CONT Scrutiny Working Group
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
CONT European Parliament
Follow its sittingsDear colleague, Fidenza.
Carlo Fidanza
Thank you, Cher. I will speak in Italian, so I ask you to take off your headphones if you want. Thank you.
You, Chair. I too would like to join in thanking the secretariat and the commission, which have shown a lot of spirit of cooperation when it comes to these various issues. We've already had two meetings, and today we see that a number of members of our house are interested in these matters, even though this mandate of our scrutiny committee has been democratically adopted. So, these days, as we see it, we need to see an alignment between a new approach to migration policies and the choices being made by the European Commission regarding CSOs. As we see it, given the assessment we've had so far regarding the first batch of contracts and agreements we've looked at, this goes beyond the normal remit for CSOs in terms of lobbying activities, advocacy on behalf of the environment, and supporting individual migrants without further information or coordination concerning the conditions, including local conditions from a democratic angle.
So, during the dialogue with the commission, we saw that there are a number of things that could be improved, and we hopefully won't have this happen again. So, hopefully, there will be significant changes to our rules and norms. But when it comes to the forthcoming MFF, there is going to be an increase in the resources allocated for NGOs. So, when it comes to the financing and the transparency of spending, that's something that has to be fully ensured. Thank you.
Monika Hohlmeier
So, thank you very much. Now we will go to item 2. But before I do this, I would like to introduce you to Frances Canea, because I didn't know if this had already happened. She has been the new head of the unit of the consecutariat since February 6; before that, it was even in Walther. And I have to say, we thanked her very warmly, and we are happy to have you with us, as you are very experienced.
And we believe that this is really an enrichment again for the committee. So, thanks a lot for being with us. Now, do we go to item number two, the exchange of views with the Director General of the Commission, Director General for Migration, Home Affairs, and Justice Consumers, DG JUST, in the presence of the Director General for Budget? I think I still have Biotic Minda here. Then.
I'm here. You're here.
Yes. Hello.
Monika Hohlmeier
And then, Miss Beatriz Sanzare Dado. She's in the room, as I have already seen, and the whole team, like Earhart, is already well known in our committee for many cases and others. So, we now turn to the exchange of views with the Commission. We have with us remotely those whom I have already greeted. Many thanks for accepting our invitation to this exchange of views.
Then, I would also welcome the director Carlo Petinelli from DG Just, and Stephanie Carrion, head of unit of DG Home. Did I forget someone? No. I'm happy that I didn't do it. In our scrutiny work, we have raised concerns about EU-funded grant agreements and work programs that appear to include activities aimed at influencing decision-making towards the EU institutions.
The Commission has acknowledged that this can create reputational risks, and the European Court of Auditors has also highlighted broader transparency challenges around EU funding to NGOs and other entities, as we also discussed in our last meeting. In response, the commission issued guidance on May 24. It draws a clear line. EU funding should not require, as a condition of funding, specifically detailed activities directed at EU institutions or their representatives for a specific political content or outcome where this creates reputational risk. Today, we want to understand how this guidance is applied in practice across the Commission.
In July 2025, the Commission shared with Parliament the results of a screening exercise by services and executive agencies to identify possible misalignment and take follow-up actions. At the same time, the commission indicated that other services did not report any relevant clauses. This raises important questions about the scope, consistency, and reliability of the screening. Since then, this working group has requested and received a number of grant agreements for scrutiny, including from DG Home and DG Justice. Our preliminary review has flagged potentially controversial elements.
Some agreements expired before May 2024, others were active at the time of the guidance, and some may still be ongoing. So, our objective today is to obtain clarity on how the guidance is interpreted and applied consistently, what the screening covered, what corrective actions have been taken where needed, and what preventive measures are now in place. With that, I invite the commission colleagues to present their introductory remarks, and I encourage concise and specific answers so that we can draw clear conclusions and agree on any necessary follow-up. After their introductory remarks, members will have the opportunity to ask questions. The first ones are always the rapporteurs.
If time allows, we will go back and forth between questions and answers, and we'll start with the co-authors. Miss Sigmunda, you are invited to take the floor. Yeah.
Beate Gminder
Thank you very much, and I'm really pleased to be with you today, dear Chair. Thank you, dear Con Scrutiny Working Group and colleagues. Thanks for being here. So, I would like to highlight that we have always been working very well with the current scrutiny working group. We have given you now all the requested grant agreements except one, which was halted by our third party.
We are fully committed to addressing and clearing out concerns regarding any of the grant agreements managed by my service. We have, as colleagues from other DGs have already pointed out in previous meetings, overall in the European Commission, a very robust financial control system based on our financial regulation that has been approved and negotiated by you. Our control systems ensure sound financial management and include a specific element to avoid risks related to the legality and regularity of transactions. DG Home has clear rules and a very thorough monitoring system in place to verify if EU funds are spent correctly. The Internal Audit Service, in its annual report of '24, concluded that DG Home's internal control systems are effective.
And similarly, the court, in '24, the Court of Auditors, in its statement of assurance, did not report any major problems having an impact on our assurance. Our basic acts that implement our funds are three funds: the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund, the Internal Security Fund, and the Border Management and Visa Instrument. The majority of this funding is implemented through shared management. But we also, in DG Home, implement directly some actions, particularly when they are transnational or when there is a need to act jointly on specific priorities. The grants are awarded in line with the objectives defined in the Basic Act.
The army, for example, has as a basic act the strengthening of the common European asylum system, the strengthening and development of legal migration, and the promotion of effective integration and social inclusion of third-country nationals. The third objective is contributing to countering irregular migration, return and readmission procedures, and reintegration in third countries. The Internal Security Fund focuses on the exchange of information between and within competent authorities and relevant Union bodies, cross-border cooperation between competent authorities in relation to terrorism and serious and organized crime, preventing and combating crime, terrorism, and radicalization, as well as managing security-related incidents, risks, and crises, including through cooperation between authorities, Union bodies, offices and agencies, civil society, and private partners. DG Home calls for proposals are often highly competitive, both in the areas of migration and security. That means, in practice, we get a lot more applications than we have funding available.
We have well-established procedures for awarding our funding. We have evaluation committees composed of members of our staff who are experts in the policy field. We do have external experts and evaluators to assist the committees if the call for proposals is very large. Each proposal is then evaluated by three external experts and summarized in a consensus report. But none of these external experts have any decision-making authority.
The decision is taken solely by the staff members in DG Home in the form of the evaluation committee, which is independent. This methodology safeguards neutral decision-making and also ensures transparency in the selection process. Each consortium, because most of our projects are actually implemented by a consortium, designs their projects and describes them in the application in response to our call for proposals. These applications are always documented in the grant agreement as an annex. The activities are then defined in the grant agreement, but the beneficiary is free to draw conclusions and express their own views based on the results of the activities.
All the grant agreements provide that beneficiaries must publish the following disclaimer. The views and opinions expressed are those of the authors only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union. In fact, most of the projects developed have a variety of concrete proposals to tackle issues. And the positions expressed therein often differ from those of the European Commission. Projects are expected to be impactful and improve general knowledge in the respective policy area.
They must include an ambitious dissemination strategy to communicate the results and findings. This can include contacting EU institutions or their members to inform them about the results of the projects. Communication or meetings with EU institutions are to be understood strictly in the context of the project, not as advocacy per se. The results of the project, the so-called deliverables, are often public. They can be found on the project website and the Funding and Tender Portal.
And in view of the guidance received in 2024, the chair was already alluding to it. DG Home reviewed all the grant agreements requested by the working group. We did not identify any projects conflicting with the guidance or raising concerns, and we think this demonstrates our commitment to adhering to established standards. Since then, we have continued to pay attention to this topic. And just like any other DG, we have also updated our model call for proposals, which requires applicants to comply with guidance on advocacy. As part of our dedication to transparency, we publish information on various platforms: the financial transparency system and the funding and tenders portal.
We try to provide the public with meaningful data while protecting sensitive information, commercial interests, personal data, and security-relevant data. We publish more information and funding than required and more than any international organization or any of our EU member states. I also want to underline what other DGs expressed in this forum previously: that we remain committed to supporting civil society in a transparent manner. We have recently adopted the EU strategy for civil society, which is a strengthened framework to protect and empower civil society organizations in the EU. But, of course, this has to remain within the transparent approach that I have just outlined.
