Markus Frischhut*, Jean Monnet Professor, Chair on EU law, ethics and values, Innsbruck, Austria
Technical developments, especially biotechnological inventions in the 1990s, have led to increasing references in EU law to non-legal concepts such as ‘ethics’ (Frischhut, 2015). In November 1991, the European Commission had incorporated ethics into the decision-making process for research and technological development policies via the so-called ‘Group of Advisers on the Ethical Implications of Biotechnology’ (GAEIB). This advisory body was replaced in December 1997 by the ‘European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies’ (EGE), who’s mandate was extended to cover all areas of the application of science and technology. As of 2019 (see Fig. 1 below), the EGE has delivered 30 opinions (and various statements, etc.) throughout its five different mandates. Recently, the EGE has issued a joint opinion on pandemic preparedness and management (No 31), as well as on 19 March 2021 opinion No 32 on ethics of genome editing.
Figure 1: Overview EGE (source: Frischhut, 2019, p. 102)
The analysis of
these 30 opinions in terms of the ‘normative theories’ (deontology,
consequentialism, virtue ethics) they referred to (see Pirs
& Frischhut, 2020; Frischhut, 2019,
p. 108) and a detailed analysis of various provisions of EU law (primary,
secondary, case-law, etc.) referring to ‘ethics’ (and ‘morality’) led to the identification
of the ‘Ethical Spirit of EU law‘, a book published open access
in 2019.
Beyond the field of
science and new technologies, the European
Parliament is currently picking up the idea also addressed by Commission
President von der Leyen in July
2019, supporting “the creation of an independent ethics body common to all
EU institutions”. While ethics in public administration (of both members and
staff) deals with different challenges compared to new technologies, there are
nonetheless some underlying similarities. Several analyses of (public
administration) ethics committees, both with regard to the EU but also
worldwide, have highlighted the importance of the institutional setting of these
bodies (cf. Alemanno,
2020; Frischhut,
2020). As the European Commission has recently adopted the 6th
mandate of the EGE, in the following this new setting shall be compared to
the previous 5th
mandate from 2016 (for a first analysis see the following Twitter
thread), in order to address some key changes.
The timeframe of
the mandates has been limited so far to approx. five years (see Fig. 1). In
this regard the new mandate brings a remarkable change insofar as it sets up
the EGE for an “indefinite period” (recital 4). While the number of members of
the EGE has constantly increased from six to fifteen persons (see Fig. 1),
the term of EGE membership has increased from two (1st mandate) to five years
(4th mandate). However, the previous 5th
mandate (from 2016) has followed a different approach, which resembles the EUCO
President’s term of office, that is to say splitting up five years into two
times 2.5 years (Art 15(5) TEU).
The new mandate now increases the term to three years (Art 5(6)), which can be qualified
as a small turning point. No changes occurred regarding a second (or third) term
of office of EGE members, as such a term is (still) renewable up to a maximum
membership of three terms. Hence, the slight increase from 2.5 to three years
membership is no big step forward, while the mandate for an ‘indefinite period’
is clearly innovative. However, this change is not set in stone, as this
current Commission Decision
(EU) 2021/156 (= 6th mandate) can be changed by a next Commission President
in any direction.
EGE members are not
appointed by the college of the European Commission, but by the Commission
President. Since 2000, the EGE was part of the ‘Bureau of European Policy
Advisers’ (BEPA), a Directorate General (DG) of the Commission, reporting directly
to the Commission President. Under the 5th mandate, the EGE was docked with DG
Research and Innovation. While this makes sense content-wise, this can be also be
qualified as a downgrading. The new 6th mandate replaces DG Research with the ‘responsible
Commission department’, which can be seen as a more flexible solution against
the background of the ‘indefinite period’ of this mandate.
Another difference
concerns the qualification criteria that an EGE member must meet. While these
criteria have been mentioned in the 5th mandate (Art 4(6)), under the new 6th
mandate they are now ‘outsourced’ to the call for applications (Art 5(1)). For
this very reason, it is worth briefly considering the old criteria (in the
following paragraph, Articles refer to the 5th mandate). According to Art 4(6)(a)
the composition of the EGE shall allow for “independent advice of the highest
quality […], combining wisdom and foresight”, two criteria that should
generally receive more attention. The members had to be “internationally
recognised experts, with a track record of excellence and experience at the
European and global level” (Art 4(6)(b)). In terms of the interdisciplinarity
necessary for such an ethics advisory body, the mandate required the members to
“reflect the broad cross-disciplinary scope of the group's mandate, embracing
philosophy and ethics; natural and social sciences; and the law” (Art 4(6)(c)).
