The Current Lobbying Regulation in the European Union and its Future Development Thesis for LLM International and European Public Law Student’s name… [625894]

TILBURG UNIVERSITY
The Current Lobbying Regulation in the European
Union and its Future Development
Thesis for LLM International and European Public Law

Student’s name Lina Jasmontaite
ANR 163728
Supervisor Dr. Lars Hoffmann

Table of Contents

Abstract 1
Introduction 2

CHAPTER I
LOBBYING FROM THE COMPARATIVE VIEW PERSPECTIVE
Chapter overview 4
The Northern America: USA and Canada 5
USA 5
Canada 7
Eastern European Countries: Lithuania, Poland and Hungary 9
Lithuania 9
Poland 10
Hungary 11
Western European Countries: Germany and Great Britain 11
Germany 11
Great Britain 12
Comparison 13
Conclusion 14

CHAPTER II
THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK OF LOBBYING
Chapter overview 16
Coverage of lobbying in the EU 16
The definition of ‘lobbying’ and ‘lobbyist’ in the context of the European Union 17
The present legal framework for lobbying 18
What does happen when lobbying comes to practise? 22
Lobbying in the Commission 22
Lobbying in the European Parliament 24
Lobbying in the Council 25
Lobbying in the European Court of Justi ce 26
Lobbying in the consultative bodies 27

The voluntary register 27
Conclusion 29

CHAPTER III
IS LOBBYING A POLITICALLY SENSITIVE TOPIC FOR THE EU?
Chapter overview 30
Introduction to lobbying as a policy area 30
The position of the M ember States 31
The structure of the European institutions 32
Fragmen tation of interests 33
Human factor 34
The connotation of lobbying 35
Interest representatives versus lobbyists 37
Conclusion 37

CHAPTER IV
WHAT CAN THE EUROPEAN UNION LEARN FROM THE LOBBYING PRACTICES
PRESENT IN OTHER COUNTRIES?
Chapter overview 38
Why and what lessons should the EU learn from others? 38
What lessons and from whom sould the EU take? 39
Is the ‘copy -paste’ approach applicable in the case of the EU? 41
What regulation possibilities d oes the EU have? 42
Conclusion 43
Recommendations 44

Appendix 1: The comparison of different approaches to lobbying 45
Bibliography 46

1/48 Abstract
The main topic of the thesis is the regulation of lobbying on the European level. In
particular, the thesis is aimed at answering the question ‘to what extent lobbying should
be regulated’. The author believes in the importance of taking lessons f rom the e xisting
practic e. Therefore, the relevant legislation from seven countries (US A, Canada,
Lithuania, Poland, Hungary, Germany and Great Britain) is compared and analyzed.
Furthermore, the thesis depicts the present legal framework in which lobbying at the
Europea n Union works and identifies its shortcomings . The thesis is interdisciplinary,
since it includes both legal and political aspects, seeking to find balance between two
different but closely related disciplines. The conclusion contains an overview of the
analytical results on which future lobbying regulation at the EU level c ould be modelled.
Based on this, recommendations for the future development of the lobbying regulation
are proposed.

2/48 Introduction
Currently lobbying is a n important issue o n the European agenda. I t directly
relates the principle of transparency, which is named as a priority principle in the
Commission’s White Paper on Good Governance and it is the core on which the Strategy
of Better regulation is build . Statistically , dependi ng on the policy area , from 30 up to 60
percent of national legislation in the Member States is ‘made’ on the European level.1
However, there is no comprehensive lobbying regulation, yet it plays an essential role in
the European policy -making process. Therefore, the discussion on lobbying, its merits
and the need for the legislative regulation has long been a major concern at the national
and international level. Nevertheless , it is hard to set a coherent fra mework because
most of the time presented positions d iffer. The legislators seek stricter regulation in
order to enhance transparency in their actions, whereas private actors seek openness
and better access to the legislative institutions.

Based on this, the main challenge of this the sis is to analyse the current state of
lobby ing related regulation and to provide an answer t o the question to what extent
does the EU need to set up a legal framework for it and what s hould this framework look
like. In order to answer the centra l question , it is divided in to the following sub-
questions :
I. How are the definitions of lobbying and lobbying activities perceived in the
countries , which have passed regulation on lobbying?
II. What is the current legal framework of lobbying in the EU and how doe s it work
via the European institutions?
III. Why is lobbying a politically sensitive topic?
IV. What lessons could the EU learn from existing practic es?

Every sub -question is the core question for the respective chapter . Therefore, t he
thesis consists of four chapters and each of them elaborates on a specific topic. Although
they can be seen as separate parts, it is necessary to discuss all of them in order to
provide answers to the central questions of the thesis.
The first chapter analyzes the definition s of a ‘lobbyist ’ and ‘lobbying activities ’.
The analysis is based on the method of comparative law and therefore the author looks

1 W. Dinan, S. and E. Wesselius, ‘Brussels – a lobbying paradise’ ( Alter -EU Bursting the Brussels Bubble 2010), P.23.

3/48 at the legislation regarding lobbying activities in diffe rent countries. This short case
stud y will focus on the USA, Canada, Lithuan ia, Poland, Hungary, Germany and Great
Britain . This comparative analysis will help to depict the existing definition and
practices concerning lobbying regulation. In doing this, the chapter aims at revealing the
framework in which the se definitions work.
The second chapter covers three key points. First, the current legal basis for the
lobbying activities at the EU level is described . Then the lobbying of the main European
actors is illustrated . Although this part has a wide scope as it seeks to mention all major
players on the European level, it focuses especially on the European Commissi on, the
European Parliament and the Council . The third key issue of the chapter is the EU’s
voluntary interest representation register . Due to its recent launch in 2008 , only one
annual report regarding it s evaluation is examined.
The third chapter includes the approach towards lobbying from a political
science perspective. The chapter will provide analytical reasons for the hypothetical
statement that 'lobbying' might b e a politically sensitive topic for the Member States. In
addition to this, the chapter weigh s this sensitivity with the importance and benefit of
lobbying as part of the policy -making process
The fourth and the final chapter will point out the lessons that the EU could learn
from the existing lobbying regulation. Therefore, the findings of other chapter s are used
to provide answers to the second part of the central questions of the thesis. The author
provide s possible solutions to the present situation, concluding with personal
recommendation regarding future regula tion of lobbying at the EU level .

4/48 CHAPTER I
LOBBYING FROM THE COMPARATIVE VIEW PERSPECTIVE

Chapter overview
The central challenge of this chapter is to depict and define concepts of ‘lob byist’
and ‘lobbying’. Beyond a doubt, the clear definitions of the main thesis objects have
significant importance for research development regarding the thesis. Therefore, the
chapter introduces definitions, which are found in the legal acts of several countries,
namely the United States of America, Canada, Lithuania, Poland, Germany and Great
Britain. Based on the similarities and differences of the listed countr ies, three groups can
be established, the Northern American, Eastern European, and Western European. The
reasoning behind the choice of these countries is well founded . Although countries are
located in different part s of the world, they stand out compared to the other countries,
because they have chosen to regulate lobbying.
The chapter consists of three parts. In the first part , the regulation on lobbying is
defined in each of the countries . In particular, the chapter elaborates more on the
definitions i n existing legislation. The emphasis is put on the legal definitions because
they are formalized legal language on which syllogism, legal reasoning and practise c an
be built .2 The second part follows with a comprehensive comparison. In the conclusion
part the self -sufficient definition is provided.
The comparative method is valuable in this chapter because it shows that the
same words might have different meaning in different legal systems.3 Moreover, the
concept of legal tool can be understood better by s crutinizing and analysing it in
different legal arrangements.4 Nonetheless, comparative view leads to the development
of understanding of what is essential for a legal instrument to operate and what is not.
Above all, the chapter is aimed at understanding a present approach towards
lobby ing in the developed world. The understanding of the existing approach is essential

2 S.Urbina, Reason, Democracy, Society: A Study on the basis of legal thinking (Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1996) P.52.
3T. Koopmans Courts and Political Institutions: A Comparative View (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2003)P.4.
4 T. Koopmans Courts and Political Institutions: A Comparative View (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2003)P.5.

5/48 to the EU, since it seeks to regulate lobbying in the most beneficial way for all parties
involved.