We also have a specific provision in our AMEF regulation, which I should mention at this stage. We have to have 5% of all our funding in direct management devoted to local and regional authorities. This was something specifically requested by the parliament in the negotiations. Our legal base also requires that civil society organizations and local regional authorities that benefit from the AMIF receive higher co-financing. So, I think DG Home operates in line with the EU European Commission standards, has robust internal control systems and clear procedures for evaluation, and implements the funding in line with the basic act's objectives.
Thank you for your attention, and I am looking forward to your questions.
Ana Gallego
Thank you very much, Madam Thier, and good afternoon to the honorable members of the Cont Committee. Thank you for inviting us to this session to discuss the two funding programs, at least from our side that DG Just is in charge of managing and supervising. First of all, let me refer to the justice program. The justice program currently applicable dates from 2021 and spans until 2027. This is the continuation, without interruptions, of previous justice programs that date back to 2007. The justice program aims at supporting the development of a European area of justice, which is based on the rule of law, mutual trust, and judicial cooperation.
Second, the Citizens' Equality Rights and Values Program, also known as SERF, follows its predecessor, the Rights, Equality, and Citizenship Program, which in turn followed the Europe for Citizens Program. Serve is at the core of the EU project, as it promotes and defends the values enshrined in Article 2 of the Treaty on which the Union is founded. Human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law, and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities, are fundamental principles. It contributes to building a vibrant civic space and supports actors who protect and promote rights and values. Even though the Justice and Serve programs are certainly not the biggest EU funding programs in terms of budget allocations, they both aim to achieve crucial objectives that pertain to the very fabric of the kind of Europe people wish to live in: democratic, trustworthy, and inclusive.
Let me use this moment to dive into a few important features of both programs, and let me refer in particular to the Serve program. As established by the founding regulation, it is part of its very objectives to support civil society organizations and other stakeholders that are active at all levels to protect and promote rights and values, and to encourage civic and democratic participation. And this is very much thanks to this house. During the last MFF negotiations, the European Parliament, together with the co-legislators, added a whole new strand to the program: the Union value strand, which focuses exactly on that, endowing the program with additional significant resources to achieve its ambitious objectives. The recent interim evaluation of the SERVE program, whose conclusions were communicated to the parliament in June, points to the key role that SERVE plays in providing independent sources of financing, allowing organizations to maintain their autonomy and pursue their goals without undue influence.
To facilitate effective, just, and equal access to justice for persons who frequently face discrimination or are in vulnerable situations, the justice program also supports activities of civil society organizations such as networking, campaigning, communication, and other watchdog activities. Now, let me briefly illustrate how EU funding under DG JUST remit is dispersed. This is done after a highly competitive process and in compliance with the financial regulation principles, among which are transparency and equal treatment. Funding is provided based on the provisions of the Justice Funding Regulations that were adopted by the Council and the Parliament. Both the SURF and the justice programs are implemented through multi-annual work programs that put into effect the rules and conditions set out by the legislature and that are approved by their respective program committees, composed of representatives of the member states.
For the Serve program, parts of the implementation are delegated to the European Education and Culture Executive Agency, EACEA, of which DigiJust is a parent DG. The vast majority of grants are awarded through open calls for proposals that are published on the EU Funding and Tenders Portal. Any eligible entity may submit a proposal under the published calls for proposals. Proposals are evaluated against the selection and award criteria, which are also published in the call's document. The evaluation is done under the direct responsibility of the evaluation committee, which is nominated by the responsible authorizing officer and is composed of commissions and agency staff.
The commission hires independent external experts who bring specific knowledge in the field of the call to support the evaluation committee by providing an assessment of the proposals against the award criteria. But the experts do not have decision-making authority. All applicants, including civil society organizations, retain full autonomy in defining the content of their proposals, including activities and deliverables, whether it is for an action or a work program, in order to best contribute to the objectives of the funding program. Proposals are assessed as presented against the award criteria set out in the call to ensure equal treatment of all applicants. Where activities include the expression of views on policy matters, the use of a disclaimer is mandatory, stating that such views and opinions are those of the authors only and do not reflect those of the European Commission or any other European institution. The highest-scoring proposals are selected for a grant award within the limits of the available budget, as communicated in the call documents.
The commission applies robust safeguards to ensure that grant beneficiaries involved in activities incompatible with EU values do not receive EU financial support. This happens both before awarding EU funding to beneficiaries and during the implementation of grant agreements. For example, the model grant agreement contains a specific provision on the respect of EU values. Applicants under the SURF and Justice programs are also required to describe the measures in place to ensure compliance with the EU values in the application form, and this is assessed during the evaluation process. More generally, the commission monitors project implementation through the assessment of deliverables and reports, verifying conformity with the grant agreement.
Funding is provided with full transparency, as recalled in the previous meetings of this group. The commission provides extensive information on EU fund recipients on the public financial transparency system and detailed information on the funded projects on the EU funding and tenders portal. For instance, project objectives and overall summary, project status, start and end dates, participants, description of the work performed, achievements, deliverables, publications, etc. You have asked about the guidance on advocacy and how it has been followed up. As you have heard in previous meetings of this group, back in 2024, the Commission services immediately followed up on concerns about certain advocacy activities towards other European institutions, notably the European Parliament, by civil society organizations co-funded by the EU.
Let me reiterate that, based on the extensive screening of grant agreements that was carried out, the Commission found no evidence of breach of the legal framework but acknowledged the possibility of reputational risk in cases where advocacy activities may be perceived as being mandated by the grant provider. As I explained earlier, we already have a strong transparency and accountability system in place, but this has been further strengthened. In May 2024, the Commission issued guidance on funding for activities related to the development, implementation, monitoring, and enforcement of Union legislation and policy. Accordingly, the model call for proposals was updated in January 2025 and now ensures full alignment with the new guidance. I can confirm, as my colleague did in previous meetings of this group, that the Commission services are and remain committed to transparency through the various systems we have in place, to accountability in the implementation of the programs, and to strict compliance with the legal framework in place, notably the financial regulation, but also very much committed to collaborating with the European Parliament.
The Commission shared with the European Parliament the 25 grant agreements awarded and implemented under the responsibility of DG JUST that the Parliament requested. As regards the provisions of the guidance issued on May 24, my services have undertaken a screening of all ongoing grant agreements, and I can reconfirm that they are all in line with the content of the guidance. Disbursement of EU funds under the justice and serve programs happens in full compliance with the general and specific objectives of the regulations establishing such programs, as well as with the financial regulation. As Commissioner Seraphin said in a debate with the Cont Committee in May, and my colleagues also repeated in previous meetings, there is no evidence that NGOs or civil society organizations cause a higher risk to the EU budget than any other recipient of EU funding. With that, let me move to the last part of my presentation, one that looks more into the future.
Very recently, alongside the European Democracy Shield, the Commission adopted the EU strategy for civil society that provides a renewed framework to engage with, support, and protect civil society organizations, including by ensuring adequate, sustainable, and transparent funding to support their work. The strategy reflects an institutional priority from the Commission, Council, Parliament, but also the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, to protect and promote an enabling civic space as a key component of stronger and more resilient democracies. The strategy responds in particular to specific calls from this Parliament to give genuine political recognition to the crucial role played by CSOs in the realization of democratic values and policies, as stated in the European Parliament resolution on the shrinking space for civil society in Europe. Responding to this clear call, I hope this strategy will open a new chapter for a common inter-institutional approach to strengthen the civic space in Europe. Madam Chair, honorable members, I much appreciate the opportunity to briefly present the funding programs under the responsibility of DG JAS and to elaborate on how we implement them according to the robust set of rules already in place.
Citizens indeed expect the EU to protect their rights, ensure equal access to justice, promote judicial cooperation, and uphold the values that constitute the very fabric of the European project. I thank you very much for your attention and look forward to your questions.
Speaker 16
So, thanks a lot. Now, Miss Sands Rebrando, you have this third one. Only for questions. Just for questions?
Monika Hohlmeier
You. This is fine. Then I would like to start with, I think, Dirk and, let's say, the two colleagues from finance. Who wants to start?
Dirk Gotink
Yeah. Thank you very much, Miss Gmunder and Miss Callego. That was very comprehensive. Can we keep the screen up so that we can actually see each other while we are talking? Yeah.
Thank you very much. You can still, yeah. You can still see us. Good. Thank you very much.
Again, also to you now, I think we have requested around 107 contracts. That's a whole big pile of paper. We found around 30 of those contracts that included the mention of advocacy. And you've clearly stated that there is room for that in the regulation, then in your view, they didn't pass the test of the new guidelines. Can you maybe tell us, how did the DG evaluate?