Another qualification criterion, which makes sense, is membership in national
ethics committee (Art 4(6)(e)), to establish a vertical connection between the
EGE and national ethics committees. The call for applications was published on
the relevant Commission website
two days after the publication of the 6th mandate in the Official journal (i.e.
10 February 2021) and closed on 22 March 2021. This call
for applications from 12 February has referred to the EGE’s “crucial role
in the embedding of ethics in EU policies and in furthering the Union as a
community of values” (pt. 1) and comprises the above-mentioned qualification
criteria of the 5th mandate (pts. 2.1 to 2.3, pt. 4).
The 6th mandate (recital
7) continues with a well-established tradition of an “independent
Identification Committee” for the selection process of EGE members (see also
pt. 5 of the call
for applications), a phenomenon which has been successfully applied at the
CJEU (Art 255 TFEU).
Advocate General Bobek mentioned that “the 255 Panel became widely regarded as
a success story in terms of guaranteeing a greater quality of Union courts'
appointees” (Bobek,
2015, p. 280).
In 2005, there was
criticism that some EGE members were too closely linked to the Catholic Church
(Plomer,
2008, p. 844, Frischhut, 2019,
p. 103). That is why both the 5th as well as the new 6th mandate emphasize that
EGE members are “appointed in their personal capacity, acting independently and
in the public interest” (emphases added) and have to inform the responsible
Commission department of “any conflict of interest which might undermine their
independence” (recital 7; Art 4(3)-(4)).
As Plomer has
emphasized (2008,
p. 846), the EGE does not have a ‘president’, but a ‘chairperson’ only. While
the first mandate had referred to a chairperson, the second mandate ‘upgraded’
this job to an EGE ‘president’, with mandates No 3 to 5 again only referring to
a ‘chairperson’ (Frischhut 2019, p. 104).
While from a legal perspective this might not be a huge difference, the
symbolic meaning of such wording should not be underestimated. The new 6th
mandate does not bring any change in this regard when it also refers to a chairperson
(Art 6). An adaptation to the already existing reality is brought by the new
Article 6 in that now up to two deputies are foreseen (currently
Herman Nys and Siobhán O'Sullivan). The same holds true for Art 7(6) mentioning
that opinions “shall be forthwith published and made available on the EGE
website” (opinions, etc. already now freely available on the following
EGE website).
The task of the EGE
has been, as already mentioned, “to advise the Commission on ethical questions
relating to sciences and new technologies and the wider societal implications
of advances in these fields” (Art 2 of the 5th mandate). The new mandate widens
this mission by referring to the “task of the EGE […] to provide the Commission
with independent advice on questions where ethical, societal and fundamental
rights dimensions intersect with the development of science and new
technologies” (Art 2 of the 6th mandate, emphasis added). Recital 6 emphasizes
that the “EGE’s tasks are essential for the integration of fundamental rights
and values into Union policies in all areas of scientific and technological
innovation” (emphasis added). These references to fundamental rights and values
(cf. also recital 1) correspond to the practice of EGE opinions, where both
fundamental rights and the EU’s common values have been frequently referenced (see
Pirs
& Frischhut 2020; Frischhut 2019, p. 114).
As mentioned above, the recent call
for applications referred to the EGE’s role in the context of the “Union as
a community of values” (pt. 1).
Over all, the new
(6th) and the previous (5th) mandate do not differ substantially. Some details
have been further clarified and the mandate has been restructured (for
instance, the old Article 4 ‘membership & appointment’ has been split up into
distinct articles (Article 4 on membership, and Article 5 on the selection
process), which adds more clarity to this structure (other examples mentioned
in the Table below). This Table annexed to this contribution compares the two mandates
and links the relevant parts. This comparison also shows, which items are not
covered by the new mandate, such as the report on the activities of the EGE,
which had to be produced “under the responsibility of the chairperson before
the end of its mandate” (Art 5(12) 5th mandate).
To summarize, we
can observe a lot of continuity, as well as some new elements, such as the indefinite
period, 3 years instead of 2.5 years of membership, and the outsourcing of
qualification criteria to the call for applications. It would have been
desirable to still to refer to the EGE as an “independent, pluralist and
multidisciplinary” body (cf. Art 4(4) of the 5th mandate). At least these
characteristics are mentioned in the recent call
for applications (pt. 1). As space precludes covering all differences
between the two mandates, the table below shall provide additional information.
