Advertisement

Legal and Ethical Rules in EU Decision-Making: “Soft Law” for Targets and Actors of Lobbying

  • Julian Grad
  • Markus Frischhut
Chapter

Abstract

While lobbying can play an important role for democracy, it needs to find its limitations both in legal and ethical provisions. At EU level, we find such provisions mainly in Codes of Conduct, a form of soft law. Besides rules on transparency, conflict of interests, and the revolving doors phenomenon, these documents refer to ethical principles mainly in an implicit way, by using terms such as “integrity,” “diligence,” “honesty,” “accountability,” etc. Those provisions mainly apply for the targets of lobbying, while we find similar, however less, provisions concerning actors of lobbying. Recent changes adopted by Parliament and Council can be seen as important steps toward more ethical lobbying, an important step toward regaining European citizen’s trust.

References

  1. Alemanno, A. (2016). The Ethical Committee’s opinion on Barroso. Retrieved December 18, 2016, from http://albertoalemanno.eu/blog-homepage/ethicalcommittebarroso/
  2. Alter-EU. (2010). Revolving door scandal – Call for three-year cooling off period. Retrieved July 27, 2017, from https://www.alter-eu.org/press-releases/2010/09/27/revolving-door-scandal-alter-eu-call
  3. Alter-EU. (2016). The revolving door in detail. Retrieved March 1, 2016, from http://alter-eu.org/the-revolving-door-in-detail
  4. Ariès, Q. (2016a). Dalligate – Frame by frame. Some MEPs call for sanctions over former Commission chief’s failure to ‘behave with integrity and discretion. politico.eu, 11 July. Retrieved December 10, 2016, from http://www.politico.eu/article/jose-manuel-barrosos-new-job-at-goldman-sachs-angers-eu/
  5. Ariès, Q. (2016b). Commission reprimands Neelie Kroes for breaching ethics rules. politico.eu, 21 Dec. Retrieved December 22, 2016, from http://www.politico.eu/article/commission-reprimands-neelie-kroes-for-breaching-ethics-rules/
  6. Bauer, T. (2014). Responsible lobbying. A multidimensional model. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 2014(53), 61–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2013). Principles of biomedical ethics (7th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Boatright, J. R. (2008). Conflicts of Interest. In R. W. Kolb (Ed.), Encyclopedia of business ethics and society. Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
  9. Calton, J. M. (2008). Trust. In R. W. Kolb (Ed.), Encyclopedia of business ethics and society. Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
  10. Carroll, A. B. (2008). Global codes of conduct. In R. W. Kolb (Ed.), Encyclopedia of business ethics and society. Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
  11. Colard, D. (2015). Kommission und Parlament setzen neue Vorschriften zum Transparenzregister um. Retrieved July 28, 2017, from http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/de/press-room/20150127IPR15401/kommission-und-parlament-setzen-neue-vorschriften-zum-transparenzregister-um
  12. D’Alterio, E. (2014). ‘Global integrity’: National administrations versus global regimes. In J.-B. Auby, E. Breen, & T. Perroud (Eds.), Corruption and conflicts of interest: A comparative law approach, studies in comparative law and legal culture series (pp. 198–215). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  13. Davis, M. (2012). Conflict of interest. In R. F. Chadwick (Ed.), Encyclopedia of applied ethics (2nd ed.). London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  14. Delzangles, H. (2014). Regulatory authorities and conflicts of interst. In J.-B. Auby, E. Breen, & T. Perroud (Eds.), Corruption and conflicts of interest: A comparative law approach, studies in comparative law and legal culture series (pp. 15–29). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  15. Dercks, L. (2001). The European Commission’s business ethics. A critique of proposed reforms. Business Ethics: A European Review, 10(4), 346–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dialer, D., & Richter, M. (2014). “Cash-for-Amendments”-Skandal: Europaabgeordnete unter Generalverdacht. In D. Dialer & M. Richter (Eds.), Lobbying in der Europäischen Union: Zwischen Professionalisierung und Regulierung (pp. 235–255). Wiesbaden: Springer.Google Scholar
  17. Dowding, K., & Dowding, L. (2005). The civil service. London: Taylor & Francis.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dratwa, J. (2014). How values come to matter at the European Commission: Ethical experimentations of Europe. Politique Européenne, 45, 86–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. EC. (2012). Special Eurobarometer 374Corruption.Google Scholar
  20. EC. (2014a). A new EU Framework to strengthen the Rule of Law: COM(2014) 158 final 11.3.2014, Brussels.Google Scholar
  21. EC. (2014b). Special Eurobarometer 397Corruption.Google Scholar
  22. EC Press Releases (IP/16/3929). (2016). President Juncker proposes to tighten the Code of Conduct for Commissioners, Brussels.Google Scholar
  23. EPCRD. (2001). Parliamentary codes of conduct in Europe, Brussels.Google Scholar
  24. EU Ombudsman. (2015). Annual Report, Brussels.Google Scholar
  25. Frischhut, M. (2015). “EU”: Short for “Ethical” Union? The role of ethics in European Union Law. Heidelberg Journal of International Law (HJIL), 75(3), 531–577.Google Scholar
  26. Grad, J. (2016). Transparency and lobbying – money meets law and ethics. Master Thesis in International Business & Law 06/2016. Management Center Innsbruck, Innsbruck.Google Scholar
  27. Gräßle, I. (2014). Der Fall Dalli: Die europäische Tabaklobby im Visier. In D. Dialer & M. Richter (Eds.), Lobbying in der Europäischen Union: Zwischen Professionalisierung und Regulierung (pp. 213–234). Wiesbaden: Springer.Google Scholar
