  a  common  Register.  In  April  2009  a  joint  working  group  already  agreed  on  a  first 
series  of  steps  towards  achieving  that  objective,  and  on  a  set  of  guidelines18  plus  a  revised 
draft code of conduct. Pending the arrival of this "one-stop shop", the two institutions already 
launched a common web-page19 offering citizens a more comprehensive insight into who is 
seeking  to  influence  decision-making  at  EU  level  by  providing  access  to  the  two  existing 
systems through a single web-page. 

This Communication, drawing on the lessons and experience from the first year of operation 
of the Register, as well as from the inputs provided by a large number of registrants and users, 
will serve as a basis for this common approach to be discussed between the two institutions in 
the near future.  

17 

18 
19 

Three categories correspond to the operators which are all expected to register; one extra category is for 
other entities which, although not mentioned in the relevant Communications, have the opportunity to 
sign up if they wish. 
Link to guidelines: http://ec.europa.eu/commission_barroso/kallas/doc/joint_statement_register.pdf 
Link to common web-page: http://europa.eu/lobbyists/interest_representative_registers/index_en.html 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
                                                 
ANNEX 1 

On 5/10/09, there were 2014 interest representatives in the register. 

Professional consultancies / law firms involved in lobbying EU institutions  

112  

law firm  

public affairs consultancy  

independent public affairs consultant  

other (similar) organisation  

9  

61  

29  

13  

«in-house» lobbyists and trade associations active in lobbying  

1 129  

company  

professional association  

trade union  

other (similar) organisation  

NGO / think-tank  

non-governmental organisation / association of NGOs  

think-tank  

other (similar) organisation  

other organisations  

academic organisation / association of academic organisations  

representative of religions, churches and communities of conviction  

association of public authorities  

other (similar) organisation  

276  

654  

56  

143  

559  

434  

51  

74  

214  

45  

8  

37  

124  

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 2 

EN 

10 

   EN