What is regulated
and emphasized without changes in the mandates themselves is the absence of conflict
of interest. An advisory body dealing with ethics also has to adhere to ethical
standards with regards to its own members, as can also be seen from ethics
advisory bodies outside the field of science and new technologies (Demmke,
et al. 2020; Frischhut,
2020). Art 5(2) of the new mandate now provides for rules on ‘declaration
of interests’ (DOI); see also the recent call
for applications (pt. 4 and annexes). Such advisory bodies have not only to
be independent in terms of no conflict of interest of their members, but also
independent regarding the institutional framework, they are operating in. One
difference of a science and new technologies advisory body and ethics
committees in the field of public administration is their composition. While ‘pure
expertise’ might be less of an issue in case of a body like the EGE, the
composition of ethics committees checking the behaviour of members and staff of
public administration is clearly trickier.
While the activity
of bodies such as the EGE is advisory by nature, it makes perfect sense to
allow them to issue opinions or statements on issues they themselves deem
important. While it might not have been a big issue so far, the wording “ethical
analyses suggested on the own initiative of the EGE, shall be agreed by the
responsible Commission department” (Art 7 (3), emphasis added) might sound like
a veto right. Likewise, the current AFCO
draft
report “on strengthening transparency and integrity in the EU institutions
by setting up an independent EU ethics body” also suggests that “that the EU
Ethics Body should have the power to initiate procedures” (pt. 8).
*As mentioned on p.
12 of this draft report, the EP rapporteur has received input on the
preparation of this draft report, amongst others, from the author of this blog
contribution.
Barnard &
Peers: chapter 9
|
Commission Decision (EU) 2021/156
of 9 February 2021 renewing the mandate of the European Group on Ethics in
Science and New Technologies |
Commission Decision (EU) 2016/835
of 25 May 2016 on the renewal of the mandate of the European Group on Ethics
in Science and New Technologies |
Analysis and comments |
||
|
|
||||
|
|
|
|
||
|
(1)Article 2 of the Treaty on
European Union enshrines the values on which the Union is founded and Article
6 accords the Charter of Fundamental Rights the same legal value as the
Treaties and establishes that fundamental rights shall constitute general
principles of Union law. |
Same content, but new text longer
(ECHR, etc.) |
||
|
(2)On 20 November 1991, the European
Commission decided to incorporate ethics into the decision-making process for
Community research and technological development policies by setting up the
Group of Advisers on the Ethical Implications of Biotechnology (‘GAEIB’). |
(almost) identical |
||
|
(3)The Commission decided on 16
December 1997 to replace the GAEIB by the European Group on Ethics in Science
and New Technologies (‘EGE’) extending the Group's mandate to cover all areas
of the application of science and technology. The EGE's mandate was subsequently
renewed, most recently by the Commission Decision 2010/1/EU (1). It is now
appropriate to renew the mandate for a period of 5 years and subsequently to
appoint the new members. |
(almost) identical; but now not 5
years renewal of mandate |
||
|
|
New, indefinite period New, Decision expert groups |
||
|
(4)The EGE is tasked with providing
ethical guidance to the European Commission either at the request of the
Commission or on its own initiative and upon agreement with the Commission. |
Not attributed to one DG only
(horizontal level) Emphasizing independent advice Broader: all policies, etc., where
intersection with science and new technologies How work can be started: similar |
||
|
The Commission may draw the EGE’s
attention to issues considered by the European Parliament and the Council to
be of major ethical importance. |
The Commission may draw the EGE's
attention to issues considered by the European Parliament and the Council to
be of major ethical importance. |
Identical |
||
|
|
Emphasizing values More detailed |
||
|
|
New (at least emphasizing it here
in the preamble) |
||
|
(5)Rules on disclosure of
information by members of the group should be laid down. |
(almost) identical |
||
|
(6)Personal data should be
processed in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European
Parliament and of the Council (2). |
Same, only new Regulation |
||
|
(7)Decision 2010/1/EU should be
repealed, |
Different |
||
|
|
|
|
||
|
Article 1 Subject matter The European Group on Ethics in
Science and New Technologies (‘EGE’) is set up. |
Article 1 Mandate The mandate of the European Group
on Ethics in Science and New Technologies, hereafter referred to as ‘EGE’, is
