|
Dear Sir,
Thank you very much for your reply to our request concerning your opinion on EU civil servants' judiciary immunities. Your answer was made in the name of the college of European Commissionners ; therefore we understand that as a whole the European Commission wishes to preserve judicial immunity for its bureaucrats. At least it is a clear-cut position, already helping fuel the debate on this issue.
Since our aim is to raise European citizens awareness regarding democratic challenges within the European Union, we have as announced widely circulated the French and English versions of your answer.
Meanwhile, as we receive a growing number of reactions from European and national MPs (and Member States), it appears that many of them do share our worries regarding this E-mmunity. We even learnt that some EuroMPs have tried to have it suppressed without any success yet. The question about this judicial immunity does exist in the minds of many actors of the European institutional system.
Let's have a look then at your three arguments in support of immunity :
1. Your quotation of Article 23 of Staff Regulation does not bring any new element to the discussion as it essentially mentions that EU civil servants are supposed to comply with the law : it would have been very surprising indeed to find Staff regulations calling for the opposite.
2. You tell us that the official's private life is not covered by the immunity. Well, we never said the contrary ; as a matter of fact, in our original letter, we even mentioned that it was different from the usual diplomatic immunity upon this very point.
3. Last but not least, you tell us that when it comes to the exercise of the official's functions, relevant national jurisdictions ask the European Commission to lift the immunity; and that the Commission complies almost systematically. This is at the very core of the whole issue. What does ‘quasi-systematically' mean ? The Germans have this very useful saying : ‘The devil is hiding in the details' ; therefore we think that it would be very useful to give more details about ‘quasi'. A series of questions come naturally to mind :
a. From you answer, it is obvious that there have been cases when the immunity was not lifted ? Which cases ? And why ?
b. Who within the Commission decides to lift or not the immunity ? As you answered in the name of your colleagues, I suppose that, together with the Commission's Secretary General, you are part of those who decide upon this matter, but who are the other top bureaucrats involved ? Is the Commission College deciding upon such matters? Who prepares their decision?
c. On which basis such decisions are made ? Is there any standard criteria ? Or is it a case by case decision without any written guidelines ? How does the Commission ensure then that arbitrary decisions are not taken ?
d. How does corruption cases fit into the divide between private life and official activities ? In these cases, the two dimensions are very intricate.
I hope that the Commission will be able to bring answers to these questions which are just part of a normal, transparent and democratic administrative process. This issue is obviously becoming part of a European-wide debate which will develop in the coming months as the Constitution ratification processes will start.
The Commission is at crossroads. If it wants to keep judicial immunities for its civil servant, it will stay among all those international institutions dating from the 50s ; if it wants to be part of Europe's political construction of the next decades, it will have to suppress it and learn to act as civil servants do in our democratic countries: without judicial immunities.
At this stage, we still do not understand why an honnest EU civil servants would need such a judicial immunity ; and we do not know who inside the Commission rules the process of lifting or not the immunity. And these are real key-questions because efficient and democratic EU institutions are crucial for the success of tomorrow's EU.
Therefore, Newropeans Magazine and Newropeans Networks are determined to keep this topic high on the European democratic agenda for the next 12 months at least.
Hoping that you will be able to bring us the necessary answers,
Sincerely
|
A l’heure où les discours et les mesures sécuritaires et judiciaires se durcissent dans nombreux pays européens, où l’on sait les atteintes aux droits les plus élémentaires et aux principes fondamentaux des simples citoyens, quels traitements sont réservés à ceux qui tiennent les pouvoirs politiques, financiers, économiques entre leurs mains? Une conférence-débat organisée dans le cadre du cycle La démocratie en danger par Les Amis de Beppe Grillo à Paris et le NewropMag.
Le 22 juillet dernier, Franck Biancheri, Directeur des études de 