Did that happen together with DG Budge to establish whether this was indeed maybe a gray area? And how do you make that arbitrage at the moment when you find advocacy mentioned and certain activities that could somehow be a reputational risk? How is that established for the contracts that, in the end, didn't make it into the screening exercise of the commission?
Miss Melinda?
Beate Gminder
K. Then I start. Well, I think we now have an echo. But I think, you know, we had indeed identified the documents, the advocacy guidance first. We had, obviously, meetings with DG Batch to also understand how to interpret that.
Then we did the screening of all our grant agreements, and we looked at them together again with the policy officers in the DG who are in charge of the grant agreements, because none of the grant agreements is left alone. They're all accompanied by a project coordinator who supervises the projects throughout the entire time. Now you know our resource situation. I'm not saying that this is daily supervision, but it is regular supervision, including meetings about the projects if necessary. So, we do have details of all the activities and went through them.
When we had doubts, we discussed them among ourselves, and we were confident that any of them were in line. I have to check with my collaborators if they had further talks with any of the projects. Then, if not? Okay. Good.
Ana Gallego
Yes, indeed. Thank you very much for the question. We maintain a constant and permanent collaboration with Digibatch and keep them informed of the results of the screening exercise. The screening in implementation of the guidance has been done following the financial regulation that explicitly allows action grants to support an action intended to help achieve a union policy objective. But it is not just to make sure that it is not mandated or required in the grant agreement for the award itself.
But, of course, the entity is allowed to perform this activity. So this has been the criteria under which we have examined the grants, under the guidance. And, of course, the cooperation with the batch is fluid, and we keep each other informed in case of doubts or clarifications on one or two specific issues if there might be. But there is no formal arbitrage procedure in this case. The exchange of information is constant and permanent.
Dirk Gotink
Thank you very much. That is very clear because it also allows us to see that the screening outputs we have received are really where the problem is so blatant. And I have to also say that qualitatively, if you look at it, none of the contracts that we have now seen—and I, of course, have to be careful—but it is very different qualitatively, as you're not following legislative proposals from point A to point Z in the whole legislative procedure, which is a very big difference from what we saw with Sineb, notwithstanding. There is, of course, advocacy there. A key issue that we have identified has to do with the selection procedure involving the experts and the panels in the DGs.
I hear both your DGs mentioned the issue of no decision authority, and that's a great line to take for experts because then we are covered. But in our experience, practically speaking, the experts and evaluators play a significant role in this preselection and selection procedure. Also, considering your HR situation, your people do not have the time to get into all this. This is exactly why you have these evaluators and experts. So, could we say that the problem with Sine is that some of these experts are totally external?
I heard the DG just say they were hired externally. DG Home did not mention that. Could you please clarify how you get your experts? How do you make sure there is no conflict of interest? And basically, on what basis are they selected?
Beate Gminder
Yes. So we have a corporate database, which is established in detail. DG Batch, perhaps Beatrice, can help us. We use that corporate database. And there, this corporate database does have rules. You can only be in there for 4 years.
Every new expert has to be permanently put into the database. And there are also rules on nationality distribution. But as it's a corporate one, perhaps we can go back to that. We can then search this database with keywords. So, who would have some experience in the area we're looking for?
As you know, from my three programs, mainly AMIF and ISF Police, they are very different types of experts we are looking for. We then review the expert CVs that could be used for this call before any contracting takes place, so that we already know to whom we are going to give the task. On that basis, batches of applications are assigned to a group of four experts because three individual reports are done per proposal, plus one consensus report by the rapporteur. So, if you have different views among these four people, there is already a first mediation happening. And this, we think, helps against bias and also against human error.
As said, yes, indeed, there is no decision authority, but of course, the experts are there to help us select. So, the evaluation committee finally takes the decision to recommend the project for funding to the AOSD. But we do actually look for it again because, obviously, this is also to do a first so-called triage so that a big batch of 400 applications is reduced to a level of 50 before the final decisions are taken. The experts are always reviewed by the committee. So they get a briefing at the beginning of their work.
They get a reading list of documents they should be aware of. And there can also be separate meetings on the proposal, in case they have questions. The experts have to sign a declaration of absence of conflict of interest for every task in the evaluation tool because it is also a digitalized process. So, it's a specific declaration for each task and not a general declaration. So, whenever you take a step forward in the evaluation, you need to declare that you are not in a conflict of interest.
So, the names of the experts are also public. They are published in the funding section of the TENTOZ portal. That's, again, a corporate requirement. Thank you.
Ana Gallego
Yes. Thank you. Thank you very much for that question. Indeed, most of the corporate rules are the same. May I just clarify some specificities that we use?
Indeed, the experts do not have decision authority, and experts are registered in the corporate commission database. And this is where we fish for experts, let's say, when we need them based on keywords, and the search of the CVs is based on keywords depending on the call and the topic. At this precontractual stage, the experts are contacted initially just to confirm their availability and to check for possible conflicts of interest, which is done based on a self-declaration by the expert. Then, the corporate template for the expert's contract, because indeed there is a contract that is signed between the experts and the commission in order to participate in these activities. By this contract, they are obliged to comply with the code of conduct for experts, which outlines the principles of impartiality and confidentiality that must guide their work.
And indeed, this includes a detailed explanation of what can constitute a conflict of interest and how to treat it. Once they are contracted, now in the contractual phase, DG runs an automatic check via the corporate evaluation platform to identify potential conflicts of interest in case a proposal is assigned for evaluation to one of the experts. And indeed, as Beate just said, they have to approve the absence of conflict of interest in relation to each task that they are assigned in the corporate evaluation platform. Any conflict of interest, needless to say, is reviewed and might lead to removing an expert from the evaluation of a proposal or from all proposals under the call altogether. The experts, once contracted, also receive adequate briefing and guidance on their work, as well as on the strict confidentiality and impartiality obligations.
In our case, and this is perhaps a difference, in practice, the calls are examined. Each proposal is independently assigned to two experts, each of whom performs a separate evaluation report. These two separate reports are then assessed by a third expert who prepares the consensus report and establishes the final call. But this is basically the only difference in how we deal with the experts. Thank you.
Dirk Gotink
I have not paid attention to the time, chair. Are we still good? Yes. Exactly. Yes.
Thank you.
Carlo Fidanza
Thank you very much indeed for that initial introduction and those additional clarifications, which I appreciate. Listening to the two directors, it appears to me that the new financial regulation came into effect, and DG Home and DG Just, at that point, had to verify contract compliance as specified. At that point, it didn't seem that there were any evident irregularities. At least, this is what I've understood. Then I understand further that from the assessments being carried out and the assessments on the limited number of contracts, there seems to be less clarity.
Of course, confidentiality is vital. We can't name names, but I would just like to look at the statistics. We've looked at some contracts, for example, which refer specifically to lobbying. The objective is influencing public authorities, local public authorities, and stakeholders in decision-making. Other contracts talk about exerting influence on national, European, and local education policy. We've also found contracts where we see references to advocacy, networking, relationships, and so forth. Then, looking at DG Just contracts, there's a reference where funding has been granted to an NGO which is connected with legal solicitors or offices, and they are entrusted with writing and sending a number of letters to the local and municipal authorities.
This NGO has apparently refused to offer welfare services to migrants when it should have been obliged to do so. Therefore, it seems to me that we do need to go into more detail with some of these verifications. We need to ascertain, first of all, whether it was done in an appropriate way, whether it's adequate, and whether the systems that are in place are actually fit for purpose. And I think we also need to take the wider view and see whether, after the implementation of the new financial regulation—that is to say, in relation to contracts post-2024—the verification procedures have actually been consistent. I wonder whether they've been more piecemeal, whether there have been more spot checks, for example, whether that's been more the structure that was used as opposed to a more consistent approach prior to 2024.
But I'm happy to take my guidance from you as to whether you think that there are any anomalies here, and what your take on this would be. As to the experts and whether there was reassurance, we've had previous meetings where we've talked about this, and it has always been a complex issue. At this point, what I'd like to know focuses on verifying conflict of interest issues and whether a self-declaration on the part of an expert in relation to an individual project is adequate, or whether there needs to be a counter-check by management to ensure that there is effectively a dual compliance check to make sure that the expert is not partisan, that there is no kind of conflict of interest, and that everything is above board and whiter than white. I will have some questions for DG Budge as well, but I'll maybe leave them for a minute or two until we move on to the next section. They focus more on sums which haven't been properly accounted for, as far as we can see. But it's really difficult, if they're not properly accounted for in the accounts and in the auditing procedure, to take it much further at this point.