renewed for a period of 5 years. |
Not referring to mandate, as not
just a 5 years renewal |
||
|
|
|
|
||
|
Article 2 Task The task of the EGE shall be to
provide the Commission with independent advice on questions where ethical,
societal and fundamental rights dimensions intersect with the development of
science and new technologies, either at the request of the Commission or on
its own initiative, expressed through its chairperson and agreed with the
responsible Commission department. In particular, the EGE shall: identify, define and examine
ethical questions raised by developments in science and technologies; (b) provide
guidance critical for the development, implementation and monitoring of Union
policies or legislation in the form of analyses and recommendations,
presented in opinions and statements, that shall be oriented towards the
promotion of ethical Union policymaking, in accordance with the Charter of
Fundamental Rights of the European Union. |
Article 2 Task The task of the EGE shall be to
advise the Commission on ethical questions relating to sciences and new
technologies and the wider societal implications of advances in these fields,
either at the request of the Commission or on request by its chair with the agreement
of the Commission services. The Group therefore shall: (a) identify,
define and examine ethical questions raised by developments in science and
technologies; (b) provide
guidance in the form of analyses and recommendations that shall be oriented towards
the promotion of ethical EU policymaking, with due regard to the Charter of
Fundamental Rights of the European Union. |
Broader Emphasizing independence How work can be started: similar EC department instead of EC
services Lit. a: identical Lit. b: defined, what guidance is
developed for | same: analyses and recommendations Clarified: “presented in opinions
and statements” |
||
|
|
|
|
||
|
Article 3 Consultation The Commission may consult the EGE
on any matter related to the tasks set out in Article 2. In that context, the
Commission may draw the EGE’s attention to issues considered by the European
Parliament and the Council to be of major ethical importance. The EGE shall
be consulted as required by other expert bodies established by the Commission
on matters related to the tasks set out in Article 2. |
Article 3 Consultation The Commission may consult the group
on any matter in the remit referred to in Article 2. In that context, the
Commission may draw the Group's attention to issues considered by the
Parliament and the Council to be of major ethical importance. |
Almost identical: third sentence
new (i.e. EGE can be consulted by other expert bodies) EGE instead of Group |
||
|
|
|
|
||
|
Article 4 Membership 1.
The EGE shall be composed of up to 15 members. |
Article 4 Membership — Appointment 1.
The EGE shall have up to 15 members. |
Title: now membership in Art 4,
appointment in Art 5 (called selection process), hence one article split up
into two |
||
|
2. Members shall
have competence in the tasks set out in Article 2. |
Members shall have competence in
the remit referred to in Article 2. |
|
||
|
3. Members shall
be individuals appointed in a personal capacity. |
2.
Members shall serve in a personal capacity. |
|
||
|
4. Members shall
act independently and in the public interest. Members shall inform in a
timely manner the responsible Commission department, in the
Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, of any conflict of interest
which might undermine their independence. |
They shall advise the Commission in
the public interest and independently from any outside influence. Members
shall inform the Commission in due time of any conflict of interest which
might undermine their independence. |
Similar Contact: EC, not only DG Research |
||
|
5. Members who are
no longer capable of contributing effectively to the EGE’s deliberations,
who, in the opinion of the responsible Commission department, do not comply
with the conditions set out in Article 339 of the Treaty on the Functioning
of the European Union or who resign, shall no longer be invited to
participate in any meetings of the group and may be replaced for the
remainder of their term of office by a person appointed by the President of
the Commission from the reserve list referred to in Article 5(7). |
11. Where a member is no longer capable of
contributing effectively to the work of the EGE, or resigns or does not
comply with the conditions set out in Article 339 of the Treaty on the
Functioning of the European Union, the President of the Commission may
appoint a replacement member from the reserve list, for the remaining
duration of the original member's term of office. |
More detailed (no longer be invited
to participate) Decision in either case to be taken
by Commission President |
||
|
|
|
|
||
|
Article 5 Selection process 1.
