#EuropeanParliament het gevra om toegangswapen vir oliereus te verwyder

The dispute concerns a demand from the Greens/EFA group in parliament that ExxonMobil’s parliamentary access be withdrawn.

The Greens say it is “important that Exxon have their lobby badges removed to defend the credibility and integrity of the European Parliament”.

The request, to Parliament’s President Antonio Tajani, an Italian EPP member, and Secretary General Klaus Welle, was made over the company’s alleged role in “funding” climate change denial. The Greens say Exxon had earlier “refused to attend a hearing on climate denial.”

But EU expert Daniel Gueguen has now intervened in the furore, stating that “a proper and democratic functioning of the European Parliament should be based on the rule of law not politics.”

Exxon is said to be the world's 4th biggest oil producer and it has been argued that removing access to the parliament for its staff would set a dangerous precedence.

Gueguen, a professor at the College of Europe in Bruges, said, “Every year I start my course at the College by reminding my students of one of the key principles the EU is built on: the rule of law as laid down in Article 2 of the Treaty. This is a pivotal and fundamental value for the EU.

advertensie

“This principle is not only applicable with regard to EU member states, but applies just as much to its own institutions.”

It states: “Each institution shall act in conformity with its own procedures.”

He added: “These articles sprung to my mind when reading about the request to revoke the access badges of ExxonMobil. It made me wonder about how strictly this principle is actually applied within the EU institutions.”

“I understand that the matter will be ‘decided’ in a meeting of the Conference of Presidents. If this were the case, it would represent a kind of confusion of power.”

He said: “This rule on removing access badges is a very strong ‘sanction’ with potentially severe repercussions. We can expect that it is applied after thorough scrutiny and without political motivation.”

He says the case merits a closer look at parliament’s own rules of procedure.

“The only bodies that should be involved in taking a decision to remove badges are – in accordance with parliament’s own Rules of Procedure – the Quaestors and the Secretary General. This indicates that the matter is considered as an administrative one, meaning that although political groups can ask for the removal of badges – the administrative bodies need to take this decision in an apolitical way.”

On the Greens assertion that Exxon failed to attend a hearing, he says the rules refer to a “formal summons to attend a hearing or committee meeting”.

He added: “What this precisely means is unclear. Are we talking about an invitation to attend, even a formal one or is a formal summons a much more formal process?”

The rules also refers to the fact that the badge(s) can only be withdrawn if no “sufficient justification” can be provided by the person/company concerned.

“Again,” he said, “there is no specification of what this entails.”

“The removal of badges is a very serious sanction as it ultimately prevents the exercise of a fundamental right of any citizen to participate in the normal democratic process.”

Gueguen goes on, “Such a measure in my view cannot be (and cannot be seen to be) taken on the basis of politics, nor can it be used at any point in time to win political gain, particularly in the run-up to elections.”

Molly Scott Cato, Greens/EFA MEP who signed the request commented, told this site: "It is important that Exxon have their lobby badges removed to defend the credibility and integrity of the European Parliament as an institution that has the power to hold people and corporations to account. If we want a real democracy in Europe, the Parliament needs to show that it is serious when it organises public hearings on important issues – especially on issues as important as climate denialism. Corporations that have engaged in a campaign of disinformation that has put millions of lives as risk must face the consequences."

A parliament spokesman said: “The matter was discussed by the most recent Conference of Presidents which asked the Parliament's secretariat for additional information.”