Thank you.
Sorry.
Beate Gminder
But it was not so easy to understand the interpretation because it was very loud in the room. So I was just asking if you could bring down the original tone a bit. So, perhaps first, and to the last argument on the checks and the experts, we actually do counter-checks. So, we have nearly 150 call experts working on our calls. So, they have to evaluate the project within the time frame of 3 months, usually, and we also reassign projects between experts if we find it difficult to assign or evaluate a project.
So, there is really very close supervision of what the experts are doing. I do think there is always going to be a human factor in this, but I have been thinking, in preparation for this meeting, if I would wish to have this evaluation process replaced by AI. But I ultimately think I don't, because AI is also programmed and can be biased in its programming. So, you never know what will come out of it, and we might end up having AI-written projects being evaluated by an AI committee. That would not, I think, serve the purpose of what we need.
So, that's on the experts. On advocacy, yes, as I said in my introduction, we do have grants that mention the word. We went through the meaning of the word "advocacy" there. We have not had any projects that are there to advocate its positions throughout the lobbying and throughout the negotiation of a process. But obviously, we have this word in several grant agreements.
I have one example in front of me. It's about empowering migrant voices on integration and inclusive policies. So, the activities that we asked for were in line with the objectives of the AMIF, which promote the effective integration of third-country nationals. We had 51 applications. We selected 9 projects.
The main activities were to enable and upscale the participation of migrants in the design and implementation of policy areas that affect them. But this was obviously meant at their local level, but we also did not exclude the national and the EU level, which was left to the project. So, the idea was to increase the participation of migrant voices through innovative participation tools and to also have capacity-building sessions with public authorities. So we did see advocacy mentioned in this project as being in line with what we feel are useful communication activities because, of course, the word advocacy can also be defined in different ways and means. And very often, it is also about talking about what they do and what they have achieved, and that they should also bring to us as input from the local and bottom-up level.
Thank you.
Ana Gallego
Thank you, Beate, and thank you for the question as well. Just very briefly, on the conflict of interest regarding experts. Indeed, we perform and run another check ourselves, based on the CV of the person and not just a self-declaration of the expert, but also other issues that could present a conflict of interest. And this is done during the contractual phase so that if there is a conflict of interest, it can be terminated altogether. So, of course, the self-declaration is an important part of the process in order to participate in the selection, but it's not the only thing that we look into.
Then let me come briefly also to the advocacy activities or the activities included in the grants that involve advocacy. And indeed, we, the financial regulation, as you also pointed out, allow action grants to support these actions and advocacy activities. And here, I totally subscribe to the words of Beate previously, that advocacy activities may entail communication activities, information to the authorities, even presentation of policy papers that state the views of the entity and in no way are necessarily the position of the commission. And what's more important is that these activities are not required as a condition for the award, but, of course, the entity is free to include them in the work program if they so wish. As to the kind of activities that this may entail, indeed, and without referring to any project in particular, we have some projects that entail sending letters, publishing policy papers, or doing this kind of communication and information to the authorities, but they are fully in line with the financial regulation and with the guidance after the guidance was established.
And indeed, here, we also need to differentiate between those agreements that existed before the updated call for proposals, in which we conducted a legal analysis of the agreements to identify problems and problematic issues as identified by your committee. And the analysis concludes that the fact that the grant agreement involves advocacy activities in itself does not constitute a breach of the legal or contractual code of conduct or the code of conduct obligations. And as such, the activities are not illegal practices. In fact, the SIRF regulation explicitly provides for that possibility to support civil society organizations that carry out advocacy activities. So there is no legal breach in this regard, but in any case, the majority of the few agreements that were identified have either been amended or terminated.
They have expired. And after the updated call for proposal, we updated the model call for proposal. So all grants and all agreements are in line with this guidance. Thank you.
So now, Shala.
Thank you, Shala. Let me speak in Hungarian.
Csaba Dömötör
The commission representatives have said that when it comes to international organizations, they are entitled to resort to advocacy. But this is much less than what they demand of governments. All the contracts have to be published. That's something our government does in my country. And the commission claims that that isn't sufficient when it comes to the proceedings against Hungary.
So when it comes to these contracts, one is up against a wall. Look at the commission here. So, with a statement of confidentiality that we have to sign, why couldn't we talk about this publicly? The representatives of the European Commission have indicated that these documents are confidential. We ask why, and the answer is that the NGOs and the CSOs have certain commercial interests.
What are we talking about here? These are supposed to be civil society organizations. I'd like a clear answer. How does the Commission see this? What commercial interests can these entities have?
And when it comes to the next seven-year MFF, there is going to be more money provided to advocacy groups. It shouldn't be a single database for NGOs when one can see which activists are getting money and see the agreements. Would the commission be in favor of these agreements being made public if there were an inquiry? In my country, within a 14-day period, these agreements have to be made public. And that's why it's very important when it comes to procurement by government authorities.
It's another issue. There's a major scandal afoot. There's a report in the US and Congress when it comes to moderating Facebook content. And the commission has been up to a lot. And when it comes to the fact checkers, they play a big role in the US. The European Commission, in the forthcoming MFF, wants to give more money to fact checkers.
These are agreements that are pretty much like those of NGOs. And when it comes to these contracts, these agreements concerning fact checkers, everybody should be entitled to know what the basis for the media influence is. Let's stay within the confines of our scrutiny group. We won't go into the digital realm, and the commission representatives, I don't think, would be up to vote on these issues. So let's focus on the issue at hand, Miss, and then Miss Gallegos.
Beate Gminder
Regarding currency, we ensure high transparency standards, and the financial regulation already provides, and we do this, to publish the recipient details: the person type, the name, the VAT, the tax ID, the locality, the committed amount, and also the nature and the purpose of the grant agreement. In the financial transparency system, we also entered the year, the project reference, the beneficiary details, the name, the VAT, the country, and the contracted amount. We entered the program name, the grant, the contract subject, the responsible department, and the project dates. In the EU funding and Tender portal, we shared the pre-signature information, including all the work programs, the calls, the templates, and the model grant agreement. The post signature information includes the implementation period, the program, the participants, the objectives, the summary, the achievements, and the deliverables, because many deliverables are public.
The Funding and Tender Portal and the Financial Transparency System are part of the Single Gateway under the next MFF. So, all this transparency setup will also be kept under the next MFF. We also have the additional obligation that all NGOs or interest representatives who register any lobbying activities have to be in the transparency register. But obviously, since we are, at the moment, speaking about activities that are funded by us that are not supposed to do lobbying and that are not doing lobbying, this is not the subject of this meeting. I do think that, from our knowledge, none of the EU member states or international organizations match these EU transparency requirements on funding decisions.
And we have similar requirements under shared management via website publications and operations that are updated every four months. Let me also say something about why grant agreements are not made public beyond what I just said. First of all, we do think it's important to protect personal data, security, and commercial interests. We have a disclosure requirement according to regulation 1049/2001, but we also have a requirement under this regulation to protect certain elements and to allow only partial access if some of these criteria are fulfilled. We have projects in DG Home that also deal with very sensitive areas like combating migrant smuggling, protecting public spaces, fighting terrorism, working against radicalization, and hatred on the Internet.
Some of these projects do require, therefore, protection. Publishing documents, in some cases, also risks reputational and litigation issues. Some project partners could be concerned about confidentiality breaches and could take us to court for that. So, I hope I have helped in detailing our requirements a bit more. Thank you.
Ana Gallego
Yes. Thank you very much. I can concur with everything Beate just said because, indeed, it's corporate rules and based on the other transparency requirements. Just to conclude that, of course, we maintain the highest standards of transparency, but we also need to protect the rights and commercial interests of the EU funds recipients, even if NGOs and nonprofits may also have commercial interests when participating in competitive funding procedures, and this is the interest that we are committed to safeguard as well. So, otherwise, the Commission has fully cooperated with the European Parliament in this respect and provided all grant agreements and contracts requested for examination.
And also, based on access to documents, and to the extent that this doesn't compromise other interests, we're also committed to full transparency. But, otherwise, I can concur with everything.