The selection of the EGE’s members shall be carried out following a public
call for applications to be published on the Register of Commission expert
groups and other similar entities (‘the Register of expert groups’). In
addition, the call for applications may be published through other means,
including on dedicated websites. The call for applications shall clearly
outline the selection criteria, including the required expertise in relation
to the work to be performed. The minimum deadline for applications shall be
four weeks. |
[Art 4] 7. The selection of the EGE members will be
made on the basis of an open call for expression of interest, specifying the
modalities for submitting a complete application. The Commission shall
publish the call on the Europa website. A link from the Register of
Commission expert groups and other similar entities (‘the register of expert
groups’) to the Europa website will also be ensured. [Art 4] 8. Nominations may be submitted, provided the
nominee follows the modalities for submitting a complete application. [Art 4] 9. The list of EGE members shall be published
by the Commission in the Register of expert groups. [Art 4] 6. The following factors and criteria will be
taken into account for the selection of candidates for membership of the
Group: (a) The
composition of the group shall ensure that independent advice of the highest
quality can be provided, combining wisdom and foresight. The credibility of
the group shall be built on the balance of qualities amongst the women and
men who make it up, and they shall collectively reflect the breadth of
perspectives across Europe. Gender balance shall be strictly taken into
account, and due consideration accorded to age balance and geographical
distribution. (b) The
Members of the group shall be internationally recognised experts, with a
track record of excellence and experience at the European and global level. (c) The
Members shall reflect the broad cross-disciplinary scope of the group's
mandate, embracing philosophy and ethics; natural and social sciences; and
the law. However, they shall not perceive themselves as representatives of a
particular discipline, worldview, or line of research; they shall have a
broad vision which collectively reflects an understanding of important
ongoing and emerging developments, including inter-, trans-, and
multi-disciplinary perspectives, and the need for ethical advice at the
European level. (d) Beyond
their proven reputation, the membership shall collectively bring experience
in providing ethical advice to policymakers, acquired across a broad range of
Member States, and at European and international levels. (e) The
group shall include members with experience in bodies such as advisory
councils and committees, government advisors, national ethics councils,
universities and research institutes. It may be valuable to the group to
include members who have gained experience in more than one country and
members from outside the European Union. |
Now ‘public call for applications’,
strengthening the EC Register of expert groups (preciously: ‘ open call for
expression of interest’) In short: qualification criteria
not in this Decision, but outsourced to ‘call
for applications’ |
||
|
2. Individuals
applying for membership shall disclose any circumstances that could give rise
to a conflict of interest. In particular, the responsible Commission
department shall require those individuals to submit a declaration of interests
(‘DOI’) form on the basis of the standard DOI form for expert groups,
together with an updated curriculum vitae (CV), as part of their application.
Submission of a duly completed DOI form shall be necessary in order to be
eligible to be appointed as a member in a personal capacity. The conflict of
interest assessment shall be performed in compliance with the horizontal
rules. |
|
New DOI rules |
||
|
3. The Members of
the EGE shall be appointed by the President of the Commission, on the basis
of a proposal from the member of the Commission responsible for the
Commission department providing the secretariat of the EGE, from amongst
specialists with competence in the areas referred to in Article 2 and who
have responded to the call for applications. |
[Art 4] 3. Members shall be appointed by the
President of the Commission on the basis of a proposal from the Commissioner
in charge of Research, Science and Innovation, following the submission of
their candidacy to a call for expression of interest for membership of the
EGE and a selection process overseen by an Identification Committee, based on
the criteria set out in paragraphs 4 and 6 of this Article. |
Moving from DG Research in a more
flexible way to ‘responsible department’ |
||
|
4. The selection process
shall be overseen by an Identification Committee. In particular, the Identification
Committee shall assist the Commission in identifying and selecting potential
members of the EGE and in assessing their availability and willingness to
serve as such. The Identification Committee shall consist of three members,
appointed by the member of the Commission responsible for the Commission
department providing the secretariat of the EGE and supported by a
secretariat provided by the responsible Commission department. The
Identification Committee shall make an assessment of the eligible candidates
from the list submitted by the responsible Commission department on the basis
of an initial assessment of all applications against the selection criteria.
The Identification Committee shall submit its recommendation to the member of
the Commission responsible for the Commission department providing the
secretariat of the EGE. |
[Art 4] 4. When proposing the composition of the EGE,
the Identification Committee shall aim at ensuring, as far as possible, a
high level of expertise and pluralism, a geographical balance, as well as a
balanced representation of relevant know-how and areas of interest, taking
into account the specific tasks of the EGE, the type of expertise required
and the response to the call for expression of interest. The EGE shall be
independent, pluralist and multidisciplinary. |
More detailed, to some extent
codifying the current practice (on the three current members, see the EGE
website) Not mentioning now “independent,
pluralist and multidisciplinary” |
||
|
5. Where selecting
members of the EGE, the responsible Commission department shall aim at
ensuring, as far as possible, a high level of expertise and pluralism, a
geographical and gender balance, as well as a balanced representation of
relevant know-how and areas of interest, taking into account the tasks of the
EGE set out in Article 2, the type of expertise required and the response of
the candidates to the call for applications. |
|
Gender balance: before in Art 4(6)(a) |
||
|
6. Members shall
be appointed for a term of maximum 3 years. They shall remain in office until
replaced or until the end of their term of office. Their term of office may
be renewed. Membership of the EGE shall be limited to a maximum of three
terms. |
[Art 4] 5. Each member of the EGE shall be appointed
for a term of 2 ½ years. At the end of a term, his or her appointment may be
renewed. Membership of the EGE shall be limited to a maximum of three terms. |
Now 3 years, instead of 2.5 years Renewal and maximum of three terms
unchanged |
||
|
7. The responsible
Commission department shall establish a reserve list of suitable candidates
that may be used to appoint members’ replacements. The responsible Commission
department shall ask applicants for their consent before including their
names on the reserve list. |
[Art 4] 10. Suitable candidates who are not appointed
pursuant to paragraph 2 of this Article, shall be placed on a reserve list.