The Northern America: USA and Canada
USA
The first country, which provided an explicit regulation on lobbying, was the USA,
although the linguistic roots of lobbying are found in Great Britain.5 The legal scholars as
well as lobbyists explain that the concept of lobbying derives from the righ t to petition.
The right to the petition was established as the part of the first amendments to the USA
Constitution in 1789, which are better known under the name of The Bill of Rights.6
Since then the concept of lobbying was officially used by the Congress in its documents.
Initially, the word lobbyist was not used; other alternatives sought to be more popular,
such as legal representative, agent and officer of public relation. Nevertheless, the
lobbyist concept rooted in the 1830’s. The Congress a ccepted lobbying practise and
realised its contribution to the legislation. In order to maintain transparency in lobbying
activities it set up a mandatory requirement for registration in 1876.
However, first lobbying regulation was developed on the state level. In the 1890’s
Massachusetts launched the first anti -lobbying act. After this initiative, the notio n to
regulate lobbying spread to other states. Despite the regulation at state level and
requirements in the secondary legislation , the first federal a ct regarding lobbying
regulation was launched only in 1946.
This legal act was warmly greeted by lobbyists, interest groups, politicians and
members of society, because the concepts of lobbyist and lobbying were clarified.
Consequently, a framework for lob bying on the federal level was created. Although it
was the first attempt in the world to regulate lobbying, it should be recognized as a
success because it was used as an example in other countries. Obviously, acts and
practic es at states’ level contribut ed to a successful implementation and performance of
the federal act regarding lobbying. The act was not changed for a -half-century. This
stability proves that this act was a big step forward and covered all aspects of lobbying
in detail . Nevertheless , the act was revised in 1995.

5 The corridor or hall that is open to public and used for people to meet and talk to Members of Parliament of
Parliament in middle of XVI Century (according the O xford Dictionary, 2008).
6 The official website on the USA Constitution. Links: http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am1.html ,

Ratification of Constitutional Amendments – The U.S. Constitution Online – USConstitution.net

6/48 Although the new regulation was not innovative and did not introduce new
procedures, it clarified the old ones in the present context. Therefore, the Secretary of
the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives received r esponsibility for
registration procedures. Moreover, the penalties for infringements of the obligatory
requirements became stricter; the imprisonment was added as a form of punishment.
Before the revision, it included only financial fines and suspension of activities.
The Lobbyist Regulation Act defined lobbying as an attempt to influence any
official action , which is made on the legislative or executive branches, which include the
government and legislative committees. Whereas the concept of lobbyist was d esired to
mean ‘any individual who is compensated for the specific purpose of lobbying; is
designated by an interest group or organization to represent it on a substantial or
regular basis for the purpose of lobbying; or in the course of his employment is engaged
in lobbying on a substantial or regular basis’.7 After analysing the above -mentioned
definition , some features can be excluded and a simplified definition can be shaped.
Therefore, the lobbyist is a person, who represents and acts on the behalf of client’s
interests and gets remuneration for his job.
It is worth noting that in the initial Lobbying Act of 1946, in addition to the
definition of a lobbyist, follows an ex plicit paragraph explaining who is not considered
as a lobbyist. It included perso ns, who act in their own interest; whose actions are part
of their ‘official capacity’; who are members of legislator or members of staff working for
the official; who are experts providing research information; and the ones who work in
any media service.8 The fact that this notion is not found in the revised act regarding
lobbying might imply both, that this information has become a common sense, or that
the definition of lobbyist is much broader.
However, with the economic and technological development t he need to update
the document became self -evident. Therefore , the Lobbying Disclosure Act was la unched
in 1995. This act gave birth to the innovative and very explicit definition. According to
its provisions, a lobbyist is ‘any individual who is employed or retained by a client for
financial or other compensation for services that include more than one lobbying
contact, other than an individual whose lobbying activities constitute less than 20
percent of the time engaged in the services provided by such individual to that client

7 USA. Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995, Section 3, Paragraph 10
8 USA. Lobbyist Regulation Act 1946 http://www.sos.state.nm.us/pdf/lra2.pdf

7/48 over a six month period’. 9 As it appears, the new definition concentrates on lobbying as
communication and even sets a minimum number of required contacts.
Within the revised act, the legislator provides a wide scope for lobbying activities.
It is interesting to investigate the way in which it is done. It is surprising that the
legislator gives a short definition of lobbying activities, rather than giving ext ensive list
of actions, which might be perceived as lobbying activities. Therefore, the definition
includes all research works, contacting and networking regarding the represented
interest.10 Nevertheless, the legislator elaborates on the concept of ‘lobbyi ng contact’.
This might mean that the legislator attempts to guide the lobbyist in understanding,
whether a contact is considered as a lobbying contact.
In addition to this complementary act , there is guidance on Lobbying Disclosure
Act, which is updated annually. This guidance derives from the Section 6 in the Lobbying
Disclosure Act. In particular , it is aimed to have two purposes. First, it has to ‘provide
guidance and assistance on the registration and reporting requirements of [Lobbying
Disclosure] Ac t and develop common standards, rules and procedures for compliance
with [Lobbying Disclosure] Act’. Second, the guidance is endeavouring to maintain the
interpretation of legal act, which is accurate and up -to-date.11

Canada
Beyond a doubt , Canada has ve ry close economic and political links with United
States. Canada’s executive branch consulted the government of the USA for the adoption
of lobbying regulation.12 However, the legal definition of lobbying in Canada differs from
the one in the USA.
The publ ic authorities of Canada established a definition of lobbying in the
Lobbyists Registration Act. Although this act was adopted in 1985, it came into force
only in 1989. The significance of this document is that it not only defined the lobbying
activities, but also, established the types of lobbyists. This was a step ahead of all the
other countries. Nevertheless, the act was updated with several amendments in 1996.
The most important input was the inclusion of the Code of Conduct. Since the lobbying

9 USA. Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995, Section 3, Paragraph 7 .
10 USA. Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995, Section 3, Paragraph 7 .
11 USA. Lobbying Disclosure Act Guidance. Section 1. Link:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/resources/pdf/S1guidance.pdf
12 OECD, ‘Lobbyists, Governments and Public Trust: Building a Legislative Framework for Enhancing Transparency
and Accountability’ (Report 2008).

8/48 activities are developing in parallel with technological and economic improvement, the
Canad ian authorities seem to keep needs up-to-date and therefore, try to catc h up with
every change. The latest amendments were done in July 2008. They were aimed at
enhancing transparency and accountability of lobbyists, and also, it foresees mutual
obligations for lobbyists and public officers.13
In its preamble it confirms that there is a ‘free and public access’ to the
government and that lobbying is a legitimate acti vity.14 The Lobbying act establishes
three types of lobbyists, namely consultant lobbyists, in -house lobbyists for corporation
and in -house lobbyist for organisations. Consultant lobbyist is a person, who is lobbying
on a particular matter as a onetime task . He acts in the interest of his client.15 In addition
to this, he is not required to be a professional lobbyist, as long as he fulfils the client’s
requirements. The main difference between the in -house l obbyist for a corporation and
in-house lobbyist for an organisation is that the firs t one represents a profit -oriented
entity and its interests and the other one has the responsibility to act on the behalf of a
non -profit organisation. Both of them are persons, who are in permanent employment
relation with the entities. Finally, both of these types of lobbyists are obliged to be
officially registered.16
Finally , it should be noted that there is no distinctive definition of lobbying
activities, although the act sets exemptions and exceptions , which are not perceived as
lobbying. This leads to a statement that the legislator’s strategy is better to depict
actions , which are not considered as lobbying than describing activities which are seen
as lobbying.

13Canada. Lobbying Act of 2008.
14 Canada. Lobbying Act 2008. Link: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/L -12.4/page -1.html
15 Canada. Lobbying Act 2008. Link: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/L -12.4/page -3.html#anchorbo -ga:s_5 -gb:s_5
16Canada. Lobbying Act 2008. Link: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/L -12.4/page -3.html#anchorbo -ga:s_5 -gb:s_7 ;
http://www.ocl -cal.gc.ca/eic/site/lobbyist -lobbyiste1.nsf/vwapj/Info_booklet_Eng.pdf/$FILE/Info_book let_Eng.pdf
P.2.

