Eurasia Press & News
The ECA report is one of several criticisms directed at the EU Transparency Register ahead of a review due by July 2025 of the interinstitutional agreement that created it.
The introduction in 2011 of the voluntary EU Transparency Register, which provides information on who lobbies the European Commission, European Parliament and Council of the EU, has undoubtedly had a positive impact, though it suffers from various weaknesses and blind spots that need to be addressed, according to a report published today by the European Court of Auditors (ECA).
The ECA report is one of several criticisms directed at the EU Transparency Register ahead of a review due by July 2025 of the interinstitutional agreement that created it. In February, the European Ombudsman ruled the Secretariat, which administers the register for the European Commission, Parliament and Council, guilty of maladministration for not conducting meaningful investigations into complaints. That body and its lack of authority is the subject of running jokes in Brussels.
“The EU transparency register must be bolstered so that it doesn’t turn into a paper tiger,” said Jorg Kristijan Petrovic, the ECA member who led the audit. “Although it provides useful information on lobbying, it is not a silver bullet. A range of lobbying interactions with EU lawmakers can be hidden from the public eye, thus reducing transparency and affecting public trust.”
The report highlights several key areas where the lobbying of EU lawmakers can still “slip under the radar” and a lack of transparency mechanisms could result in undue influence, unfair competition and even corruption.
For example, lobbyists need only register certain scheduled meetings and activities, when many meetings are, in fact, “spontaneous”; lobbyists must be registered only to meet the highest-ranking staff; enforcement measures which the institutions can take in order to ensure that lobbyists comply with registration and information requirements fall short; checks on the data recorded by lobbyists should be improved further; and the register’s website has significant drawbacks when it comes to providing sufficient information on key aspects of lobbying activities to allow for public scrutiny.
Case in point was that an NGO identified in the “Qatargate” scandal – a suspected cash-for-influence scheme involving MEPs – was not registered, yet had co-hosted a conference at the European Parliament in June 2022.
The report highlights the numbers as evidence of the register’s weaknesses. While the number of lobbyists listed in the register has grown significantly since it was created, from around 5,500 in 2012 to roughly 12,500 in 2024, just six were removed from the register following an investigation and only one was prohibited from re-registering.
“What kind of punishment is it, to be crossed out of the register? Really, you rebrand and register again, or, if you are Gazprom or another hostile company, you hire a law firm to represent you, among other clients. So no, the system is weak,” says Piotr Maciej Kaczyński, an expert at the Geremek Foundation in Warsaw who helps train European civil servants.
