Der tschechische Regierungschef Babis hatte versucht in einer Dringlichkeitssitzung der Regierung einen Gesetzentwurf durchzubringen, der die EU-Richtlinie gegen Geldwäsche schwach umsetzen würde. Die Anforderungen, Endempfänger von Geld offenzulegen, würden so schwach, dass der Interessenkonflikt des Premiers vor dem Gesetz wegdefiniert würde. So könnte Babis möglicherweise Rückforderungen von EU-Geldern für sein Firmenimperium Agrofert durch die EU-Kommission verhindern. Gegen die Pläne für eine schwache Umsetzung gab es bereits Proteste der Massenbewegung “A Million Moments for Democracy”.

Dear Chair,

dear colleagues,

as European Parliament we rightly take precautions not to spread the Covid-19 virus. At the same time, this strongly limits Parliament’s ability to exercise its oversight and decision making role. The European Council demonstrated in a video-conference how work can continue. We would like to suggest to explore what possibilities Parliament has to continue its essential work if health risks continue to limit the possibilities of in-person meetings. How can Parliament avoid spreading the virus and at the same exercise its legislative and control functions?

We understand that Parliament services already prepare for the possibility to have committee meetings in a mix of in person and remote presence of members. In 5 weeks this might even allow for all languages. Yet beyond the important possibilities to exchange and organise hearings with Commission, Council and experts, Parliament needs to be able to decide urgent matters such as the EU budget and discharge and urgent legislation.

On the below proposals: Could services let us know how much remote decision making is possible within the current rules (treaties, Members Statute, rules of procedure)? In case changes would be necessary, could you indicate which these would be? Are there other provisions that need to be taken into account?

For voting procedures, including possible remote voting we considered the following principles:

· MEPs usually vote simultaneously.

· Any procedure must ensure the freedom of the mandate of Members. Article 6(1) of the 1976 Act concerning the election of Members by universal suffrage stipulates that “Members of the European Parliament shall vote on an individual and personal basis. They shall not be bound by any instructions and shall not receive a binding mandate.”

· Voting usually takes place in sequence. Members and groups define red lines and decide at least the final vote in reaction to how much such red lines are kept or not.

· Secrecy of voting in online voting is difficult to guarantee. For elections of a Parliament, this disqualifies electronic voting in many countries. Parliament’s rules of procedure allow for secret voting according to Rule 180a (2) “Voting shall also be by secret ballot if this is requested by Members or a political group or groups reaching at least the high threshold.” Yet, the use of secret votes outside appointments is unusual. The use of Roll Call Votes (RCV) is commonplace. Therefore, as long as a sufficiently broad majority can agree, remote voting could be done without secrecy of the vote.

· Security: the security of all voting related operations must be guaranteed.

We would like to ask services to assess legal or practical obstacles to the process for remote voting outlined below:

In the short term and with a focus on urgent committee votes, it could be considered to take decisions and votes by sending voting lists by e-mail to the secretariat while results would be verified in a second step by a telephone call.

· Each Member sends, within a time window decided by the chair, their personal voting list to the secretariat by email.

· The Secretariat counts the result of the votes and sends the draft results back to Members for confirmation.

· The Secretariat calls MEPs to confirm the result.

· Once all Members confirmed, the Secretariat communicates the final result of the vote.

· Separating packages of paragraphs and the final vote could allow Members to vote in sequence, alternatively, voting lists could indicate key votes and their effect on the final vote.

In the longer term, with a focus on Plenary votes, the software used to sign amendments electronically could be adapted.

· Tokens are already distributed by ITEC to verify the identity of Members.

· The chair could communicate to all MEPs via telephone conference and live stream when votes are opened and closed.

All use of exceptional procedures need to be limited to the special circumstances for which they are designed. We recommend to base any use of exceptional procedures on a definition of what constitutes the special circumstances.

While considering the flexibility in the use of Parliament’s Rules of Procedure, we believe that even in exceptional cases, we have the duty to ensure legal clarity and to respect the democratic standards of the House. We recommend starting a reflection inside the Rules of Procedure Working Group to integrate the possibility of remote operation in case of force majeure and other emergencies.

We are looking forward to the considerations of services and are ready to get back on this matter, if not in person, then by phone or tools provided by the Parliament.

With many thanks and kind regards,

Pascal Durand, Daniel Freund and Helmut Scholz