9/48 Eastern European Countries: Lithuania, Poland and Hungary

The Eastern European Countries can be categorised in many different a spects:
geographical, political and economic. The term ‘Eastern European Countries’ in the
thesis includes countries, which are members of the EU as of 2004. The following
parag raphs analyse the existing regulation on lobbying in Lithuania, Poland and
Hungary.

Lithuania
Lithuania is a Baltic State, which has a relatively novel legislation base. Therefore,
the areas of regulation are still growi ng by following the best practic es.
The Parliament launched an act regarding lobbying regulation, namely the Act of
Lobbying Activities in 2000. The transition period was one year. It was beneficial for
both, the public authorities, which were responsible for the implementation matters an d
for members of the society, who received a possibility to become a lobbyist or to use
services of lobbyists. The legal and political science scholars were first to criticise this
act due to its vague definitions. As a direct consequence of the negative r eaction, the
Parliament adopted a new legal act in 2003. However, the initial name of the act was not
changed.
The second act in comparison to the first one has a wider scope but
straightforward definitions . The present definition of lobbying includes natu ral and legal
persons whereas previous definition included natural persons, entities, organisations
and agencies.17 This change reflects the position of legal entities, which felt mistreated
and left out from the possibility to lobby. However, this change has to be evaluated
critically. The emphasis should be put on the fact that lobbying is done by persons.
The vital matter in order to operate as a lobbyist is the obligatory registration
procedure . The Chief Offi cial Ethics Commission is responsible for its transparency .18
The current act covers only lobbying activities and not all actions made by lobbyists.
This alteration might be seen as a realization of wrongful understanding of lobbyist. In
addition to this, w hile def ining lobbying activities it is acknowledged that activities

17 Lithuania. Law on Lobbying Activities. No. VIII -1749 of 27 June 2000. Link:
http://www3.lrs.lt/pls/inter3/dokpaieska.showdoc_l?p_id=208884 .
18 Lithuania. Law on Lobbying Activities. No. VIII -1749 of 27 June 2000/Revised. Article 2, paragraph 2.

10/48 might be both, paid or unpaid, and these activities are aimed to influence legislation
process on the behalf of the client.19 Furthermore, the national authorities have to
ensure legal acc ess to the state officials and officers.20
However, the necessity of this act can be doubted. According to the annual
reports, there were only six active lobbyists out of twenty officially registered in 2008.21
At the present , there are twenty -one officiall y registered lobbyists in Lithuania. 22

Poland
Poland is one of the most politically active and influential countries on the
European level. Therefore, its attempt to regulate lobbying activities received
international attention and was evaluated as one of the best examples by the OECD.

Although the first initiatives to adopt the regulation regarding lobbying activities
emerged in 2003, it was launched only after the accession to the EU. This document is
known under the name of Act on Legislative and Regul atory Lobbying.23 The name of the
act implies that it is aimed at enhancing transparency during the legislative procedures.
According to the document, lobbying is understood as ‘any legal action designed to
influence the legislative or regulatory actions of a Public Authority’.24 This act makes a
distinctio n between two types of lobbying: lobbying in particular and professional
lobbying. The last one is defined as ‘any paid activity carried out for or on the behalf of a
third party with a view to ensuring tha t their interests are fully reflected in legislation or
regulation proposed or pending’.25 Apparently, the legislator puts emphasis on the
professional lobbying activities. This attitude has dual consequences. First , it ensures
that lobbying is performed on a professional level. Second , this distinction has a negative
effect on lobbying activities organised by the non -governmental organisations, which
usually cannot afford hiring a professional lobbyist. Nonetheless, the specificity of this

19 Lithuania. Law on Lobbying Activities. No. VIII -1749 of 27 June 2000/Revised. Article 2, paragraph 3.
20 Lithuania. Law on Lobbying Activities. No. VIII -1749 of 27 June 20 00/Revised. Article 4, paragraph 3.
21 Information from the website on the Chief Official Ethics Commission. Link:
http://www.vtek.lt/vtek/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=372&Itemid=42
22 Information from the website on the Chief Official Ethics Commission. Link:
http://www.vtek.lt/vtek/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=371&Itemid=41
23 Translation by OECD,‘ Lobbyists, Governments and Public Trust: Building Legislative Framework for Enhancing
Transparency and Accountability in Lobbying‘( Report 2008).
24 Poland. Act of 7 July 2005 on legislative and regulatory lobbying. Article 2.
25Poland. Act of 7 July 2005 on legislative and regulatory lobbying. Article 2.

11/48 act is the establ ishment of public hearing procedure, in which lobbyists are welcome to
participate.

Hungary
Lobbying regulation in Hungary was enacted in 2006. It has to be read together
with the Government Decree on the Implementation. Therefore, it seems that this
regu lation is explicit and meticulous.
The act in the beginning focuses on two points. First, it distinguishes the right to
petition from the right to lobby, and then states that the act is aimed at controlling the
attempts to influence legislative or adminis trative actions.26
The definitions of lobbying and lobbying activities are not more precise or more
detailed in comparison with other Eastern European Countries, although the act is
relatively new. Therefore, the definition of lobbyist means any person, wh o performs
lobbying tasks and is registered as lobbyist.27 Lobbying activity is described as ‘any
activity or conduct aiming to influence executive decisions or to fostering interests
under a commercial contract, as a business activity for economic consideration’.28
Nonetheless, this act is innovative in comparison to the Lithuani an and Polish
ones because it includes the Code of Ethics.

Western European Countries: Germany and Great Britain
The following paragraphs analyse the approach towards lobbying in two Western
European countries, namely Germany and Great Britain. The countries have been chosen
due to several reasons. First, countries operate in different legal systems. Second , in both
countries the legislative machine is based on two parliamentary houses.

Germany
Although Germany has a long practise of group involvement in the
legislation process,29 it is still among a large number of European countries , which do

26 Hungary Act XLIX of 2006 on Lobbying Activities. Section 1.
27 Hungary Act XLIX of 2006 on Lobbying Activities. Section 5, paragraph a.
28 Hungary Act XLIX of 2006 on Lobbying Activities. Section 5, paragraph c.
29 The Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, ‘The Regulation of Lobbyists in Canada , the
USA, the EU institutions, and Germany’(Report 2006) P. 52.

12/48 not have specific regulation on lobbying. However, there is a reference t o the lobbying
activities in Annex 2 of the Bundestag ’s Rules of Procedure s. Germany is a bicameral
parliamentary system, yet only the lower house, which is directly elected, requires the
interest groups to register in order to consult legi slator at the stage of drafting.30
However, registration is not valuable , since it is not the most important criteria to
participate in the discussion. The Bundestag can invite any interest group regarding the
legislation matter to participate and give opin ion ad hoc. The Bundestag admits that
‘consulting with interest groups is very important when it comes to drafting
legislation’ ,31 because t hey provide specific knowledge regarding the field in question .
Nevertheless , lobbying in Germany is understood in a very limited context as an
interest representation of associations of trade and industry. Therefore, mostly the
interests and opinions of industrial sector are represented.

Great Britain
It is valuable to look at the approach towards lobbying in the United Kingdom
because it is different from the above -mentioned ones. This country does not have any
specific regulation concerning lobbyists and their activities.32 Nonetheless, lobbying is
regulated. There is a sectio n regarding lobbying activities in the Code of Conduct for the
members of the Parliament.33 Therefore, attitude towards lobbying appears to be
different, since the regulation puts responsibility on the ones who are lobbied.
Therefore, ‘in the UK lobbying is a very difficult profession to research because
(by its very nature) it is a relatively quiet and discreet’.34 However, the Parliament is the
core lobbying place . According to the information available on the official Parliament’s
website, there is no limi tation or criteria for the one who want s to lobby. ‘Anyone can
lobby a member of the Parliament (lower house) or Lord (upper house)’.35 The

30 A Report for the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, ‘The Regulation of Lobbyists in
Canada, the USA, the EU institutions, and Germany’ P. 53.
31 The Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, ‘The Regulation of Lobbyists in Canada, the
USA, the EU institutions, and Germany’ (Report 2006) P. 53.
32M. Malone , ‘Regulation of Lobbyists in Developed Coun tries, Current Rules and Practi ces’(The I nstitute of Public
Administration, Dublin, 2003 ) P. 18.
33M. Malone , ‘Regulation of Lobbyists in Developed Countries, Current Rul es and Practic es’(The I nstitute of Public
Administration, Dublin, 2003 ) P.19.
34 C. P. Harris, ‘Lobbying and Public Aff airs in the UK: The Relationship to Political Marketing’( Doctoral Thesis,
Manchester Metropolitan University 1999). Abstract.
35 The official website of the UK Parliament . Link: http://www.parliament.uk/get -involved/have -your -say/lobbying/

13/48 recognition of lobbying in both houses implies a wider approach towards lobbying
compar ed to the German practic e.
Moreover, t he Parliament names possible examples of the lobbyists ‘ individual
members of the public, groups of constituents , local businesses organised pressure
groups/campaigners , commercial organisations‘.36 This list is not a finite one. Although,
the lo bbyists are not limited to the methods , which they can use in order to influence
legislation, they are prohibited from brib ing the legislative branch.
This approach towards lobbying sets a framework with a minimum regulation.
Nonetheless, it should receiv e a positive evaluation because the legislative branch caries
responsibility for the lobbying procedures. Although, this requires more effort from the
legislators, it brings public trust to the legislation procedure.