Dirk Gotink
Thank you very much. I just picked up on the point: the problem that we're pursuing here is not to establish whether things are illegal. It's just to establish whether politically under is undesirable, and to establish whether networks of external organizations are basically an extension of the executive, the executive being the European Commission. And so, my colleague, Mister Fidanza, referred to these actions that are financed. And I think, yes, they're not in the hard institutional lobby area.
But when we speak about political actions inside the member states, we raised earlier in the previous meeting the issues of litigation, basically starting lawsuits against the member states or regional authorities. It is, of course, very much a political involvement in a debate about basically the civil rights of people who come to Europe or who are in Europe. So in that sense, it is another form of activity that you can have a serious discussion about. And for me, to be honest, for this budget control, or at least for this working group, and I believe for the whole budget control committee, this statement—"we are for transparency, but then we protect all kinds of other elements, including commercial interests of these parties"—is not very satisfactory. I know we requested one contract that was refused because the external partner refused to share it with us.
I think you mentioned that even in your introduction. That is very difficult for this committee, I believe. So, basically, this information is not accessible to us. And so, I would like to repeat. The programs that are being financed are obviously in line with the political priorities of the Commission, number one.
The experts in the DGs involved in the selection of these programs: second, first question, to what extent is the hierarchy involved in the eventual decision-making? Do, for example, the cabinets of the commissioners have a say in the final selection of a contract? And then lastly, maybe it's again this arbitrage question. You debate that you have a certain definition of advocacy, which is not explicit in the guidelines. So you make a decision based on an interpretation that is established almost informally between DG Budget and your DG.
And I noticed that there are nuances between the different DGs. Wouldn't it be a helpful exercise to become much more precise in what we mean by advocacy and to what extent the actions, for example, inside the member states towards local and regional authorities and towards the national parliaments, are somehow supervised? Thank you for answering those questions.
Beate Gminder
Yes. So perhaps a little bit first, perhaps on the project that we couldn't give you yet, we hope that we will still be able to deliver this. It's actually not an NGO. It's another partner, but we hope that we will be able to provide it to you. Then, on the political oversight, all the work programs that we adopt, the areas where we will make calls for proposals, and the direct awards that we are giving are all subject to college approval.
So, this is a financial work program that is first put into service between the commission departments, and then it is adopted by the college after the comitology procedure, where there is a vote by the member states in the comitology committee. And then, I think the parliament has two months to look at it and be informed about it. Yeah. And then the call itself is run under the auspices of the authorizing officer. This is always the director general's responsibility, so this is mine and Anna's responsibility.
And we then delegate certain powers to conclude commitments and contracts and to make payments to other sub-delegated authorizing officers. These are usually the directors in charge. In this case, we are always kept informed of all ongoing calls. I know what my colleagues are working on. They also have strict policy guidelines for their work.
And if there are any doubts, they would always come and double-check with the AOD. On the member states' actions, this is indeed for shared management. There's quite a lot foreseen as well. Also, under this MFF, we had a partnership principle in the shared management tool, where in the monitoring committees, sometimes partners are involved and also vote on the draft financing program of the member state. And this will be in the next MFF, obviously, not yet fully clear because this partnership principle is supposed to be kept. Obviously, we're under negotiation.
On the guideline interpretation, I have not been involved in making these guidelines myself, so perhaps Dijsi Baj and Beatrice can give us some more explanations here.
Ana Gallego
Yes. Thank you very much. Indeed, I can confirm that this is, of course, corporate rules, and we follow the same guidelines. Let me just confirm that indeed the hierarchy is involved, as in any hierarchy within the DG, and we know that the calls are taking place and how it's going, but it follows strict procedures in terms of who is competent in which case. But, of course, there is no political involvement, so the cabinets are not involved in the selection of grants at all.
So it is done within the administration, and it's a guarantee also for the neutrality and transparency of the process. Then let me come back again to the fountain re regulation of the programs. And this reflects not the priorities of the commission, but the priorities of the co-legislators. And indeed, it says that the program should focus on protecting, promoting, and raising awareness of rights, supporting civil society organizations active at local, regional, national, international, or transnational levels, and also promoting union values and respect for the rule of law and democracy. So it is indeed the priorities, but not of the executive, if I may, not of the Commission, but of the legislators.
And they are in full alignment with these priorities, indeed, and within the margins of the financial regulation. So, the work programs are indeed commission decisions, and they are assessed under the compliance with these priorities as well.
Speaker 22
Thank you, Chair. Let me speak Hungarian. The Bezoszak officially asked Emily to take it.
Csaba Dömötör
In the absence of the commission, you were saying that these interests or a loss of a good reputation is a consequence. And I think that you can also see that there is a bit of a contradiction here on this basis. So every government in the member states could call on that, or any company that is being supported. Everyone could say that it goes against my good reputation if it's published, or that my business practices are going to be damaged, or whatever. So, we're not talking about companies here.
We're talking about organizations that are civil organizations. So, what type of business interests do they have? I think that we need to have a minimum of transparency compared to what you would require from member states. In my country, all of this has to be published within a certain period of time. And I think that here,
We need.
Csaba Dömötör
More strict results. It's not about not wanting to publish it, but these organizations are political. Here, for example, we've got the report from the Commissioner on Hungary, and there are 8 so-called civil organizations or civilian organizations. And they provide information to the commission which goes against Hungary. And there's financing of more than 1,000,000,000.
So this is being financed, and then you draw up a report, which goes to the commission. And, on that basis, money is withheld from Hungary. That's a political responsibility. I could carry on and give you further responsibility, and have further examples here. So, could you help me out?
What do you understand by commercial, trade, or business interests when we're talking about civil organizations? And I'd like to hear some examples so that we can actually close this discussion.
Beate Gminder
Yeah. Thank you for the question, but I don't have any examples of access to document requests with me right now, I have to admit. I have not been prepared for that part. The project methodology is often competitive and different, and you have a competitive call. I said earlier that we get hundreds of applications, so they run against this in a competitive procedure.
And therefore, they do have certain elements of their grant agreement that we consider falling under the commercial interest derogation in the regulation 1049-2001. We apply the EU rules there. The regulation is also adopted by the co-legislators. And we have a very strict procedure there. So, if people feel that we are not applying the derogations correctly, they can always have a redress procedure and complain against our decision, or my decision in this case, because any kind of non-granting of access is signed by me as the authorizing officer.
They can complain about this to our Secretary General, and then they can go to the Ombudsman or to the court. And there are plenty of court decisions on access to documents being refused, so there is also a huge amount of case law on that. Hungary is indeed, by a court judgment of the European Court of Justice, asked to provide and pay €1,000,000 a day for not implementing the asylum legislation of the European Union. And I think this has been a seven-year-long court proceeding, and none of this was established on the basis of civil society reports.
Monika Hohlmeier
I also have a couple of questions that I would like to ask. Now, one thing I noticed, and I'm also now seeing with the organizations, is that usually in the European Parliament, what we try to do is to have organizations where we can link our opinion. So these organizations that are promoted and funded sometimes have quite a one-sided focus. And so I'd be quite interested in hearing to what extent that criterion plays a role there. So, how far and to what extent do the stakeholders come into debate with each other, and whether and how that's being done?
Because I think that it is not the intention to have particular one-sided political ideas or views with the NGOs. That's actually what we want to avoid. So, that was the first question. Second question: how do you deal with the fact that there are organizations that supposedly have certain objectives, but in reality, don't actually follow what they promote on the outside? We've seen in various areas that the commission has funded organizations that then do the opposite of what they said they were going to do, such as being close to terrorist organizations or being absolutely intolerant of different religions, despite claiming otherwise, and promoting Sharia law or similar agendas.
So, we've had a whole series of that type of issue coming up. How does that happen? How can that happen? Sometimes, that can happen not directly, but through shared management. But I would like to hear from you how we can ensure that these nice headings of the paragraphs actually follow what really happens in the details and inside the organization, so that we can avoid these sorts of things happening and make sure we have a constructive dialogue.
So, when we see different organizations with different approaches, even if they may have controversial ideas, they are put together and have to work together to reach agreements on different projects. That's under the leader, for example. We've also seen cases where civil society and civil organizations have been brought together. And sometimes, some of the things I've read and seen aren't always the case. And then a question, particularly regarding saving refugees: there is a lot of intensive discussion on that subject in Germany. There are organizations that have set themselves up as aid organizations but have given information to people who don't have any right to asylum, providing clear questions and answers so that they can pass through the process and use the humanitarian corridors to come into the EU.
