The European Commission criticized the “opaque” fund of the NGO
AdvertisementThe European Auditors’ court concluded that the European Commission’s funding to NGOs (NGO), which exposes the “opaque” and the administrator “to the dangers of his reputation”. But your report will not be a steam weapon that some critics are waiting.
“We have not seen a case during the audit of a volunteer organization that violates the EU values,” Lima Andreigiene, who was in charge of the report, told reporters at a report at a report shortly before his release.
However, Lima Andrigeyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy “We have hundreds of thousands of volunteers,” said Andreigian. “Any occasion, any example of a volunteer that violates the EU values can endanger the reputation of the EU.”
The Andreigian confirmed that there is no legal obstacle for civil society groups to prevent them from presenting their arguments to legislators, and they must publish all the details of all meetings from civil society or institutions.
“In our view, the rules allow the charity to do the Lobbie,” said Andreigian. “If we want something else, the legislators must decide. Not with the auditor.”
The ECA has issued its results at a time when the volunteer fund -funded issue became a controversial political theme in Brussels. Last week, the European Parliament rejected the resolution of censorship to the EU administrator by a vote, because the operating subsidies provided by the Life Environmental Scheme.
Between 2019 and 2024, the Conservative European People’s Party (PPE) states that the Commission has instructed the NGO to promote specific policies within the Environmental Agreement as the central political agenda of President Ursula Van Ter Lean.
Absence of “definitive evidence”
However, the group and its associates showed no concrete evidence to support these allegations on the right.
The Budget Commissioner acknowledged that in January, “It is inappropriate to celebrate contracts that force some group services to force European MPs, especially the NGO.”
But despite media inquiries into some parliamentary committees and secret functioning subsidies, such duties have not been proven – they have been severely denied by environmental groups.
Luxembourg -based Audit Office – Analyzed two life projects (no mention of the report) during its investigation – failed at the same conclusion.
Some “propaganda elements” are mentioned in the work schemes, and the ECA employee, who worked at the audit, said that the candidates should be prepared when they apply for subsidies. But the auditors – as the right legislators stated – are not in a position to say that the team’s employees needed such duties.
“We can say that we have not found any definitive evidence in these situations,” Kokot told reporters.
Auditors were asked why they chose to focus their investigation into the NGOs in Germany, Spain and Sweden, although one of the main factors that promoted the investigation was 2022 scandal, in which Qatar authorities involved, NGOs were said to have been used for corruption – this should be discussed.
“We chose them because they have the biggest communication costs,” said Andreigian, named the European plus social financial and asylum background, migration and coordination.
AdvertisementThe Commission’s response
The ECA made three recommendations to the commission. By the end of the year, by the end of the year, the “government independence” criteria and a “company continues to” continue the business interests of its members “and” accepts somewhat “the renewal of the NGO’s legal definition.
The European Commission has often said that from the financial transparency system, the “reliability” of updates, which allows you to examine EU costs by 2029.
The third recommendation only accepted the social administrator: “Explore the reliability of developing current organizations to add the EU values to the beneficiaries (volunteer organizations) with the EU values to find potential violations.” The deadline is 2028.
The Commission noted the guidelines issued last May after the censorship issued by the NGO, which makes it clear that “especially in particular comprehensive measures and some of their representatives, which are legally correct, can be a danger to the union’s reputation.
AdvertisementEmployees responsible for the funding should take this guidance into account, ”he wrote.
The beneficiary of a subsidy, Birdlife, Europe’s director, Ariel Braunner – assumed that the court of the censorship did not recognize any complications in funding the life plan. “This statement confirms what we say long ago: the real issue is not a respected NGOs, but disguised propaganda that passes through civil society.”
“There was a mistake of the Commission and the national governments to verify who is behind some of the volunteers who do not represent public interests,” said Pranner.