Comparison
Apparently, every country has a specific regulation towards lobbying. The
analysis of legal acts proves the OECD statement that there is no single lobbying
definition.37 The analysis also confirms a rule that the same words have different
meaning in different legal systems.38
It is evident that different countries come up with different descriptions that lead
to the popular comparative law explanation. According to it, count ries have chosen the
most appropriate society approaches towards the lobbying regulation. Certainly, no one
can better reflect the needs of a society than the legislator, who knows the particular
internal problems.
It is an ambitious task to compare all three groups at once because big differences
in regulation are found among every legal system. Nonetheless, the rules of lobbying in
the Northern American countries can be evaluated as very strict and precise ones.
Restrictions and penalties stress the attitude that transparent lobbying activities are
important part of democratic governance. The Eastern European cou ntries establish
common frameworks for lobbying, which provide possibilities for lobbyists to perform a
wide range of activities. Nonetheless, some attitudes have to be stressed out.

36 The official website of the UK Parliament . Link: http://www.parliament.uk/get -involved/have -your -say/lobbying/
37 OECD, ‘Lobbyists, Governments and Public Trust: Building a Legislative Framework for Enhancing Transparency
and Accountability’ (Report 2008). P. 15.
38 T.Koopmans Courts and Political Institutions: Comparative view (Cambridge University Press: 2003) P.4.

14/48 According to the Lithuanian regulation, all state officials can be lobbi ed and have
to ensure access to them. Hungarian regulation is significant in comparison to the
European lobbying regulations due to being the first one to include the provisions
regarding lobbying ethics in the act. The last group, which consists of two We stern
European countries, namely Germany and the United Kingdom, could be called a group
of ‘whatever works’. Germany has a provision in the secondary legislation, whereas UK
has chosen to regulate the ones, who are lobbied.
Nevertheless, several common f eatures can be distinguished. First of all, a
lobbyist is considered to be a natural person, though in Lithuania it might be a physical
person, or in other words an entity. In all cases , a lobbyist acts on the behalf of clients’
interest. In addition to th at, they receive remuneration for their job. Generally, a lobbyist
seeks to influence the adoption of legislation. The most important similarity is that in all
countries lobbyists stand as an essential link between the interest groups and the public
author ities.
However, there are many differences regarding definition and regulation of
lobbying. Differences might be implied by the purposes , which they aim to achieve.
While the American countries seek disclosure of the relationship between the officials
and the lobbyist s, the European countries seek to bring the legislation closer to the
interest groups. Therefore, the European lobbyists seek to be heard rather than to
influence legislation . There is a clear trend in the Northern American countries to have
clear and distinctive definitions, whereas Eastern European countries have uncertain
definitions. The most interesting finding is that the countries, distinguish different types
of lobbyist, though the necessity f or doing so might be questioned , since the distinct
types have to obey the same regulation.

Conclusion
Defining lobbying is an ambitious task due to the existing different frameworks in
every country. Nevertheless, analysis reveals already existing practic es, from which the
European Union could learn.
In fact , most of the analys ed legal acts start with legal definitions . Although
legislators seek the clarity in the scope of it s wordings in order to ensure proper

15/48 implementation, the definitions tend to be very wide. Despite the existing similarit ies,
the comparisons are hard to make, because the regulations are country specific .
In order to bring clarity, the comparative table is presented in Appendix 1 . The
table shows that in order to compare the lobbying legislation it is not enough to consider
only the definition of lobbying. The common framework has to be seen as coherent with
the legal and political system of a particular country and most importantly follow the
aims of legislation.
On the basis of this theoretical part , the further research is be built. The following
chapters will refer to already analysed lobbying regulations. The third chapter adds
information regarding lobbying connotation in Lithuania, Poland and Germany.

16/48 CHAPTER II
THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK OF LOBBYING

Chapter overview
This chapter focuses on the present legal basis and practic es of lobbying in the
European institutions. It also elaborates on the voluntary interest representation
register, which is already running. The chapter starts with a brief introduction to the
lobbying in the EU, and then depicts its present legal framework. After this, the second
part follows, which examines lobbying of the main European actors, namely the
Commission, the Parliament, the Council, the European Council, the European Court of
Justice, the European Social and Economic Committee and Committee of the Regions.
However, due to the limits o f the thesis, the lobbying process is analys ed particular ly in
the Commission, the European Parliament, and the Council. The European Social and
Econo mic Committee and Committee of Regions are put in the group of consultative
bodies. The final section of the chapter examines the existing register system and
alternative solutions to improve it.

Coverage of lobbying in the EU
The EU is the sui generis legal order with a democratic tradition, which it
inherited from its Member States. Therefore, the EU follows democratic political systems
and acknowledges lobbying as an important part of its legislation process.39
Initially, lobb ying started as a 'diplomatic lobbying' with some representative
officers and trade unions in the 1970's. The main lobbyists were country delegates. The
Council was the most influential authority, since it was the body responsible for both
making decisions and representing national interests. Neverthe less, the Commission h as
been the most lobbied body, since according to Article 289 of the Treaty on Functioning
of The European Union (TFEU ) it has the right to initiate the legislation. The first
impetus for the growth in number of lobbyists occurred in 1979 with the first direct
election of the representatives to the European Parliament, although the Parliament role
did not increase signific antly. However, the real change in lobbying industry was
brought by the Single European Act (SEA), which was adopted in 1986 with the purpose

39 European Parliament, ‘Lobbying in the European Union: current rules and practices’ (Constitutional Affairs:
Working Paper 2003). P.1

17/48 of completing the single market. With the introduction of the co -decision and
strengthened consultation procedure, the SEA made some structural changes in the
legislation process and shifted powers among the EU institutions. The Treaty of
Maastricht (ToM) was a step forward , because it introduced an approach that decisions
should be taken as closely to persons as poss ible in compliance with principles of
subsidiarity and proportionality. These principles led to the growth of regional
representation.40 The Treaty of Amsterdam (ToA) in the annex regarding the
explanation of the above -mentioned principles emphasizes that t he Commission has to
consult as widely as possible during the legislation process. To sum up it can be said that
from 1993 onwards there were two clear tendencies regarding lobbying. The first one
seeks to enhance transparency in the decision making proces s.41 The s econd one makes
a blurred distinction between the industrial and social interest representation.42
Referring to the statistical data, in the decade 1984 -1995 the number of lobbyists
was ste adily increasing every year; almost 200 entities decided to have direct lobbyists
in Brussels.43 The next decade followed with a significant increment and by the end of
2005 this number reached 15 000. The most recent data states that number of lobbyis ts
is fluctuating from 15 000 to 20 000.44 Conversely, to the n umbers mentioned above, the
number of lobbyists, who have registered in the voluntary Register of Interest
Representatives, has only exceeded 2000.45
One might ask why there is such a discrepancy between these numbers. The
following paragraphs examine the l egal basis for lobbying and try to show possible
explanations. However, before that let us have look at the definition of lobbying in the
European Union.