The President of the Commission may appoint members from the reserve list. |
Now responsible Commission department,
instead of EC President |
||
|
|
|
|
||
|
Article 6 Chair The EGE shall elect a chairperson
and one or two deputy-chairpersons from amongst its members for the duration
of their term of office by simple majority. |
[Art 5] 2. The EGE shall elect a chairperson and a
deputy-chairperson from among its members for the duration of their term by a
simple majority. |
New: one or two deputies (so far
also two deputies, i.e. Herman Nys and Siobhán O'Sullivan) |
||
|
|
|
|
||
|
Article 7 Operation 1.
The responsible Commission department, acting in close cooperation
with the EGE’s chairperson, shall be responsible for coordinating and
organising the work of the EGE and for providing its secretariat. |
Article 5 Operation 1.
The Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, acting in close
cooperation with the EGE's chairperson, shall be responsible for coordinating
and organising the work of the EGE and for providing its Secretariat. |
Responsible EC department, instead
of DG Research Rest identical |
||
|
2. Commission
officials from other Commission departments with an interest in the
proceedings may request to attend meetings of the EGE and its sub-groups. |
|
|
||
|
3. The EGE Work
Programme, including ethical analyses suggested on the own initiative of the
EGE, shall be agreed by the responsible Commission department. Each request
for an ethical analysis shall include the parameters of the requested
analysis. The Commission shall, when seeking the advice of the EGE, set a
time limit for the analysis. |
[Art 5] 4. The EGE Work Programme, including such
ethical analyses suggested on the own initiative of the EGE, shall be agreed
by the Commission. Each request for an ethical analysis shall include the
parameters of the requested analysis. The Commission shall, when seeking the
advice of the EGE, set a time limit within which such advice shall be given. |
Now more specific, from EC as such
to ‘responsible EC department’ Time limit in either case to be set
by EC |
||
|
4. EGE opinions
shall include recommendations. They shall be based on an overview of the
state of the art of the sciences and technologies concerned and a thorough
analysis of the ethical issues at stake. Relevant services of the Commission
shall be informed of the recommendations produced by the EGE. |
[Art 5] 5. EGE Opinions shall include a set of
recommendations. They shall be based on an overview of the state of the art
of the sciences and technologies concerned and a thorough analysis of the
ethical issues at stake. Relevant services of the Commission shall be
informed of the recommendations produced by the EGE. |
Identical |
||
|
5. The EGE shall
operate in a collegial way. The working procedures, based on the rules of
procedure, shall seek to ensure that all members may take an active role in
the activities of the group. In principle, the group shall adopt its opinions
and statements by consensus. In the event of a vote, the outcome of the vote
shall be decided by simple majority of the members. The members who have
voted against or abstained shall have the right to have a document
summarising the reasons for their position (as a ‘minority opinion’) annexed
to the opinion or statement together with the name(s) of the dissenting
member(s). |
[Art 5] 6. The EGE shall operate in a collegial way,
seeking consensus among its members. The EGE shall adopt its Rules of
Procedure on the basis of the standard Rules of Procedure for expert groups
with the agreement of the Commission's representative. The working procedures
shall seek to ensure that all members take an active role in the activities
of the group. [Art 5] 8. The
Group shall endeavour to reach consensus. However, where an Opinion is not
adopted unanimously, it shall include any dissenting point of view (as a
‘minority opinion’) together with the name(s) of the dissenting Member(s). |
Unchanged: requiring active role of
members Still: by consensus Clarification that voting requires
simple majority |
||
|
6. Each opinion
shall be transmitted to the President of the Commission or to a
representative designated by the President. Each opinion shall be forthwith
published and made available on the EGE website and be transmitted to the
European Parliament and to the Council after its adoption by the EGE. |
[Art 5] 8 [continued from above] The Opinion shall be transmitted to
the President of the Commission or to a representative designated by the
President. Each Opinion shall be forthwith published and transmitted to the
European Parliament and to the Council of the European Union after its
adoption. |
Now specifying that publication on EGE
website (already practice so far) |
||
|
7. The meetings of
the EGE shall, in principle, be held on Commission premises, in accordance
with the modalities and the calendar fixed by the responsible Commission
department. The EGE shall meet at least six times during a 12-month period,
representing at least 12 working days a year. Further meetings may be
organised when necessary, in agreement with the responsible Commission
department. |
[Art 5] 7. The meetings of the EGE shall normally be