  28. Huber, P. M. (2012). Art. 11 EUV. In Streinz, R. (Ed.), EUV/AEUV: Vertrag über die Europäische Union und über die Arbeitsweise der Europäischen Union, Beck’sche Kurz-Kommentare (2. Aufl., pp. 102–111), München: Beck.Google Scholar
  29. James Jr., H. S. (2008a). Asymmetric information. In R. W. Kolb (Ed.), Encyclopedia of business ethics and society (pp. 123–125). Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
  30. James Jr., H. S. (2008b). Auction market. In R. W. Kolb (Ed.), Encyclopedia of business ethics and society. Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
  31. James Jr., H. S. (2008c). Moral Hazard. In R. W. Kolb (Ed.), Encyclopedia of business ethics and society. Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
  32. King, T. (2016). Oettigate: Juncker’s depressing spectacle. politico.eu, 20 November. Retrieved December 17, 2016, from http://www.politico.eu/article/oettinger-controversy-a-depressing-spectacle/
  33. Knauff, M. (2010). Der Regelungsverbund: Recht und Soft Law im Mehrebenensystem. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. McWay, D. C. (2015). Legal and ethical aspects of health information management. New York: Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
  35. Mendus, S. (2002). Impartiality in moral and political philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Messick, R. E. (2014). Policy considerations when drafting conflict of interest legislation. In J.-B. Auby, E. Breen, & T. Perroud (Eds.), Corruption and conflicts of interest: A comparative law approach, studies in comparative law and legal culture series (pp. 113–138). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  37. Michalowitz, I. (2014). Warum die EU-Politik Lobbying braucht? Der Tauschansatz als implizites Forschungsparadigma. In D. Dialer & M. Richter (Eds.), Lobbying in der Europäischen Union: Zwischen Professionalisierung und Regulierung (pp. 17–28). Wiesbaden: Springer.Google Scholar
  38. Mulcahy, S. (2015). Lobbying in Europe: Hidden influence, privileged access. Berlin: Transparency International (TI).Google Scholar
  39. Müller, T. (2014). Soft Law im europäischen Wirtschaftsrecht – unionsverfassungsrechtliche Grundfragen. Journal für Rechtspolitik, 22, 112–122.Google Scholar
  40. Nagel, T. (1987). Moral conflict and political legitimacy. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 16(3), 215–240.Google Scholar
  41. OECD. (2003). Managing conflict of interest in the public service.Google Scholar
  42. OECD. (2009). Lobbyists, government and public trust: Promoting integrity by self-regulation.Google Scholar
  43. OECD. (2010). Post-public employment: Good practices for preventing conflict of interest, Bertók, János, [Paris].Google Scholar
  44. OLAF. (2016). Strategic plan 20162020: European anti-fraud office (OLAF), Brussels.Google Scholar
  45. O’Reilly, E. (2014). Draft recommendation of the European Ombudsman in the inquiry based on complaints 2077/2012/TN and 1853/2013/TN against the European Commission. Strasbourg.Google Scholar
  46. O’Reilly, E. (2017). Request for a reply to the European Commission in the Ombudsman’s joint inquiry into complaints 194/2017/EA, 334/2017/EA, and 543/2017/EA concerning the handling of Commissioners’ post-mandate jobs. Strasbourg.Google Scholar
  47. Petrick, J. A. (2008). Integrity. In R. W. Kolb (Ed.), Encyclopedia of business ethics and society. Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
  48. Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Rohde, J. (2012). Declaration of financial interest. Retrieved May 27, 2016, from http://www.europarl.europa.eu/ep-dif/96710_01-03-2012.pdf.
  50. Salkin, P. E. (1998). Ten effective strategies for counselling municipal clients on ethics issues. State & Local Law News, 22(1), 9.Google Scholar
  51. Senden, L. (2004). Soft law in European Community law, Modern studies in European law (Vol. 1). Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  52. Sprague, R., & Valentine, S. (2008). Due diligence. In R. W. Kolb (Ed.), Encyclopedia of business ethics and society. Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
  53. Stöbener de Mora, P. S. (2016). Mehr Transparenz im EU-Trilog-Verfahren: Reichen die Vorschläge der Europäischen Bürgerbeauftragten für mehr Demokratie? Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht (EuZW), 19, 721.Google Scholar
  54. Stott, V. (2008). Fairness. In R. W. Kolb (Ed.), Encyclopedia of business ethics and society. Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
  55. Tansey, R. (2014). The EU’s revolving door problem: How big business gains privileged access. In D. Dialer & M. Richter (Eds.), Lobbying in der Europäischen Union: Zwischen Professionalisierung und Regulierung (pp. 257–268). Wiesbaden: Springer.Google Scholar
  56. Transparency International EU. (2017). Access all areas: When EU politicians become lobbyists. Retrieved July 27, 2017, from http://transparency.eu/access-all-areas
  57. Tur, R. H. S. (2012). Legal ethics, overview. In R. F. Chadwick (Ed.), Encyclopedia of applied ethics (2nd ed.). London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  58. Waddock, S. (2008). Ethical role of the manager. In R. W. Kolb (Ed.), Encyclopedia of business ethics and society. Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
  59. White, S. (2014). Footprints in the sand: Regulating conflict of interest at EU level. In J.-B. Auby, E. Breen, & T. Perroud (Eds.), Corruption and conflicts of interest: A comparative law approach, studies in comparative law and legal culture series (pp. 272–287). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  60. Williams, A. (2010). The ethos of Europe: Values, law and justice in the EU, Cambridge studies in European law and policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Legal Documents and Cases