The definition of ‘lobbying’ and ‘lobbyist’ in the context of the European Union
For a long time European Union was struggling with the definition regarding
lobbying. The most explicit definition of ‘lobbying’ and ‘lobbyist’ can be found in the

40 V. Marziali, ‘Lobbying in Brussels: Interest representation and Need for Information’ (Discussion Paper C 155,
2006). P.6.
41 European Parliament, ‘Lobbying in the European Union’ (Constitutional Affairs: Briefing Paper: 2007). P.8.
42 European Parliament, ‘Lobbying in the European Union’ (Constitutional Affairs: Briefing Paper: 2007). P.8.
43 European Parliament, ‘Lobbying in the European Union’ (Constitutional Affairs: Briefing Paper: 2007). P. 5
44The official website of the European Public Health Alliance. Link: http://www.epha.org/a/1842
45 European Commission, European Parliament and the Council, ‘European Transparency Initiative: the Register of
Interest Representatives, one year’ COM(2009) 612. P.9

18/48 Green Paper on European Transparency Initiative, which was adopted in 2006.46
Regarding it, l obbying is understood as any activity, which is aimed to influence
legislation process in the European institutions.47 Whereas lobbyists are defined ‘as
persons … [carrying lobbying activities], working in a variety of organizations such as
public affairs c onsultancies, law firms, NGOs, think tanks, corporate lobby units (‘in –
house representatives’) or trade associations.’48
Nevertheless, it follows from the observation of recent legislation that nowadays
there is a trend to use the concept of ‘legal repres entation’49 or ‘interest
representation’50 instead of lobbying. The reason behind it might be that there are
several Member States in which lobbying as a word has a negative connotation.
Moreover, only some countries have an appropriate legal regulation.51 As far as lobbying
activities are concerned, there are various and contradictory opinions held in the public
debate. On the one hand, there is a view that all these different names cover the same
activities, but on the other hand , the difference between lobb ying and legal
representation can be achieved by separating interests into private and public, and by
defining the final goal of the participation in the legislative procedure. In the framework
of the thesis, the legal representation is intended to represe nt interest, in other words,
to be heard in legislation process, whereas lobbying is aimed to influence in the
decision -making process.

The present legal framework for lobbying
According to Daniela Obradovic , there is no coherent or uniform framework
rega rding lobbying in the EU.52 Nonetheless, there is a w ide range secondary legislation,
which refers to lobbying. In addition to this, it is in the interest of the European
institutions to ‘provide formal rules which structure the relationships with interest
groups’,53 due to the mutual benefit it can bring for both sides.

46 European Commission, Green Paper ‘European Transparency Initiative’ COM(2006) 194.
47 European Comm ission, Green Paper ‘European Transparency Initiative‘, COM (2006)194. P. 5.
48 European Commission, Green Paper ‘European Transparency Initiative‘, COM (2006)194. P. 5.
49 European Parliament ‘Lobbying in the European Union: current rules and practices’ (Constitutional Affairs:
Working Paper April, 2003).
50 European Commission, Green Paper ‘European Transparency Initiative‘(COM 2006) 194.
51 European Parliament, ‘Lobbying in the European Union: current rules and practices’ (Constitutional Affairs:
Working Paper April, 2003).
52 D. Coen, J.Richardson Lobbying the European Union: Institutions, Actors and Issues (Oxford University Press, 2009) P.
298.
53 European Parliament, ‘Lobbying in the European Union Current Rules and Practic es’ (Constitutional Affairs Series
2003) P. 31.

19/48 It would seem that present regu lation regarding lobbying has been directly
affected by the astonishing scandal in Santer’s Commission, which led to the resignation
of all Commissioners. In order to enhance th e public trust in the European i nstitutions,
the program of Better Regulation w as launched. According to J. M. Barroso, better
regulation is the main concern of the EU.54 Therefore, the EU is seeking to improve the
level of democracy while implementing the strategy of Better Regulation ,55 which covers
the approach of good governance an d better law making in the context of globalization.
As part of this strategy, the European institutions adopted a number of acts in the
secondary legislation. The following paragraphs examine the legislation , which is
relevant to the lobbying activities.
In 2001 , The Commission adopted the White Paper on Good Governance. This
document is the core document on which the Strategy of Better Regulation is built. It is
also known for introducing five principles of good governance, namely openness,
participation , accountability, effectiveness and coherence, and the identification of the
main challenge, which is the modernisation of the political process. As for lobbying, it is
important to the extent it talks about the openness and participation in the decision
making process. Regarding the openness, it stresses out that ‘with better involvement
comes greater responsibility’ and that ‘democracy depends on people being able to take
part in public debate’.56 Both of these statements lead to mutual obligations for the civil
society and for the European institutions. Therefore, institutions have to ensure access
to them and to provide members of the society with sufficient information, whereas
members have to contribute to the legislation process while giving opinions o n the issue.
Moreover, the Paper on Good Governance promotes enhancing effectiveness and
transparency in the consultation process. Since this document is a provisional
framework, it was accompanied by several other documents.
Therefore, t he Commission pas sed a ‘Communication Towards a reinforced
culture for dialogue and consultation’ in 2002 . This document is aimed at improving the
consultation procedures via the creation of transparent and coherent framework by
setting the minimum standards for the consultation. However, the se standards are
legally binding towards the interest groups and not towards the Commission. This is due

54 European Commission, Better regulation – simply explained (Luxembourg: o ffice for o fficial Publications of t he
European Communities 2006); P .1.
55 http://eur -lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2003:321:0001:0005:EN:PDF
56 The Commission, White Paper on Good Governance (2001) ; P.13 -16.

20/48 to the reasons that ‘a clear dividing line must be drawn between consultations launched
on the Commission’s own initiative and […] compulsory decision making process
according to the treaties’ . Moreover , the Commission wants to escape a situation in
which it’s ‘proposal could be challenged in the Court on the grounds of alleged lack of
consultation of interested parties’.57 Nevertheless, this communication proposes that ‘all
relevant interests in society should have an opportunity to express their views’.58
However, this does not mean that participants get a vote regarding the subject matter.59
Furthermore, this document refers to the White Paper on Good Governance and
expresses concerns regarding tricky definition of ‘civil society organisation’. It stresses
out that this definition plays an essential role while forming civil groups. Their
‘involvement in the EU policy conception and implementation ’ can be reg arded as new
form of governance , which initially is aimed ‘to enhance efficiency and legitimacy of the
European law ’.60
Since the competence of creating the law is shared among the institutions, the
European Parliament, the Council and the Commission entered into an inter –
institutional agreement on better law making in 2003. This agreement emphasised that
the general coordinatio n of their legislative activities has to be increased. I n addition to
this, greater transparency and ac cessibility have to be ensured at every stage of the
legislation.61 However, the significance of this document is that it not only confirms the
principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, but also, promotes alternative methods of
regulation, namely self – regulation, co -regulation. According to this document, it lays in
the Commission’s responsibility that the alternative forms meet ‘the criteria of
transparency and representativeness of parties involved’. 62 Additionally, the document
states that the pre -legislative consultation, impact assessment and consistency of texts

57 Europe an Commission, ‘Towards a reinforced culture for dialogue and consultation. General principals and
minimum standards for consultation of interested parties by the Commission’(COM 2002). P.10.
58 European Commission, ‘Towards a reinforced culture for dialogu e and consultation. General principals and
minimum standards for consultation of interested parties by the Commission’ (COM, 2002) P.10.
59 European Commission, ‘Towards a reinforced culture for dialogue and consultation. General principals and
minimum standards for consultation of interested parties by the Commission’(COM, 2002) P.5.
60 D. Obradovic and J.M. A. Vizcian, ‘Good Governance requirements concerning the participation of the interest groups
in EU consultations’ (Common Law Review 2006) P. 1050.
61 European Parliament, Council, Commission ‘Inter -institutional agreement on Better Law Making’ ( 2003/C 321),
Article 10 -11.
62 European Parliament, Council, Commission ‘Inter -institutional agreement on Better Law Making’ ( 2003/C 321),
Article 17.

