A clear response that exonerates Dimitris Avramopoulos from any legal troubles or violations of rules in the case of the NGO “Fight Impunity,” the European Commission provided a full clarification of its position.
To fully clarify the position of Brussels regarding the participation of Dimitris Avramopoulos in the honorary committee of Pier Antonio Panzeri’s NGO, the spokesperson for the European Commission, in response to questions from reporters.
The Commission spokesperson emphasized that the audit conducted by the services revealed no irregularities. As he specifically noted, during the review of the case in 2022, no evidence whatsoever was found of a violation of the conditions set forth in the relevant decision of the College of Commissioners, which had given the “green light” for the former Commissioner’s participation in the organization in question.
“During our review of the case in 2022, we found no evidence of a breach of the conditions set out in the relevant decision of the College of Commissioners,” replied the Commission spokesperson in response to journalists’ questions regarding the involvement of Dimitris Avramopoulos in Pantseri’s NGO. He then added that “we have not received any request to lift the former Commissioner’s immunity. Nor, to my knowledge, have we received any request from him for legal assistance in connection with this case,” a Commission spokesperson stated.
In detail:
QUESTION
Regarding the European arrest warrant for former Commissioner Dimitris Avramopoulos, I understand that you have not yet received a request to waive his immunity.
However, he himself also told the News Agency that he ignored a summons from the Belgian authorities to testify a little over six months ago, as he is a member of the Hellenic Parliament and, as a former Commissioner, expected the European Commission to represent him in such legal proceedings in Belgium.
Could something like this actually happen?
And, if so, have you received a request to that effect from him? How does this apply to former members of the College of Commissioners, and what are they entitled to expect?
ANSWER
All right, there are quite a few questions here.
First of all, let me say that we have seen the media reports on this matter. However, given that this is an ongoing criminal investigation being conducted by the Belgian authorities, we have no specific comment to make.
In fact, we have not received any request to lift the former Commissioner’s immunity. Nor, to my knowledge, have we received any request from him for legal assistance in connection with this case.
It may be worth recalling that, at that time, we had approved what we call “post-mandate activity” for the Commissioner.
As you know, during the two years following the departure of members of the College of Commissioners, they are required to seek authorization from the Commission for any professional activity they intend to undertake after the end of their term.
In this context, we consulted, as is customary, the Independent Ethics Committee, which examined the matter.
The Ethics Committee issued its opinion, which is publicly available. Based on this opinion, the College of Commissioners collectively reviewed the matter and adopted a decision approving the specific activity.
This specific activity is one issue, and its approval is another. Allegations of possible inappropriate behavior are a separate matter.
QUESTION
I would like to follow up on Irena’s question.
First, will there be an investigation into Qatargate within the European Commission, or is the case considered definitively closed as far as the Commission is concerned?
And, second, do you believe that the arrest warrant against the former Commissioner, who had been granted permission to participate in that particular NGO, undermines the Commission’s credibility or not?
Thank you.
ANSWER
As provided for in the Code of Conduct, when members of the College of Commissioners leave the Commission, they have the right to consider taking up professional activities.
However, as I mentioned, during the first two years following their departure, they are required to ask the Commission to verify whether the planned activity is compatible with Article 245 of the Treaty.
This is our obligation. As a matter of standard practice, we always examine such issues, and that is precisely what we did in this specific case, following consultation with the Independent Ethics Committee, which made its opinion public.
The College of Commissioners adopted a decision on the matter, which was accompanied by certain reservations and specific conditions.
This decision is also publicly available, and anyone can view the conditions that the former Commissioner was required to comply with, particularly during the two-year period following his departure.
As you may recall, in 2022 we revisited the matter to determine whether there were any indications of a breach of these conditions. We also contacted him directly to request clarification.
We informed you at that time of our position, and upon reviewing the case in 2022, we found no evidence of a violation of the conditions set forth in the relevant decision of the College of Commissioners.