So, how can you ensure that the organizations you are financing are actually following the rules for asylum procedures and that they will continue to follow legislation in this area? Because I think it's not all that simple to always guarantee this. And then I'd also be interested in hearing since when you've been checking on conflicts of interest, because we've heard information for several months now. I think it was going back to May 2024 that, up until then, conflict of interest wasn't being checked. And so, was that the case in your DG?
We've been told that it was DG Envy and DG Klima because they thought it wasn't valid for the commission. Maybe that's a different opinion from the one that we would represent, and maybe that has now been resolved in this area. So now, the conflict of interest is being checked. But I'd like to know since when you have been checking for conflicts of interest or making sure that, before the guidelines were changed in May 2024, what was happening before then? And then I'd also like to hear about how experts have access to the database.
I didn't really understand that. How do they actually have access to this? Is there some kind of procedure, or can anybody get access to that? How do you get into this database? Because I didn't really understand exactly how that works, I heard that you have to get information from the database, but I didn't understand how you access the database.
So, I'd be grateful if I could have some information on that. And then I'd also be grateful if you could tell me a little bit about which contracts and amendments are being made. Because we have old contracts. And I'd be interested to hear which contracts are going to be changed, why they need to be changed, and how much needs to be changed. Maybe you can't say anything about it now, but perhaps you could pass that information on later. If you can't, give the information now.
Of course, we don't expect you to give us a full comprehensive listing of everything now. But how many contracts have been changed? Why were they changed? Where were they changed? And then on the working programs.
When I read through working programs, I don't really understand why they're not public, to be honest, because there is no industry interest there. There are no commercial secrets there. So I think it would be, unless there's money being used to provide their own capacities, and then it explains exactly how they want to build their capacities. Then, that would perhaps be competitive with other organizations because other organizations would like to have some money to build up their capacities as well. So, perhaps we need to think about exactly how fair this really is. And that's why I'm a real fan of this network, because I think it's good if we could have different types of organizations with different types of interests and put them together. That would really allow for a true discourse, a true debate, and really bring true added value at the European level.
Thank you.
Beate Gminder
Thank you very much. And I'd include this in the leadership program. That is something we can always talk about. And I'm sure that's something we could also discuss. Some of the concerns that you've raised are very important, and we'll also make sure that we take them into account in a constructive way.
The working program, which is a public document, is adopted by the college, then goes through a cometology, and is adopted in cometology. And so, it is publicly accessible. It is just the grant agreement. That is what is not published. Since 2024, 2028, we made some changes there.
Now, there's a paragraph that states that the beneficiary has to uphold all EU values and respect those values, which are described very clearly. But it was always clear that any contract had to be implemented respecting all EU values, and as you know, the Aki. Now, some projects, as you've said,
Beate Gminder
About advice for refugees. They're not directly financed by us because that's not something that is transnational or cross-border, but they are financed by co-financing with the member states. Now, in the area of advisory services to refugees, there has to be neutral information. But, of course, there is always a bias. You mustn't forget as well that a lot of the refugee advisory work is done by international organizations, such as UNHCR.
They are contract partners with civil society organizations. And so, that is quite often a rather complex situation. Conflicts of interest are something that we've always asked of our experts. We've always done that. They can't just go into this database.
There's a procedure there. But I think one of my colleagues could probably explain that, because I don't know exactly how it works. But usually, we launch a call. And if anyone is interested, let me tell you about a friend of mine, for example, who carries out projects for us. They carry out projects in other areas of employment.
But for many years now, she has been dealing with lots of different studies, evaluations, and research on a freelance basis. She is part of our expert database and carries out different contracts, but not recently because she has other contracts. But usually, it's people who have a background in universities and academia, so they understand how to carry out evaluations, and they're very well-educated people.
Ana Gallego
Yes. Thank you very much, Beatri, and thanks for these questions, Madam Thier. Let me perhaps add a few things on some of the issues you raised. And first of all, since the polarity and diversity of views within the beneficiaries. Indeed, the work programs, which I can confirm, are public, and they are a public document.
And they are endorsed by member states through comitology, and they cover indeed a broad range of thematic areas. So, as long as they are in line with the objectives set out by the program's regulation, they cover a very wide range of topics. This allows.
Speaker 25
May I interrupt you briefly? I mean the working programs in the annex of the grants, not your working program, to make it clear.
Ana Gallego
Okay. Okay. Thank you. I'll continue on with this. So, yes, this allows for a diverse range of stakeholders to apply, including CSOs, as long as they align their activities with these objectives.
So for the implementation of the SERP program, in particular, the commission uses open and competitive calls for proposals with well-defined criteria, which ensure that the projects are assessed based on the relevance of the activities for the objectives, the quality of the proposals, and the impact of the expected deliverables. And these have to be in line with the rules of procedure that are laid down in the financial regulations. So we believe that this procedure fosters balanced representation of use in shaping EU policy. Notwithstanding the need for beneficiaries to respect the EU values, political views do not represent a criterion for Union funding, as the Commission respects the plurality of views in a democratic society. Of course, civil society organizations are free to express themselves.
Monika Hohlmeier
No microphone. You're no longer online. Stop. The system does not work anymore. We
I cannot hear you.
Monika Hohlmeier
We need a technician. Well, they're behind us, and the guys are sitting there, I think. Yeah. Sorry. Perhaps DG batch could add some things in between because you are in the room.
So, thank you very much for the conflicts of interest.
Speaker 6
I mean, my colleagues have expressed and explained very well. Maybe some additional things that have not been touched on are what happens if we identify a conflict of interest. So if we identify a conflict of interest and we have evidence of it, then we can terminate the contract, of course. But not only at that moment; we can also go three years back, even if it was for previous work that has been done. And, of course, that expert can also be put into EDES, and then it could be excluded for a period of time.
And that has happened, and it can happen. So that's one of the things that I could add. On the guidelines, there were some comments, I think, about the fact that they are general. And I would say that they are quite broad because they have to cater for all the kinds of grant agreements that we can have. They were prepared by DG Budget in agreement with, in coordination with, and working together with the Legal Service and the Secretary General.
Of course, we consulted all the DGs, and it was validated by the corporate management board. DG budget: every time there is a question, we provide guidance. But, of course, we don't check all the current agreements or the contracts. But every time there is a problem, an issue, a question on interpretation, a doubt on eligibility, or a conflict of interest, we provide that advice. On the generalization or generality of these guidelines, for example, I mean, financial regulation is quite vast, and we saw the other day that there are different ways of having experts.
One is by direct contracts, like DG Just or DG Home, and the other is through a procurement procedure, like a framework contract. And it is also foreseen in the financial regulation, in article 167. So the guidelines have to cater for different ways of managing the different contracts and grants. What else could I add?
Speaker 6
Always. It has always been requested. It's nothing new because it is a basic internal control.
Speaker 24
Tell us something else. Yeah. But we had a huge debate with DGN about this because they said no. This does not apply to the commission, nor to the DGN. Well, this was for the new guidelines of the life program where we clearly ask that conflict of interest must be included, and this was a strong fight, I have to say.
Speaker 6
I can only say I arrived at the commission in December 2012, and you have compulsory training. One of the internal control principles is the absence of conflict of interest in everything. So for us, it's kind.
Dirk Gotink
Well, just because it seems the connection is lost, we in any case had to move to you with some questions. Can you please elaborate a bit more? So, this gray area concerns the screening and advocacy contracts that were eligible to be in what you call the screening exercise, and then contracts that have been kept out. Did you decide that? Or did the DGs themselves decide based on your informal feedback?
And in that sense, could you give me a bit more of an idea of what we're thinking? Because if the gray area is that there are, well, let's say, a certain percent of the contracts out there that are still somehow advocacy related and we don't know about them, then what should we think about when we have those kinds of contracts from other DGs as well?
Speaker 6
I'll try to answer. So the guidelines were prepared, and we were asked to screen all ongoing contracts. So, if a contract was terminated, there was no obligation to have a look because the contractual relation had expired. So, we had to screen all the ongoing contracts and grant agreements and look for advocacy or lobbying activities that were there. And we ask to do that for all services, and then they came back.
Some of them, we had to ask twice for a reply, and they provided some issues or problems in terms of the interpretation. Some of them, as you know, we try to change or modify with more or less success. Because, as I said last time, a contract is a relationship between two parties, so you cannot unilaterally terminate the contract. Also, because it was not a legal ground to finalize the contract, we wanted to change some of the terms, especially those specifically mentioned in the work program, so that the activity was not carried out. But all were screened.