held on Commission premises according to the modalities and the calendar
fixed by the Commission. The EGE should meet at least six times during a
12-month period involving around 12 working days a year. Further meetings may
be organised when necessary, in agreement with the Commission's
representative. |
(almost) identical |
||
|
8. For the purpose
of the preparation of EGE analyses and within the limits of the available
resources, the responsible Commission department may initiate studies in
order to collect all necessary scientific and technical information and
establish close links with representatives of the various ethics bodies in
the Member States and in third countries. |
[Art 5] 7 [continued from above] For the purpose of the preparation
of EGE analyses and within the limits of the available resources, the
Commission's representative may: — Invite
experts and representatives of relevant NGOs or representative organisations
when appropriate for an exchange of views on an ad hoc basis. The Commission
may also enlist external experts to participate in the work of the EGE on an
ad hoc and temporary basis should it be deemed necessary to cover the wide
spectrum of ethical questions related to advances in science and new
technologies. — Initiate
studies in order to collect all necessary scientific and technical
information. — Allow
for working groups to be set up to consider specific issues. — Establish
close links with representatives of the various ethics bodies in the Member
States and in third countries. |
Now shortened Does not mention working groups (on
sub-groups, see now Art 8, on invited experts now Art 9) |
||
|
9. The responsible
Commission department shall organise a public round table in order to promote
dialogue and improve transparency for each opinion of the EGE. The EGE shall
establish close links with the Commission departments concerned by issues on
which the EGE is working. |
[Art 5] 7 [continued from above] Moreover, the Commission shall
organise a public round table in order to promote dialogue and improve
transparency for each Opinion that the EGE produces. The EGE shall establish
close links with Commission departments concerned by issues the Group is
working on. |
Almost identical |
||
|
10. Where
operational circumstances require that advice on a particular subject be
given more quickly than the adoption of an opinion would allow, short
statements or other forms of analyses can be issued, to be followed if
necessary by a fuller analysis in the form of an opinion, while ensuring that
transparency is respected as for any other opinion. Statements shall be
published and made available on the EGE website. As part of its Work
Programme, in agreement with the responsible Commission department, the EGE
may update an opinion, if it considers it necessary. |
[Art 5] 9. If operational circumstances require that
advice on a particular subject be given more quickly than the adoption of an
Opinion would allow, short Statements or other forms of analyses can be
produced, to be followed if necessary by a fuller analysis in the form of an
Opinion, while ensuring that transparency is respected as for any other
Opinion. Statements will be published and made available on the EGE website.
As part of its Work Programme, in agreement with the Commission's
representative, the EGE may update an Opinion if it deems it necessary. |
Identical (only adaption of
‘responsible EC department’) On short statements and other form
of analyses |
||
|
11. The EGE's
discussions shall be confidential. In agreement with the responsible
Commission department, the EGE may, by a simple majority of its members, decide
to open its deliberations to the public. |
[Art 5] 10. The EGE's discussions shall be
confidential. In agreement with the Commission's representative, the EGE may,
by a simple majority of its members, decide to open its deliberations to the
public. |
Identical (only adaption of
‘responsible EC department’) |
||
|
12. Minutes on the
discussion on each point on the agenda and on the opinions delivered by the
EGE shall be meaningful and complete. Minutes shall be drafted by the
secretariat under the responsibility of the chairperson. |
|
New: details on minutes |
||
|
|
|
|
||
|
Article 8 Sub-groups 1. The responsible
Commission department may set up sub-groups for the purpose of examining
specific questions on the basis of terms of reference defined by the
responsible Commission department. Sub-groups shall operate in compliance
with the horizontal rules and shall report to the EGE. They shall be
dissolved as soon as their mandate is fulfilled. |
|
Working groups previously in Art 5(7) |
||
|
2. The members of
sub-groups that are not members of the EGE shall be selected via a public
call for applications, in compliance with Article 5 and the horizontal
rules (3). |
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
||
|
Article 9 Invited experts 1.
The responsible Commission department may invite experts and
representatives of relevant organisations with specific expertise or
perspectives to take part in the work of the EGE or its sub-groups on an ad
hoc basis for an exchange on a subject matter on the agenda. |
|
Invited experts previously in in Art
5(7) |
||
|
2.
