natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
This is in line with article 9(4) in the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament defining lobbyists as "persons who wish to enter Parliament's premises frequently with a view to supplying information to Members within the framework of their parliamentary mandate in their own interests or those of third parties".
This is in line with article 9(4) in the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament defining lobbyists as "persons who wish to enter Parliament's premises frequently with a view to supplying information to Members within the framework of their parliamentary mandate in their own interests or those of third parties".
The rapporteur is of the opinion that no essential differences are to be made according to whether industrialists or environmentalists are approaching the Parliament, whether producers' or consumers' interests are represented or whether private or public actors are engaged in a dialogue with MEPs.
The rapporteur is of the opinion that no essential differences are to be made according to whether industrialists or environmentalists are approaching the Parliament, whether producers' or consumers' interests are represented or whether private or public actors are engaged in a dialogue with MEPs.
In addition, when law firms are engaged in influencing future law, not representing court cases, they are to be considered as lobbyists.
In addition, when law firms are engaged in influencing future law, not representing court cases, they are to be considered as lobbyists.
To what extent should there be financial disclosure?
To what extent should there be financial disclosure?
According to the Commission, financial information is indicative on the influence of interest groups.
According to the Commission, financial information is indicative on the influence of interest groups.
The Commission has concluded that it is necessary and proportionate to request registrants to declare relevant budget figures and an aggregate breakdown on major clients and/or funding sources.
The Commission has concluded that it is necessary and proportionate to request registrants to declare relevant budget figures and an aggregate breakdown on major clients and/or funding sources.
The main objective of this information is to ensure that decision-makers and the general public can identify and assess the strength of the most important driving forces behind a given lobbying activity.
The main objective of this information is to ensure that decision-makers and the general public can identify and assess the strength of the most important driving forces behind a given lobbying activity.
The Commission requires the following:
The Commission requires the following:
– for professional consultancies and law firms the turnover linked to lobbying EU institutions, as well as the relative weight of major clients;
– for professional consultancies and law firms the turnover linked to lobbying EU institutions, as well as the relative weight of major clients;
– for "in-house" lobbyists and trade associations an estimate of the cost associated to direct lobbying of EU institutions;
– for "in-house" lobbyists and trade associations an estimate of the cost associated to direct lobbying of EU institutions;
– for NGOs and think-tanks the overall budget and a breakdown of their main sources of funding.
– for NGOs and think-tanks the overall budget and a breakdown of their main sources of funding.
Details are yet to be clarified when the Commission presents a beta-version of its data base interface and more explicit information on the required data.
Details are yet to be clarified when the Commission presents a beta-version of its data base interface and more explicit information on the required data.
Furthermore, financial figures are not always the best way to give information on the scale of lobbying activity.
Furthermore, financial figures are not always the best way to give information on the scale of lobbying activity.
The questions yet to be answered in a clear way are what information is useful to assess external influences on the legislative process and how they can be acquired without breaking legitimate confidentiality rules or overly burdensome administrative procedures.
The questions yet to be answered in a clear way are what information is useful to assess external influences on the legislative process and how they can be acquired without breaking legitimate confidentiality rules or overly burdensome administrative procedures.
Should the European Parliament have a common register with the Commission?
Should the European Parliament have a common register with the Commission?
The Commission calls for a common register between the Commission and the Parliament.
The Commission calls for a common register between the Commission and the Parliament.
The rapporteur considers that from the public point-of-view the institutions are seen as one.
The rapporteur considers that from the public point-of-view the institutions are seen as one.
Also all the stakeholders wish to have a “one-stop-shop”.
Also all the stakeholders wish to have a “one-stop-shop”.
Although the institutions have essential differences and might end up with different requirements for lobbyists, for example on financial disclosure, the question should be seen as administrative.
Although the institutions have essential differences and might end up with different requirements for lobbyists, for example on financial disclosure, the question should be seen as administrative.
Therefore the rapporteur proposes a joint working group to consider the implications of a common register.
Therefore the rapporteur proposes a joint working group to consider the implications of a common register.
Should the register of interest groups be voluntary or mandatory?
Should the register of interest groups be voluntary or mandatory?
The Parliament's legal service considers the Parliament's present register de facto mandatory, because registration is linked to physical access to the Parliament premises.
The Parliament's legal service considers the Parliament's present register de facto mandatory, because registration is linked to physical access to the Parliament premises.
The rapporteur agrees with this analysis.
The rapporteur agrees with this analysis.
To lobby regularly in the Parliament you need a badge.
To lobby regularly in the Parliament you need a badge.
In order to get a badge you have to register.
In order to get a badge you have to register.
This is also why the Commission urges for a common register.
This is also why the Commission urges for a common register.
The badge is a strong incentive to register.