Then we can terminate the contract, of course, but not only at that moment; we can also go three years back, even if it was for previous work that has been done. And, of course, that expert can also be put into a desk and then excluded for a period of time. And that has happened, and it can happen.
So that's one of the things I could add. On the guidelines, there were some comments, I think, about them being general. And I will say that they are quite broad because they have to cater for all the kinds of grant agreements that we can have. They were prepared by DigiBudget in agreement with, and in coordination and collaboration with, the legal service and the secretary general. Of course, we consulted all the DGs, and it was validated by the corporate management board.
It's true that after there are, when you ask for new contracts or grant agreements, of course, the DGs do their due diligence. They check again. And in some cases, we have found that some contracts or grant agreements that were identified as not being problematic, when scrutinized much more closely because we have to redact the personal data, etc., then we can find something that was not spotted before, but it is the minority.
Digi budget: every time there is a question, we provide guidance. But of course, we don't check all the current agreements or contracts. But every time there is a problem, an issue, a question on interpretation, a doubt about eligibility, or a conflict of interest, we provide that advice.
Speaker 6
On the generalization or generality of these guidelines, for example, the financial regulation is quite vast, and we saw the other day that there are different ways of having experts. One is by direct contracts, like DG Just or DG Home, and the other one is through a procurement procedure, like a framework contract. And it is also foreseen in the financial regulation, in Article 167. So, the guidelines have to cater to different ways of managing the various contracts and grants.
Carlo Fidanza
Hello, Laura. Thank you.
You. Many points have emerged. And I have to say, some of the questions that I raised haven't actually been answered. So, I think that there hasn't really been a meeting of minds here. Sometimes I do note somebody said that they found the interpretation a bit difficult to hear, so that might have been the problem.
I know the Italian interpreters are always brilliant, so it has nothing to do with them for certain. Sure. Anyway, be that as it may, I already said previously that there were quite a number of contracts we looked at where we had concluded that there had been inadequate monitoring and inadequate appraisal and verification since 2024 by the DGs involved. DG budgets is, of course, a slightly different case apart because they have horizontal scrutiny and control powers. They can, to some extent, take the place of these specific DGs that allocate resources.
Speaker 6
What else could I add? Since when has our conflict of interest been checked? Always. It has always been requested. It's nothing new because it is a basic internal control.
Speaker 24
Tell us something else. Yeah. They had a huge debate. With this, they said no. This does not apply to the commission, nor to DGNV.
Well, this was for the new guidelines of the life program, where we clearly ask that conflict of interest must be included, and this was a strong fight, I have to say.
Carlo Fidanza
They can also channel information, but the monitoring and assessment done by the individual DGs must be carried out in a watertight, 100% proper fashion. And it does seem to me that there are some gray areas where we have not had clarity. Just to give you one example, there is something I was a bit confused about, and that was the answer from the director of DG Just, which is why I would like to ask you and DG what you could say by way of further clarification. I'm struggling to understand how there can be a contract for some kind of political action, for example, sending 60 letters to a number of different local administrations on non-compliance in the supply of welfare services to migrants. Now, this is clearly political targeting, and it is being financed by European taxpayers.
Speaker 6
I can only say I arrived at the commission in December 2012, and you have compulsory training. One of the internal control principles is the absence of conflict of interest. In everything.
Dirk Gotink
Well, just because it seems the connection is lost, we in any case had to move to you with some questions.
Can you please elaborate a bit more? So, this gray area of the screening and the advocacy contracts that were eligible to be in what you call the screening exercise, and then contracts that have been kept out—did you decide that, or did the DGs themselves decide based on your informal feedback? And in that sense, can you give me a bit more idea of what we're thinking? Because if the gray area is that there are, well, let's say, a certain percent of the contracts out there that are still somehow advocacy-related and we don't know about them, then what should we think about when we have those kinds of contracts from other DGs as well? If.
Carlo Fidanza
How is this possible? How can this be described as awareness raising for citizens, or what is it? I think we're way beyond any kind of category that we could accept. It's somewhere between advocacy and lobbying, but it's not on the borderline. It's not on a gray line.
It's way over the borderline there. It's pure politics and nothing more. And therefore, I really struggle to see how this could possibly be deemed acceptable. So, I would like DG Budge to try to give me a bit more background on that and perhaps expand, if you can, on the guidelines that are to be the basis of this section of the next MFF, because we need something much more robust and better. In the previous two meetings, this being the third, we have actually covered some of this ground already because we have talked about the need to reform financial regulation in a number of different ways.
Speaker 6
I'll try to answer. So the guidelines were prepared, and we were asked to screen all ongoing contracts. So, if a contract was terminated, there was no obligation to have a look because the contractor relation had expired. So, we had to screen all the ongoing contracts and grant agreements and look for advocacy lobbying activities that would be there. And we asked to do that for all services, and then they came back. Some of them, we had to ask twice for a reply, and they provided some issues or problems in terms of the interpretation.
Carlo Fidanza
And one of the things that we want to see is a clearer demarcation between advocacy in the sense of communication and advocacy in the sense of lobbying vis-à-vis the institutions of the European Union itself. So, there may be one type, the communication type, which can sometimes be acceptable. The other type is absolutely not and never acceptable. And therefore, we await with interest what the commission is going to suggest: €2,100,000,000 of funds which NGOs could draw on. This is a huge amount of money.
Speaker 6
So, as you know, we try to terminate or modify with more or less success because, as I said last time, a contract is between two parties. So you cannot unilaterally terminate that contract also because there was no legal ground to finalize the contract. We wanted to change some of the terms, especially those specifically mentioned in the work program, so that the activity was not carried out.
Carlo Fidanza
If there's this amount of money, and it's all located in as gray an area as the current funding package is—shades of gray it may be, but most of it's gray—then how do we possibly expect we can carry out scrutiny and verification over the next 7 years and see whether the money was properly spent, whether it was advocacy in the sense of communication or advocacy in the sense of lobbying? This has absolutely got to be clarified, and the financial regulation is crying out for a root and branch revision. I would strongly argue the case for that. Thank you.
Speaker 6
But all of them were screened. It's true that after there are new contracts or grant agreements, of course, the DGs do their due diligence. They check again. And in some cases, we have found that some contracts or grant agreements that were identified as not being problematic, when scrutinized much more closely because we have to redact the personal data, etc., can reveal something that was not spotted before. But it is the minority.
Before I.
Monika Hohlmeier
I will give the floor to Miss Hans Rosago, but first, a question from Strasbourg to Brussels. Can you hear what's going on? We're not able to hear you. But do you think you're able to hear us? If you can hear us, well, that's good.
Carlo Fidanza
Dick, do you have anything further? Or Carlo? Hello, Laura. Thank you. Lots of points have emerged.
Carlo Fidanza
And I have to say, some of the questions that I raised haven't actually been answered. So I think that there hasn't really been a meeting of minds here. Sometimes I do know somebody said that they found the interpretation a bit difficult to hear, so that might have been the problem. I know the Italian interpreters are always brilliant, so it has nothing to do with them. For certain.
Speaker 6
Yes. Thank you. Thank you for that. Of course, I think every question that might be seen by the committee as a gray area, we need to have a look at in the framework of the regulation and the regulatory objectives, also because we have in some programs, they allow for litigation, advocacy, and lobbying. So we really need to look at them one by one.
Carlo Fidanza
Sure. Anyway, be that as it may, I already said previously that there were quite a number of contracts we looked at where we had concluded that there had been inadequate monitoring, appraisal, and verification since 2024 by the DGs involved. DG budgets is, of course, a case in part because they have horizontal scrutiny and control powers. They can't, to some extent, take the place of these specific DGs which allocate resources and can also channel information, but the monitoring and the assessment that is done by the individual DGs has got to be done.
Speaker 6
I would like to just remind you that there is no definition of advocacy. In the 2024 guidance that the Commission issued, it specifies very clearly that advocacy at EU institutions should not be seen as a requirement for financing by the EU. So this is not a requirement, and lobbying and advocacy are seen as communication efforts, and lobbying is not forbidden in the financial regulation or in the different regulations. I think we have to see it as a whole, and we have to make sure also that if there is advocacy and lobbying, there is full transparency of those organizations, as in the transparency registry. But, of course, I think we have to take a case-by-case approach on what they are asking and what they are proposing in their work program for that specific grant agreement.