    Treaties

    1. CFR. (2016). Consolidated version of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, OJ 2016 C 202, p. 389.Google Scholar
    2. TEU. (2016). Consolidated version of the Treaty on European Union, OJ 2016 C 202, p. 13, as corrected by OJ 2016 C 400, p. 1.Google Scholar
    3. TFEU. (2016). Consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, OJ 2016 C 202, p. 47, as corrected by OJ 2016 C 400, p. 1.Google Scholar

Interinstitutional Agreements

  1. IIA Law. (2016). Interinstitutional Agreement between the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union and the European Commission on Better Law-Making, OJ 2016 L 123, p. 1.Google Scholar
  2. IIA TR. (2014). Agreement between the European Parliament and the European Commission on the transparency register for organisations and self-employed individuals engaged in EU policy-making and policy implementation, OJ 2014 L 277, p. 11.Google Scholar
  3. Cases

    1. CJEU. (1963). Judgment of 5 February 1963, van Gend en Loos, C-26/62, EU:C:1963:1.Google Scholar
    2. CJEU. (2000). Case CoEU v Bangemann, C-290/99, OJ 1999 C 314, p. 2; removed from the register on 3 February 2000 (OJ 2000 C 122, p. 17).Google Scholar
    3. CJEU. (2005). Judgment of 28 June 2005, Dansk Rørindustri and Others v EC, C-189/02 P, EU:C:2005:408.Google Scholar
    4. CJEU. (2006). Judgment of 11 July 2006, EC v Cresson, C-432/04, EU:C:2006:455.Google Scholar
    5. CJEU. (2010). Judgment of 9 November 2010, Schecke, C-92/09, EU:C:2010:662.Google Scholar