The responsible Commission department may also enlist external experts
to participate in the work of the EGE on an ad hoc basis should it be deemed
necessary to cover the wide spectrum of ethical questions related to advances
in science and new technologies. |
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
||
|
Article 10 Rules of procedure On a proposal by and in agreement
with the responsible Commission department the EGE shall adopt its rules of
procedure by simple majority of its members, on the basis of the standard
rules of procedure for expert groups, in compliance with the horizontal rules. |
|
Previously only mentioned in Art 5 (6) |
||
|
|
|
|
||
|
Article 11 Professional secrecy and
handling of classified information The members of the EGE and members
of sub-groups, as well as invited experts and members of the Identification
Committee, are subject to the obligation of professional secrecy which, by
virtue of the Treaties and the rules implementing them, applies to all
members of the institutions and their staff, as well as to the Commission’s
rules on security regarding the protection of Union classified information,
laid down in Commission Decisions (EU, Euratom) 2015/443 (4) and (EU,
Euratom) 2015/444 (5). Should they fail to respect these obligations, the
Commission may take all appropriate measures. |
[Art 5] 3. Members of the EGE, as well as invited
experts, shall comply with the obligations of professional secrecy laid down
by the Treaties and their implementing rules, as well as with the
Commission's rules on security regarding the protection of EU classified
information, laid down in Commission Decisions (EU, Euratom) 2015/443 (3) and
(EU, Euratom) 2015/444 (4). Should they fail to respect these obligations,
the Commission may take all appropriate measures. |
Also including sub-groups, and
mentioning members of the Identification Committee |
||
|
|
|
|
||
|
Article 12 Transparency 1.
The EGE and its sub-groups shall be registered and the names of the
members shall be published in the Register of expert groups. |
|
|
||
|
2.
All relevant documents, including the agendas, the minutes and the
participants’ submissions, shall be made available either on the Register of
expert groups or via a link from the Register to a dedicated website, where
this information can be found. Access to dedicated websites shall not be
submitted to user registration or any other restriction. In particular, the
agenda and other relevant background documents shall be published in due time
ahead of the meeting, followed by timely publication of minutes. Exceptions
to publication shall only be foreseen where it is deemed that disclosure of a
document would undermine the protection of a public or private interest as
defined in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European
Parliament and of the Council (6). |
[Art 5] 11. All relevant documents related to the
activities of the EGE (such as agendas, minutes, Opinions and participants'
submissions) shall be made available either in the Register of expert groups
or via a link from the Register to a dedicated website. Exceptions to
publication are possible where disclosure of a document is deemed to
undermine the protection of a public or private interest as defined in
Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of
the Council (5). |
Now more specific, with regard to
open access character |
||
|
|
[Art 5] 12. A report on the activities of the EGE
shall be produced under the responsibility of the chairperson before the end
of its mandate. The report shall be published and transmitted according to
the modalities set out in paragraph 11. |
Report not covered in new Decision |
||
|
|
|
|
||
|
Article 13 Meeting expenses 1.
Participants in the activities of the EGE and its sub-groups shall not
be remunerated for the services they offer. |
Article 6 Meeting expenses 1.
Participants in the activities of the EGE shall not be remunerated for
the services they render. |
Also mentioning sub-groups |
||
|
2.
Travel and subsistence expenses incurred by participants in the
activities of the EGE and its sub-groups and by the members of the
Identification Committee shall be reimbursed by the Commission. Reimbursement
shall be made in accordance with the provisions in force within the
Commission and within the limits of the available appropriations allocated to
the Commission services under the annual procedure for the allocation of
resources. |
2.
Travel and subsistence expenses for the meetings of the EGE shall be
reimbursed by the Commission in accordance with the provisions in force. 3.
Those expenses shall be reimbursed within the limits of the available
appropriations allocated under the annual procedure for the allocation of
resources. |
More specific |
||
|
|
|
|
||
|
Article 14 Repeal Decision (EU) 2016/835 is repealed
with effect from 28 May 2021. |
Article 7 Final provisions The present decision will be
published in the Official Journal of the European Union and shall enter into
force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of
the European Union. Decision 2010/1/EU is hereby repealed. |
|
||
|
|
|
|
||
|
Article 15 Applicability Except for Article 5 and Article
13, this Decision shall apply as from 28 May 2021. |
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
||
|
Done at Brussels, 9 February 2021. For the Commission The President Ursula VON DER LEYEN |
Done at Brussels, 25 May 2016. For the Commission The President Jean-Claude JUNCKER |
|