Carlo Fidanza
A watertight fashion, 100% properly. And it does seem to me that there are some gray areas where we haven't had clarity. Just to give you one example, there's something I was a bit confused about, and that was the answer from the director of DG Just, which is why I would like to ask you and DG what you could say by way of further clarification.
I'm struggling to understand how there can be a contract for some kind of political action, for example, sending 60 letters out to a number of different local administrations on noncompliance in the supply of welfare services to migrants.
Monika Hohlmeier
I think it is a little bit contradictory what is told to us because, on one side, the working programs are not public. On the other side, we don't know what they are really doing outside. And then, on the third time, we say, "Okay." You have it allowed, but you have to make it public that you are doing it or make it certain. So, I have to say it is a little bit contradictory what is ongoing. If I ask a taxpayer, a taxpayer is giving his money for advocacy or lobbying activities in a political way, I have to say that we have very strict rules at the moment. For example, for elections, how campaigning is allowed. So, if we apply very strict rules to political parties and candidates, then it can't be more lenient or more open to organizations saying, "Okay."
Carlo Fidanza
Now, this is clearly political targeting, and it is being financed by European taxpayers. How is this possible? How can this be described as awareness raising for citizens? I think we're way beyond any kind of category that we could accept. It's somewhere between advocacy and lobbying, but it's not on the borderline. It's not on a gray line. Way over the borderline there.
It's pure politics and nothing more. Therefore, I really struggle to see how this could possibly be deemed acceptable. So, I would like DG Budge to try to give me a bit more background on that. And perhaps expand on the guidelines that are to be the basis of this section of the next MFF, because we need something much more robust and better.
Monika Hohlmeier
We are an NGO, so we are doing political work now. So, this must be streamlined, I think. And I have, at the moment, the impression that this is not very clearly streamlined, to be frank. Yes.
Carlo Fidanza
In the previous two meetings, this being the third, we have actually covered some of this ground already because we have talked about the need to reform financial regulation. In a number of different ways. One of the things that we want to see is a clearer demarcation between advocacy in the sense of communication and advocacy in the sense of lobbying. Vis-à-vis the institutions of the European Union itself. So, there may be one type, the communication type, which can sometimes be acceptable.
Speaker 6
Just one additional comment. Last time that I came here last month, we showed you that we have looked at 4 problematic grant agreements and that we have found that all the information about the lobbying activities was in the funding and tender portals in the different documents. And I think we can provide you with all the information. So, all I'm saying is that there is a lot of information there. But if an NGO or an SCO is doing lobbying or advocacy activities, it also has to be registered in the transparency registry.
Carlo Fidanza
The other type is absolutely not and never acceptable. And therefore, we await with interest what the commission will suggest. €2,100,000,000 of funds, which NGOs could draw on. This is a huge amount of money.
Speaker 6
And that's why we had this info session, where we could see the interlinkage and how much information a citizen can get if you have the FTS, the Funding and Tender Portal, which tomorrow will be in the Single Gateway. So it will be easier because you don't have to have it, and then the transparency registry. That's all I'm saying.
Carlo Fidanza
If there's this amount of money, and it's all located in as gray an area as the current funding package is, then... Shades of gray, it may be, but most of it is gray.
Then how do we possibly expect to carry out scrutiny and verification over the next 7 years and see whether the money was properly spent, whether it was in the sense of communication or advocacy, or in the sense of lobbying?
Monika Hohlmeier
So I think we will have to discuss here in the parliament what lobbying and advocacy are. So, I think there will be an interesting discussion. Well, you have to.
Dirk Gotink
Be in the registry to have a badge from the Parliament. So, I mean, if the advocacy is targeting the parliament, obviously, you need to get into the building. And I think we already have a lot of information on who we're talking about. It's all there. And they indicate whether they receive EU money or not.
Carlo Fidanza
This has absolutely got to be clarified, and the financial regulation is crying out for a root and branch revision. I would strongly argue the case for that.
Monika Hohlmeier
Thank you. Before I give the floor to my son. Redrago.
But a question from Strasbourg to Brussels: can you even hear what's going on? We're... I am not able to hear you. But do you think you're able to hear us? If you can hear us, well, that's good. Okay.
Dirk Gotink
In any case, it is at least for me; I think we have made another good session in terms of the content to understand things there. I agree with Miss Afidane, and we've already discussed this, by the way. The issues inside the member states, towards other authorities, are a point of interest, and I think we might have to expand on that before the end. So, thank you everyone for being here. I don't have any more questions for now.
Well, that's some progress. Okay.
Good.
Speaker 6
Thank you. Thank you for that. Of course, I think every question that might be seen by the committee as a gray area needs to be examined within the framework of the regulation and the regulatory objectives, also because we have, in some programs, allowances for litigation, advocacy, and lobbying. So really need to look at them one by one.
Monika Hohlmeier
Further questions? So then, at the end, we would just expect the old contracts and the old content before it has been changed. It would be nice to know it to get a better knowledge of how perhaps the new interpretation is. And then I think we are at the end of our meeting. I say, charge out to Brussels!
Speaker 6
I would like to just remind that there is no definition of advocacy in the 2024 guidance that the Commission issued; it specifies very clearly that advocacy at EU institutions should not be seen as a requirement for financing by the EU. So this is not a requirement, and lobbying and advocacy, seen as communication efforts, are not forbidden in the financial regulation or in the different regulations.
Monika Hohlmeier
I'm unhappy that we cannot hear you. So we keep in contact with you. And our next meeting will be on March 11, tentatively. Let's see if this works. This was the information.
Any further comments from anybody for today? I don't see it. So, thanks a lot to all colleagues, and thank you for your presence.
Speaker 6
I think we have to see it as a whole, and we have to make sure also that if there is advocacy and need, there is lobbying and full transparency of those organizations. As in the transparency registry.
But of course, I think we have to take a case-by-case approach on what they are asking and what they are proposing in their work program for that specific grant agreement and for that specific SCO.
Monika Hohlmeier
I. Think a little bit contradictory. But what is told to us? Because, on one side, the working programs are not public. On the other side, we don't know what they are really doing outside.
And then, on the third time, we say, "Okay." You have it allowed, but you have to make it public that you are doing it or make a certain statement, so I have to say it is a little bit contradictory.
What is ongoing? And if I ask a taxpayer, a taxpayer is giving his money for advocacy or for lobbying activities in a political way. I have to say that we have very strict rules.
At the moment, for example, for elections. How campaigning is allowed: if we apply very strict rules to political parties and candidates, then it can't be more open to organizations saying, "Okay."
We are an NGO, so we are doing political work. So, this must be streamlined, I think. And I have, at the moment, the impression that this is not very clearly streamlined, to be frank. Yes.
Speaker 6
Just one additional comment. Last time that I came here last month, we showed you that we have looked at four problematic grant agreements and that we have found that all the information about the lobbying activities was in the funding and tender portals in the different documents. And I think we can provide you with all the information.
So all I am saying is there is a lot of information there, but if an NGO or an SCO is doing lobbying or advocacy activities, it also has to be registered in the transparency registry. And that's why we had this info session, where we could see the interlinkage and how much information a citizen can get if you have the FTS, the funding portal, which tomorrow will be in the single gateway. So it will be easier because you don't have to have it, and then the transparency registry. That's all I am saying.
Monika Hohlmeier
So, I think we will have to discuss here in the parliament what lobbying and advocacy are. So, I think they're really interesting.
Dirk Gotink
Discussion. Well, you have to be in the registry to have a badge from the Parliament. So, I mean, if the advocacy is targeting the parliament, obviously, you need to get into the building. And I think we already have a lot of information on who we're talking about. It's all there.
And they indicate whether they receive EU money or not. In any case, it is at least for me; I think we have made another good session in terms of the content. To understand things there.
I agree with Miss Fiddan, as we have already discussed this, by the way. The issues inside the member states towards other authorities are a point of interest, and I think we might have to expand on that before the end.
So, thank you, everyone, for being here. I don't have any more questions for now.
Monika Hohlmeier
Further questions? So then, at the end, we would just expect the old contracts and the old content before it has been changed. We've been nice to know it to get a better knowledge of how perhaps the new interpretation is.
And then, I think we are at the end of our meeting. I say charge out to Brussels. I'm unhappy that we cannot hear you. So we keep in contact with you.
And our next meeting will be on March 11, tentatively. Let's see if this works. This was the information. Any further comments by anybody today? I don't see any. So, thanks a lot to all colleagues.
And thank you for your presence.
A. Function.
Much.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.