21/48 are the three methods of quality of legislation improvement. Above all, ‘communication
is an essence of policy making’. 63
Despite the consis tent call for transparency in the above -mentioned documents,
the Commission adopted a distinct Green Paper ‘European Transparency Initiate’.
Obviously, this document was aimed at drawing attention to the need for transparency
in legislation process. It ind icates three major issues. The first component, which might
improve transparency, is the creation of ‘a more structured framework for the activities
of interest representatives (lobbyists)’.64 Furthermore, this framework is aimed to ‘open
to outside scrutin y’ the relations between the Commission and the lobbyists.65 The
second concern is the feedback on the application of minimum standards for
consultation, which could lead to the developments in consultation process. The third
aspect seeks to improve Europea n citizens’ common knowledge about the EU and its
budget.66
The follow -up of the green paper ‘European Transparency initiative’ is a proof
that this document has not been a temporary declaration. It describes how the voluntary
register and the code of cond uct should look like and what information should be
covered.
All these documents together provided a basis for another European
Transparency initiative in 2008. It set a framework governing the relations between the
European institutions and interest repr esentatives. Following this document a voluntary
register was established in June 2008. With signing up for this register, the code of
conduct becomes obligatory.
Although the above -mentioned acts have legal effect and influence the behaviour
of lobbyists and the ones, who are lobbied, those rules are not legally binding.67
Nevertheless, it cannot be denied that there is a clear trend in strengthening legal
ground for the lobbying activities.

63 OECD, ‘Lobbyists, Governments and Public Trust: Building Legislative Framework for Enhancing Transparency and
Accountability in Lobbying‘(Report 2008) P.39.
64 European Commission’s Green Paper ‘European Transparency Initiative‘, COM 2006. P. 3.
65 European Co mmission’s Green Paper ‘European Transparency Initiative‘, COM 2006. P. 4.
66 European Commission’s Green Paper ‘European Transparency Initiative‘, COM 2006. P. 12.
67 L.Senden, ‘Soft Law, Self -regulation and Co -regulation in European Law: Where Do They Meet ’, (Vol. 9.1. Electronic
Journal of Comparative Law 2005). P. 23. Link: http://www.ejcl.org .

22/48 What does happen when lobbying comes to practise?
Lobbying becomes more complicated when it comes to practise. It is mostly due
to the unique structure of the European institutions. While being a sui generis legal
system it has very specific legislation procedures, in which institutions are obliged by
the treaties to interact with each other in order to adopt a legal act, for e.g. Article 289 of
the TFEU. Moreover, the competences and responsibilities are shared among the
institutions and have a tendency to be shifted. Moreover, the institutions have highl y
fragmentised inside structures.
However, in order to understand lobbying in practise, first , the multi -layer
decision making process has to be understood. The multi -layer decision -making seeks to
involve the largest possible number of institutions in the legislation in order to ensure
the representativeness of society’s interests. According to W.Lehmann, ‘the European
governance structure has given birth to a multi -layered system of different levels and
sectors of organized and aggregate interest represen tation’.68 Despite being
complicated, multi -layered legislation incr eases public trust and reduces the level of
‘democratic deficit’.
The following paragraphs examine lobbying in each of the institutions. However,
before going into details, it should be em phasised that regarding the institutional set up,
every institution maintains its autonomy and takes care of its own inside rules and
management.69

Lobbying in the Commission
Commission is ‘a hot bed of lobbying activity’.70 This factual situation is directly
linked with its functions and obligations towards the Treaties. The Commission is an
agenda setter, since it has an initiative power regarding the proposals of legislation.71
This implies that Commission is ‘a crucial tar get for private interests’,72 though up to 80

68 D. Coen, J.Richardson, Lobbying the European Union: Institutions, Actors and Issues (Oxford University Press, 2009)
P.66.
69 TFE U Articles 232, 218(2), 240, 253(6).
70 The Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, ‘The Regulation of Lobbyists in Canada, the
USA, the EU institutions, and Germany’ (Report) P. 49.
71 TFEU Article 289.
72 D.Coen, J.Richardson, Lobbying the European Union: Institutions, Actors and Issues (Union Oxford University Press
2009) P. 33.

23/48 percent of its proposals are changed.73 Furthermore, it manages implementation of the
EU policy. In addition to this, it is a ‘watch dog’ of the Treaties and has a right to initiate
infringement procedures. The P rotocol on the Application of Principles of Subsidiarity
and Proportionality requires that ‘before proposing legislative acts, the Commission
shall consult widely’, unless unpredicted circumstances occ ur.74
The structural organisation of the Commission is t remendously fragmentised.75
Work is organ ised in 38 Directorates General, a number76 of committees and expert
groups, which are aimed to present ‘specialized and technical know -how in various
policy sectors in which the Commission is active’77.
However, the Commission remains lobbyists’ favourite target due to the
convenient access to it. The officials in the Commission have lower ranks as in the
Council; therefore, their schedules are not so stretched. Moreover, the Commissioners
realize that the Commission not only has a responsibility to mediate consultation
process, but it has a need to do that, since it needs accurate research regarding the topic
of legislation. ‘Expert knowledge is the critical resource for the Commission’s legislative
work’. Moreover, t he information is valuable for the Commission because it can forward
to other institutions only well -prepared proposals.78 Therefore, it appears that lobbying
is a balanced activity. It takes two and it benefits two as well.79
In the framework provided by t he Commission’s White Paper on Governance a
consultation platform between the Commission and civil society named CONECCS was
established. It is based on voluntary participation. However, the aim of this platform can
be argued due to the uncertain meaning o f the civil society. The White Paper on
Governance regarding this definition refers to the opinion , which was released by the
Economic and Social Committee o n ‘The role and contribution of civil society
organizations in the building of Europe’. According to it, the ‘civil society ’ includes the
social partners; organizations representing social and economic players, which are not

73D. Coen, J.Richardson, Lobbying the European Union: Institutions, Actors and Issues (Oxford University Press, 2009) P.
343.
74 The Protocol on the Application of Principles of Subsidiarity and Proportionality. Article 2.
75 P. Bouwen Chapter 2 ‘The European Commission’ ( D.Coen, J.Richardson ‘Lobbying in the European Union’, Oxford
University Press 2009) P.19.
76 According to the Parliament report on Lobbying in the Euroapean Union: Current rules and practices (P.2) the
number is over 1000.
77 P. Bouwen, Chapter 2 ‘The European Commission’ ( D.Coen, J.Richardson ‘Lobbying in the European Union’, Oxford
University Press 2009) P. 23.
78 V. Marziali, ‘L obbying in Brussels: Interest Representation and Need for Information’ (Discussion paper/C155
2006) P. 19.
79 OECD ‘ Lobbysits, Governments and Public Trust: Building Legislative Framework for Enhancing Transparency and
Accountability in Lobbying‘ (Report 2 008).

24/48 social partners in the strict sense of the term; NGOs80; CBOs81. Due to a wide scope of the
proposed definition, the distinction be tween lobbyist s and interest representatives is
blurred. A research should be held in order to evaluate, whether it is an appropriate
notion. Nonetheless, it can be said that this notion reflects the Commission’s interest to
get additional information rega rding the issues from as many sources as possible.
Above all, t he Commission has a voluntary regist er, which was launched in June
2008. This register allows ordinary citizens to find information regarding the interests ,
which influence the decision making process. Moreover, the Code of Conduct applies as
an additional obligation for every representative who signs up.

Lobbying in the European Parliament
Although in the original institutional setup, the Parliament did not play a
significant role, with every new treaty its significance was increasing. The remarkable
change in Parliament’s role was brought by the SEA, which introduced the co -decision
and consultation procedures. Eventually, this growth in legislation power put the
Parliament at the same importance level as the Council. Therefore, presently the
Parliament participates in the legislation process and takes responsibilities of a
legislation authority.82 Nevertheless, it remains a platform fo r discussions.83
The Parliament provided more points of access for lobbyists with the growth of
its competences. This led to the difficulties while managing lobbying activities .
Therefore, t he disc ussion was initiated in 1994. However, due to the difficulti es in
defining the concept of a lobbyist and upco ming elections, this attempt had failed.84
However, the Parliament was the first institution , which established an accreditation
system. This system was designed to promote professional lobbyism. Moreover, the
Parliament as a body for lobbying is beneficial because every parliamentarian can be a
subject of lobbying, especially, if he plays an important role in any of the committees.

80 Non -governmanetal organisations, which bring people together in a common cause, such as environmental
organisations, human rights organisations, consumer associations, charitable organisations, educational and training
organisations, etc.
81 Community -based organisations, i.e. organisations set up within society at grassroots level which pursue member –
oriented objectives), e.g. youth organizations, family associations and all organizations through which citizens
participate in local and munici pal life; and religious communities
82 D. Coen, J. Richardson, ‘Lobbying the European Union: Institutions, Actors and Issues (Oxford University Press,
2009) P. 55
83 The Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, ‘The Regulation of Lobbyis ts in Canada, the
USA, the EU institutions, and Germany’ (Report 2006) P.57.
84 D. Coen, J. Richardson, Lobbying the European Union: Institutions, Actors and Issues (Oxford University Press, 2009)
P.57.