    Rules of Procedure and Codes of Conduct

    1. CJEU CoC. (2016). Code of Conduct for Members and former Members of the Court of Justice of the European Union, OJ 2016 C 483, p. 1.Google Scholar
    2. CoC TR. (2014). Code of conduct [for lobbyists], OJ 2014 L 277, p. 21 (= Annex III to IIA TR).Google Scholar
    3. CoEU RoP. (2016). Council Decision of 1 December 2009 adopting the Council’s Rules of Procedure, OJ 2009 L 325, p. 36, as amended by OJ 2016 L 348, p. 27.Google Scholar
    4. EC CoC. (2011). Code of Conduct for Commissioners. Retrieved July 18, 2017, from http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/rep/3/2011/EN/3-2011-2904-EN-F1-1.Pdf
    5. EC GAB. Code of good administrative behaviour for staff of the European Commission in their relations with the public (= Annex I to EC RoP).Google Scholar
    6. EC RoP. (2011). Rules of Procedure of the Commission (C(2000) 3614), OJ 2000 L 308, p. 26, as amended by OJ 2011 L 296, p. 58.Google Scholar
    7. EP CoC. Code of Conduct for Members of the European Parliament with respect to financial interests and conflicts of interest (= Annex I to EP RoP, acc. to Rule 11 EP RoP). Retrieved July 28, 2017., from http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+RULES-EP+20170116+ANN-01+DOC+XML+V0//EN&language=EN&navigationBar=YES
    8. EP RoP. (2017). Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament, 8th Parliamentary term (January 2017). Retrieved July 28, 2017, from http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+RULES-EP+20170116+TOC+DOC+XML+V0//EN&language=EN

    Regulation & Directives

    1. Fin ImReg. (2015). Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012 of 29 October 2012 on the rules of application of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union (= Fin Reg), OJ 2012 L 362, p.1, as amended by OJ 2015 L 342, p. 7.Google Scholar
    2. Fin Reg. Regulation. (2015). (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union […], OJ 2012 L 298, p. 1, as amended by OJ 2015 L 286, p. 1.Google Scholar
    3. Staff Reg. Regulation. (2016). Nos 31 (EEC), 11 (EAEC), laying down the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Economic Community and the European Atomic Energy Community, OJ 1962 45, p. 1385, as amended by OJ 2016 L 466, p. 19.Google Scholar

    Decisions

    1. EC. (2014c). Decision 2014/838/EU, Euratom of 25 November 2014 on the publication of information on meetings held between Directors-General of the Commission and organisations or self-employed individuals, OJ 2014 L 343, p. 19.Google Scholar
    2. EC. (2014d). Decision 2014/839/EU, Euratom of 25 November 2014 on the publication of information on meetings held between Members of the Commission and organisations or self-employed individuals, OJ 2014 L 343, p. 22.Google Scholar
    3. EC AHEC. (2003). Commission Decision establishing the ad hoc ethical committee foreseen by the Code of Conduct for Commissioners, SEC(2003) 3750 of 21 October 2003.Google Scholar
    4. EC Experts. (2016). Commission Decision establishing horizontal rules on the creation and operation of Commission expert groups, C(2016) 3301 final of 30 May 2016.Google Scholar
    5. EP Statute. (2005). Decision 2005/684/EC, Euratom of the European Parliament of 28 September 2005 adopting the Statute for Members of the European Parliament, OJ 2005 L 262, p. 1.Google Scholar
    6. Ombudsman. (2008). Decision 94/262/ECSC, EC, Euratom of the European Parliament of 9 March on the regulations and general conditions governing the performance of the Ombudsman’s duties, OJ 1994 L 113, p. 15 as amended by OJ 2008 L 189, p. 25.Google Scholar

    Communications

    1. EC Annual report. (2015). Communication to the Commission on the publication of information concerning occupational activities of senior officials after leaving the service (Article 16 (3) and (4) of the staff regulations). Annual report 2015, C(2015) 8473 final of 4 December 2015.Google Scholar
    2. EC Anti-Fraud. (2011). Communication from the Commission on the Commission Anti-Fraud Strategy, COM(2011) 376 final of 24 June 2011.Google Scholar

    Opinions

    1. AHEC. (2016). Ad Hoc Ethical Committee. Opinion concerning the appointment of former President Barroso at Goldman Sachs International. 26 October 2016. http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/ethics-for-commissioners/ad-hoc-ethical-committee_en.htm. Accessed 18 July 2017.

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Alumni “International Business & Law”, MCI Management Center InnsbruckInnsbruckAustria
  2. 2.Röchling LeripaOeppingAustria
  3. 3.Jean Monnet Chair “European Integration and Ethics,” European Union LawInnsbruckAustria

Personalised recommendations