The badge is a strong incentive to register.
The Commission proposes financial disclosure and more systematic monitoring of the information provided in the register.
The Commission proposes financial disclosure and more systematic monitoring of the information provided in the register.
These innovations are priorities and should be adopted in due time.
These innovations are priorities and should be adopted in due time.
A legislative act on lobbying would be a lengthy process and should not therefore be pursued at this stage.
A legislative act on lobbying would be a lengthy process and should not therefore be pursued at this stage.
This is in line with the broad consensus on having a common register, a "one-stop-shop" with the Commission.
This is in line with the broad consensus on having a common register, a "one-stop-shop" with the Commission.
The success of the Commission's register is evaluated after one year.
The success of the Commission's register is evaluated after one year.
The Treaty of Lisbon, if ratified, will provide a clearer legal basis for a legislative act on lobbying, if this is found necessary.
The Treaty of Lisbon, if ratified, will provide a clearer legal basis for a legislative act on lobbying, if this is found necessary.
Should there be sanctions for breaches of the code of conduct?
Should there be sanctions for breaches of the code of conduct?
In the present system of the Parliament, the highest sanction is the deletion from the register.
In the present system of the Parliament, the highest sanction is the deletion from the register.
Fines and other such sanctions would require legislation.
Fines and other such sanctions would require legislation.
From the lobbyists’ credibility point-of-view, deletion from the register is not at all a meaningless sanction.
From the lobbyists’ credibility point-of-view, deletion from the register is not at all a meaningless sanction.
However, supervision on how rules are respected could be strengthened.
However, supervision on how rules are respected could be strengthened.
Improving the Parliament’s transparency
Improving the Parliament’s transparency
The rapporteur considers transparency a two-way street.
The rapporteur considers transparency a two-way street.
This means, that when requiring the lobbyists to be more transparent, the Parliament itself can also work for more transparency.
This means, that when requiring the lobbyists to be more transparent, the Parliament itself can also work for more transparency.
Therefore the rapporteur calls for clarity on registered and non-registered intergroups often financed by interest groups.
Therefore the rapporteur calls for clarity on registered and non-registered intergroups often financed by interest groups.
Furthermore, the rapporteur acknowledges a Member possibility to use a “legislative footprint”, i.e. an indicative list, attached to parliamentary reports, of interest representatives consulted during the preparation of the report.
Furthermore, the rapporteur acknowledges a Member possibility to use a “legislative footprint”, i.e. an indicative list, attached to parliamentary reports, of interest representatives consulted during the preparation of the report.
The idea is to give a picture on different interests mobilised by a legislative process and thus help the public, the media, other Members and anyone interested to scrutinize Parliamentary work.
The idea is to give a picture on different interests mobilised by a legislative process and thus help the public, the media, other Members and anyone interested to scrutinize Parliamentary work.
On the other hand, often relevant information is obtained confidentially and the independence of MEP’s has to be defended.
On the other hand, often relevant information is obtained confidentially and the independence of MEP’s has to be defended.
Therefore the use of such "footprints" has to base on the best judgement of individual MEP's.
Therefore the use of such "footprints" has to base on the best judgement of individual MEP's.
The rapporteur also stresses that it is even more important for the Commission to provide a legislative footprint attached to its legislative initiatives.
The rapporteur also stresses that it is even more important for the Commission to provide a legislative footprint attached to its legislative initiatives.
For example, in the process of this report at least the following organisations have been consulted before 6 February 2008.
For example, in the process of this report at least the following organisations have been consulted before 6 February 2008.
Some others have sent e-mails and provided quick information informally.
Some others have sent e-mails and provided quick information informally.
1) Business Europe,
1) Business Europe,
2) European Public Affairs Consultancies’ Association (EPACA),
2) European Public Affairs Consultancies’ Association (EPACA),
3) The Alliance for Lobbying Transparency and Ethics Regulation (ALTER-EU) (Friends of the Earth Europe, European Federation of Journalists),
3) The Alliance for Lobbying Transparency and Ethics Regulation (ALTER-EU) (Friends of the Earth Europe, European Federation of Journalists),
4) European Chemical Industry Council (Cefic),
4) European Chemical Industry Council (Cefic),
5) Society of European Affairs Professionals (SEAP),
5) Society of European Affairs Professionals (SEAP),
6) French Chamber of Commerce,
6) French Chamber of Commerce,
7) Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe (CCEB)
7) Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe (CCEB)
8) International Public Relations Association (IPRA)
8) International Public Relations Association (IPRA)
11) American Chamber of Commerce
11) American Chamber of Commerce
12) Toyota Motor Europe,
12) Toyota Motor Europe,
13) Exxon Mobile,
13) Exxon Mobile,
14) European Centre for Public Affairs (ECPA),
14) European Centre for Public Affairs (ECPA),
15) The Commission
15) The Commission
In addition, the following were represented as stakeholders in the workshop on lobbying in the EU organised 8 October by the Committee of Constitutional Affairs.