25/48 Although the Parliament does not initiate proposal s on its own, there is no reason
to assume that it cannot be lobbied. The Parliament contributes to the legislation
process by proposing amendments. Therefore, it is a place of strategic lo bbying.
The Parliament has its own accreditation system for all the persons, who want
access to this institution. Nevertheless, it can be said that the Parliament follows the
Anglo -Saxon tradition and requires the members of the European Parliament to decl are
their activities.

Lobbying in the Council
According to the Article 4 in the Treaty on the EU, ‘The Council shall provide the
Union with the necessary impetus for its development and shall define the general
political guidelines thereof’. Its work is arranged in four sessions per year, which are
attended by official authorities of the Member States. Authorities agree on the policy
line. Therefore, indeed, the Council is de facto ‘the place to deal’.85
However, some argue that lobbying in the Council ha ppens rarely because of the
difficult access to the ministers and the high -level set up fragmentation. The Council
meets in nine different compositions. Furthermore, as the state authorities visit Brussels
only for a few days, they have tense schedules and have no time for additional meetings
with lobbyists.
Despite ministers being busy all the time, the Council performs well because of its
structural arrangement. It consists of the General Secretariat, Coreper I and Coreper II,
which are assisted by Mertent s and Anticiti groups.
The Coreper is ‘a committee consisting of the Permanent Representatives of the
Governments of the Member States’.86 Although i ts main responsibility is to prepare and
coordinate the work of the Council ,87 the Coreper can adopt procedural decisions. This
all leads to that the Coreper is defined as ‘the strategic point in -road to the Council’.88
The Coreper is ‘vertically placed between the experts and the ministers and horizontally

85 J. Lewis, Chapter 14. National Interests. ‘Coreper’( J.Peterson and M.Shackleton ‘The Institutions of the European
Union, 2 Ed. 2006 ) P. 272.
86 TFEU Article 240 paragraph 1
87 TFEU Article 240 paragraph 1
88 J. Lewis, Chapter 14. National Interests. ‘Coreper’(J.Peterson and M.Shackleton ‘The Institutions of the European
Union, 2 Ed. 2006 ) P. 276.

26/48 situated with cross -Council po licy responsibilities’.89 This specific location enables
permanent representatives to see a broad, though coherent overview of the Council.
Although permanent representatives in Coreper I and Coreper II are instructed by the
national capitals, the negotiati ons reach consensus most of the time due to the culture of
compromise. 90
Therefore, lobbying in the Council works in a different manner than in the
Commission or in the European Parliament. However, being a target for the interest
representation cannot be denied.

Lobbying in the European Court of Justice
According to the bi -polar constitutional structure , judicial branch is separated
from the legislative and executive branches.91 This ensures that the judicial system is
fully independent. The European cons titutional setup also followed this concept and
established the European Court of Justice as an autonomous institution from the
Commission, the Parliament, and the Council. Although the Court does not participate
directly in the legislation, it affects and makes impact on it .92 Therefore, it falls under the
umbrella of lobbying.
‘The Court has been a major site of integrative institution building the EU’.93 It
interpreted and explained treaty provisions as well as other Community’s legislation.
Through its case law, it formulated and established principles and tests, which became
an essential part of the EU law.94
Certainly, lobbying in the European Court of Justice cannot be performed directly,
since judges have to maintain independency. It can be done through litigation. According
to M. McCown, lobbying in the Court can be achieved via interest groups, since they ‘can
open an issue and test both jurisdictio nal waters and the ripeness of the Question’.95
Even, if an interest group who supports and promotes case loses, the decision is

89 J. Lewis, Chapter 14. National Interests. ‘Coreper’(J.Peterson and M.Shackleton ‘The Institutions of the European
Union, 2 Ed. 2006 ) P. 277.
90 J. Lewis, Chapter 14. National Interests. ‘Coreper’(J.Peterson and M. Shackleton ‘The Institutions of the European
Union, 2 Ed. 2006 ) P. 285.
91 T.Koopmans, Courts and Political Institutions: Comparative view (Cambridge University Press: 2003) P. 247.
92 F. Jacobs, 'The evolution of the European Legal Order' (CML Review 2004) P. 304.
93 D. Coen, J.Richardson, Lobbying the European Union: Institutions, Actors and Issues (Oxford University Press, 2009)
P.89.
94 Such as Casis de Dijon, Mars, Bosman and etc.
95 D. Coen, J.Richardson, Lobbying the European Union: Institutions, Actors and Issues (Oxford University Press, 2009)
P.95.

27/48 beneficial because the initiating party receives additional information regarding the
particular issues from the Court.
Nonethe less, it should be asked, whether the interest group action can be
evaluated as lobbying. If it was the case, then how can it be controlled?

Lobbying in the consultative bodies
Behind the main European actors, which are discussed above, there is a wide
range of consultative bodies. The reason behind it is that the European institutions are
not capable of ‘knowing all’. Competent and skilled specialists, representing a particular
area, should make the legislation proposal . Therefore, the European ins titutions
delegate some powers to the consultative bodies on which they rely. The two most
important ones are the Economical and Social Committee and the Committee of the
Regions; the European institutions are obliged to consult them while adopting the
legislation.96 Additiona lly, there are twenty -two specialised agencies.
Since there is a human factor involved, there is a probability of lobbying in all of
consultativ e bodies. Moreover, lobbyists know that in pre -legislative stage lobbying is
the most effect ive. However, there is no regulation regarding lobbying in these bodies.

The voluntary register
It is important to clarify that at present there are two registering systems, one for
the Commission and the other one for the Parliament.
The establishment of the register system for the interest representatives was met
with vigorous, however, contradictory opinions. S.Kallas, the Administration and Anti –
Fraud Commissioner, named it as a ‘remarkable moment’ in the interview given soon
after the register started running . She also added that a register is ‘a testing ground‘,
therefore, the lobbyists have a possibility to prove the transparency of their
profession’.97 Certainly, the register being voluntary led to the tenders of the mandatory
one.98 The reasoning for this was based on the several factors, such as the need for ‘full

96 TFEU Article 100.
97Article ‘The Commission launches lobbyists register’ ( 24 June 2008 )Link:
http://www.eur activ.com/en/pa/commission -launches -lobbyists -register/article -173591 .
98 Article ‘Parliament report calls for common EU lobbyists register’
(3 April 2008 ) Link: http://www.euractiv.com/en/pa/parliament -report -calls -common -eu-lobbyists –
register/article -171299 .

28/48 financial disclosure’ and ‘common (for European Parliament, Council and Commission)
code of ethical behaviour’ .99 However, in the C ommunication on the annual report of th e
register , the Commission appears to be satisfied with the outcomes of the voluntary
register. Therefore, neither the fact that big law firms are proceeding without entering
the register plays a role,100 nor the distinct definition of lobbying seems to be e nough
demanding for any changes.
While Berkhout and Lowery claim that the Commission established the register
in order to reduce individual lobbying, other argumentation can be done as well. First ,
the Commission declared a position regarding which ‘the register will preserve
openness and will prevent the accessibility of the EU institutions from being abused by
irresponsible lobbyists’.101 In addition to this, the register was a move towards
organization of feedback information from the civil groups. Howev er, most importantly ,
the establishment of the register was aimed ‘to boost legitimacy of [ the Commission’s]
proposals’. 102
Due to a replication of registering procedures in the Commission and the
Parliament institutions, it was agreed that it would be bene ficial to have one common
register. The management of the register would be easier. Moreover, interest
representatives would not have to complete registration questioners twice. However, it
appears that institutions have different attitudes towards registr ation. The Commission
stands on a position that registering is a voluntary opportunity to gain better access,
whereas the Parliament promotes registering as a part of professional lobbying.
Although the common registration would benefit all the legislatio n partners,
interest groups, and society members, it would be a big step in reducing institutional
autonomy. It would also confirm a trend of fading lines among the European institutions.