In addition, the following were represented as stakeholders in the workshop on lobbying in the EU organised 8 October by the Committee of Constitutional Affairs.
Others gave their views in the roundtable discussion.
Others gave their views in the roundtable discussion.
2) The European Consumers' Organisation (BEUC)
2) The European Consumers' Organisation (BEUC)
5) Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO)
5) Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO)
In conclusion, the rapporteur addresses the importance of transparency, calls for equal treatment between interest representatives, proposes a wait-and-see approach to the concrete proposals (i.e. the register and its details) by the Commission and provides examples on how the Parliament itself can improve its own transparency.
In conclusion, the rapporteur addresses the importance of transparency, calls for equal treatment between interest representatives, proposes a wait-and-see approach to the concrete proposals (i.e. the register and its details) by the Commission and provides examples on how the Parliament itself can improve its own transparency.
относно разработването на рамката за дейността на представителите на интереси (лобисти) в европейските институции
on the development of the framework for the activities of interest representatives (lobbyists) in the European institutions
Комисията по бюджетен контрол приканва водещата комисия по конституционни въпроси да включи в предложението за резолюция, което ще приеме, следните предложения:
The Committee on Budgetary Control calls on the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, as the committee responsible, to incorporate the following suggestions in its motion for a resolution:
Общ подход на Комисията
Overall approach by the Commission
Отбелязва, че Комисията определя лобирането като „дейности, извършвани с цел упражняване на влияние върху процесите на разработване на политики и вземане на решения от страна на европейските институции“;
Notes that the Commission defines lobbying as "activities carried out with the objective of influencing the policy formulation and decision-making processes of the European institutions";
Припомня, че институциите на Европейския съюз вземат решения не само във връзка със законодателството, но и относно:
Recalls that the European Union institutions take decisions not only in relation to legislation, but also concerning:
- възстановявания и откази;
- recoveries and waivers;
по отношение на които заинтересованите страни могат да пожелаят да изразят своите възгледи или да упражнят влияние; счита, че всички бъдещи правилници или кодекси за поведение следва да се изготвят така, че да обхващат всички области на дейност на институциите на ЕС, на които външни органи или лица могат да се опитат да повлияят;
with regard to which the interested parties may wish to express their views or to exercise influence; believes that any future rules or code of conduct should be drawn up in such a way as to cover all the areas of activity of the EU institutions which outside bodies or persons may seek to influence;
Отбелязва, че според предложението на Комисията, консултантските фирми за връзки с обществеността, корпоративните групи за лобиране („вътрешни представители“), неправителствените организации (НПО), аналитичните центрове, търговските сдружения и юридическите кантори ще бъдат насърчавани да се включат в регистъра и ще им бъде предоставена възможност да отбележат към коя категория принадлежат;
Notes that according to the Commission's proposal, public affairs consultancies, corporate lobby units ("in-house representatives"), non-governmental organisations (NGOs), think-tanks, trade associations and law firms will be encouraged to join the register and will be offered the opportunity to indicate to which category they belong;
Изтъква, че списъкът по параграф 3 не включва други категории групи за представителство на интереси със значително присъствие в Брюксел, като например: а) регионални, провинциални или местни органи на властта, които лобират от свое име или от името на дружества или други организации, разположени на тяхна територия, или б) счетоводни фирми, предлагащи пълен набор от стопански услуги, включително лобистка дейност, или в) синдикални организации;
Points out that the list in paragraph 3 does not include other categories of interest groups with a significant presence in Brussels such as a) regional, provincial or local authorities, which lobby on their own behalf or on behalf of companies or other entities situated in their territory, b) firms of accountants offering a full range of business services, including lobbying activities, or, c) trade unions;
Заключава от списъка с категории лобисти, набелязани от Комисията, че нейният подход се основава главно на регулиране на лобирането в частния сектор, без видим опит да се приложи равностойна прозрачност по отношение на лобирането на представители на публичния сектор, напр. регионални органи на властта, дипломати, министри, национални парламентаристи;
Concludes from the list of categories of lobbyists targeted by the Commission that its approach is essentially based on regulating private sector lobbying, without any apparent attempt to apply equivalent transparency to lobbying by public sector representatives, e.g. regional authorities, diplomats, ministers, national parliamentarians;
Отбелязва, че според предложението на Комисията лобистите, които доброволно вписват в регистъра определена информация за себе си, ще имат възможност да посочват конкретните си интереси и в замяна на това ще бъдат уведомявани за консултации в тези конкретни области;
Notes that under the Commission's proposal, lobbyists who voluntarily 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;
Припомня, че значителен брой отзиви, получени от Комисията в отговор на нейната Зелена книга относно прозрачността, и по-специално НПО, подкрепят задължителния (а не доброволния) подход като единствен начин за гарантиране на пълна прозрачност;
Recalls that a considerable number of the contributions received by the Commission in response to its Green Paper on transparency, in particular NGOs, advocated a compulsory (rather than voluntary) approach as the only way to ensure full transparency;
Разкриване на финансова информация
Financial disclosure
Подкрепя предложението на Комисията, което би задължило регистрираните лобисти да декларират:
Supports the Commission's proposal which would require registered lobbyists to declare:
- за професионалните консултантски фирми и юридически кантори, които се занимават с лобиране пред институции на ЕС - оборота, свързан с лобирането, както и относителната тежест на клиентите в рамките на този оборот;
- for professional consultancies and law firms involved in lobbying EU institutions, the turnover linked to such lobbying as well as the relative weight of the clients in that turnover;
- за „вътрешни“ лобисти и търговски сдружения, които се занимават активно с лобиране - оценка на разходите, свързани с пряко лобиране пред институции на ЕС; и
- for "'in-house" lobbyists and trade associations active in lobbying, an estimate of the cost associated with the direct lobbying of EU institutions; and
- за НПО и аналитични центрове - общия бюджет и разбивка по основни източници на финансиране (суми и източници на публично финансиране, дарения, членски внос и т.н.);
- for NGOs and think-tanks, the overall budget and breakdown per main sources of funding (amounts and sources of public funding, donations, membership fees etc.);
Счита, че е много важно за членовете на Европейския парламент, и не само за тях, да знаят за кого работят лобистите, както и източника на всяка информация, предоставена или получена със съдействието на лобистите, и същността на интересите, които представляват;
Believes that it is essential for Members of the European Parliament, as well as for others, to know for whom lobbyists are working, the source of any information provided or promoted by lobbyists and the identity of the interests which they represent;
Предлага всеки бъдещ кодекс за поведение да изисква от лобистите в началото на всяка среща или събеседване, организирани с цел лобиране, да посочват ясно клиента, организацията, движението или кампанията, от чието име действат, и дали са регистрирани лобисти;
Suggests that any future code of conduct should require lobbyists at the beginning of any meeting or conversation arranged for lobbying purposes to indicate in clear terms the client, organisation, movement or campaign on whose behalf they are acting and whether or not they are registered lobbyists;
Изисква от Комисията да уточни какви ще са евентуалните последици от невключване или отказ за включване в доброволния регистър, и по-специално:
Asks the Commission to specify what would be the consequences of a failure or refusal to join the voluntary register and, in particular:
- дали невключването или отказът за включване ще бъдат вписани и ясно обозначени в определен раздел на регистъра;
- whether that failure or refusal would be recorded and clearly visible in a section of the register;
- дали на съответната организация впоследствие ще бъде отнета възможността да лобира пред Комисията;
- whether the organisation concerned would thereafter be debarred from lobbying the Commission;
Счита, че регистърът следва да включва проста система за заличаване на въведена в него информация и за съобщаване на мотивите за заличаването на заинтересованото лице или орган;
Takes the view that the register should include a simple system for removing entries from it and for notifying the reasons for removal to the person or body concerned;
Подкрепя становището на Комисията, че саморегулирането на лобистите не е достатъчно; отбелязва своето намерение да преразглежда и актуализира действащите изисквания, приети през 1992 г.; изразява съгласие, че обвързването със спазване на кодекса следва да се превърне в изискване за лобистите, които желаят да бъдат включени в новия регистър, в съответствие с примера, даден от Парламента;
Supports the Commission's view that self regulation of lobbyists is not enough; notes its intention to review and update the existing requirements adopted in 1992; agrees that subscribing to the code should become a requirement for lobbyists wishing to be included in the new register, in line with the example set by Parliament;
Счита за необходимо, с оглед на постигане на ефективност на кодекса за поведение и на доверие на европейските граждани в системата, нарушенията на кодекса да се откриват и да се санкционират по вдъхващ доверие начин; отбелязва, че е важно наблюдението да се осъществява от напълно независими субекти;
Considers it necessary, if a code of conduct is to be effective and European citizens are to have confidence in the system, that violations of the code are detected and credibly sanctioned; notes the importance of monitoring being conducted by fully independent actors;
Настоящи правила на Парламента относно лобирането
Parliament's current rules on lobbying
Изтъква, че Парламентът вече има кодекс за поведение (член 3 от приложение ІХ към Правилника за дейността) относно лобирането;
Points out that Parliament already has a code of conduct (Article 3 of Annex IX to the Rules of Procedure) on lobbying;