99 Article ‘Parliament report calls for common EU lobbyists register’
(3 April 2008 ) Link: http://www.euractiv.com/en/pa/parliament -report -calls -common -eu-lobbyists –
register/article -171299 .
100L.Phillips, ‘Majority of Brussels lobby firms avoid registry’. Link: http://euobserver.com/9/29658 .
101 The European Commission Press Release , 21 March 2007.
102 D. Coen, J.Richardson, Lobbying the European Union: Institutions, Actors and Issues (Oxford University Press, 2009)
P.305.

29/48 Conclusion
Despite the great difference in numbers between the latest data and the register,
all those people, who are mostly located in Brussels, have the same goal to represent
various interests groups and to influence particular legislative process. Every interest
group can use lobbying as a tool at different stage s of the legislation and in different
institutions. However, big companies prefer staying ‘in the shadow’ of public affairs
companies and professional organisations.103
The EU institutions have unanimously recognized ‘that pluralism of interests is
an important feature of democracy and it is perfectly legitimate for members of the
society to organise and lobby for their interests’.104 Obviously, this enables lobbyists to
become an essential link between the authority institutions and the society.
At the moment , the EU is trying to improve the level of democracy by
implementing the strategy of Better Regulation ,105 which covers the approach of good
governance. The aim of this approach is to enhance transparency and accountability in
the legislation process on the European level. Therefore, ‘over the past decade, the EU
has been developing a new regulatory policy’.106 It resulted in a shift from traditional
regulation tools (regul ations, directives) to alternative ones (co -regulation, self –
regulation) in a vast range of policy areas.
However, although lobbying is one of them , it seems to have developed in an
opposite direction. A trend in strengthening legal ground for the lobbyin g activities
cannot be denied. The establishment of a voluntary register can be perceived as a proof
of it . Nevertheless , the main question remains as to what degree and how lobbying has
to be regulated in order to maintain profitable for all the parties i nvolved.

103 Friends of the Earth Europe, ‘Lobbying in Brussels: How much do the top 50 companies in the EU spend?’ (Report
2010) P.3.
104 Parliam entary assembly, ‘Lobbying in a Democratic society(European Code of Conduct on Lobbying)’ (Report
2009) Link: http://assembly.coe.int/Documents/WorkingDocs/Doc09/EDOC11937.pdf P. 2
105 European Parliament, Commission, and Council, ‘Inter -institutional Agreement on Better Law Making‘
(2003/C231)
106 L.Senden, ‘Soft Law, Self -regulation and Co -regulation in European Law: Where Do They Meet’ (Vol. 9.1 Electronic
Journal of Comparative Law, January 2005). Link: http://www.ejcl.org , p.1

30/48 CHAPTER III
IS LOBBYING A POLITICALLY SENSITIVE TOPIC FOR THE EU?

Chapter overview
Lobbying can be analyzed from different perspectives. In the following
paragraphs lobbying is perceived in an alternate aspect than in the previous chapters.
Therefore, lobbying is considered not only an activity in order to influence decision –
making but as a policy area.
The chapter is based on the hypothesis that lobbying as a policy area is a
politically sensitive topic in the EU context . Hence, the reasons for confirmation or denial
ought to be found. Although the chapter initially relates political science issues, the legal
approach is not forgotten and taken into account. Therefore, the chapter is
interdisciplinary, since it analys es the relationship betwe en law and politics. However,
the emphasis of this chapter is put on the decision -making or, in other words, on the
legislation.

Introduction to lobbying as a policy area
Currently, it is universally acknowledged that the EU is a democratic system,
which follows and promotes democratic principles and which realizes lobbying as a
useful tool in the legislation process. However, ‘shocking though it might seem, the
Community was never intended to be democratic organization’.107 Initially, establishing
the Trea ties trusted decision -making to the institutions in which members are
appointed by the Member States. Moreover, the Parliament was not a reflective voice of
the European society, since it was not directly elected. Its aim was to consult the
Commission and the Council.
The original EU institutional setup was confronted with the classical view
towards the separation of powers. Following ‘the classical tradition, the law making
authority is vested in the legislative authority (…), which will adopt all the necessary
laws’.108 In addition to this, legislative, executive and judicial branches are separated. Yet

107 G.F Mancini, D.T. Keeling,‘ Demo cracy and the European Court of Justice‘, (Vol. 57 The Morden Law Review 1994)
P.175.
108 A. Heinrich Turk, The Concept of Legislation in European Community law: A Comparative perspective (Kluwer Law
International: 2006).P. 65.

31/48 in the EU, the main decision -makers were the Council, which work was and continues to
be based on the intergovernmental meeting s, and the Commission. The Parliament
(Assembly) had only the right to consult. However, the Community has been subject to
an on -going development process, which brought many changes in the law making
structure and in the relations between the EU and its M ember States.109 One of the major
changes is the shift from the state orientated policy making to the European. The
European law influences today approximately 80 percent of national legislation .110
Since the creation of the EU, lobbying has been actively perf ormed in the law
making process, though it did not have any legal basis. In 1992, the Commission in its
report brought lobbying to the agenda as a policy area due to the rapid growth of
number of actors, who were practicing it. This led to discussions in t he Parliament,
which unfortunately ended fruitlessly in 1994. The failure of the first attempt was
caused by an inability to come up with a solid definition of lobbying and the upcoming
elections.
This could mean that the Parliament lacked the inspiration or just was not
motivated enough to take action. No further interest about the lobbying regulation was
expressed until the White Paper on Good Governance was published in 2001. Since then
it is a top issue as it affects the level of the public trust in th e European Institutions. In
the period of ten years , a coherent framework of lobbying was created. However, the
main input in the creation of this framework was made by the primary goals of the good
governance transparency and openness. Therefore, a statem ent that the EU institutions
are interested in lobbying as a policy is incorrect because this interest is limited to the
extent it can benefit the EU legal system.

The position of the Member States
Although lobbying has its own specificity due to linking political process with the
law, the main proof for lobbying being a politically sensitive topic is the position taken
by the Member States. When the topic of lobbying comes on the agenda, the Member
States assume an ambiguous position. On the one hand the Member States agree that
lobbying has to be regulated in the European institutions, but on the other hand the

109 A. Heinrich Turk, The Conce pt of Legislation in European Community law: A Comparative perspective (Kluwer Law
International: 2006).P. 71.
110 European Parliament, ‘Lobbying in the European Union: Current Rules and Practices’ (Working Paper 2003) P. 2.

32/48 strict decisions are rarely made due to lack of unanimity. This leads to the assumption
that Member States seek transparency in the European inst itutions, but they also prefer
to maintain open access to them in order to gain the benefit. Yet the scale swings, it goes
to both sides, but it cannot find the balance. The Member States cannot make a
unanimous decision while choosing what is more importa nt: transparency or open
access.
Above all, the unanimity seems to be improbable because Member States act
individually. They seek to maintain access to the EU system at all legislation stages.111
Every country seeks the most profitable regulation for itsel f in order to help its business
sector to influence decision -making. The Member States are interested in keeping open
gates for the lobbying on the behalf of the business sector, since in the end the Member
States can gain from successful policy regarding the businesses. This all results in that
the Member States follow an inconsistent policy. However, this inconstancy is beneficial
for them; since it ensures that by the time, the Member States want to control decision –
making they can do it by intervening i n the legislation process.
Moreover, there are only several Member States, which have chosen to have a
specific regulation regarding lobbying activities, the other ones do not have specialized
provisions, although all of them are fighting corruption. The Southern countries, such as
Spain and Greece, maintain a position that lobbying is an illegal activity, whereas the
Northern and Western States admit the necessity of lobbyists in the legislation.

The structure of the European institutions
The second reas on, which might prove that lobbying is a sensitive topic in the
European Context, is the institutional structure. Due to a specific institutional structure
of the European Union every institution remains autonomous in a way it has a
possibility to adapt it s own operational rules.112 Therefore, the inside rules differ in all
institutions. Since they are different, it becomes very challenging to establish a common
framework for lobbying. The best examples are the Commission and the Parliament.
While the Parliam ent seeks to create an accreditation system, the Commission is
promoting a voluntary register.

111 D. Coen, J.Richardson Lobbying the European Union: Institutions, Actors and Issues (Oxford University Press, 2009)
P.123.
112 Procedural rules according to the TFEU Articles 232, 218(2), 240, 253(6).

33/48 Fragmentation of interests
The fragmentation of interests is the main issue, which makes lobbying hard to
conceptualize in the European context. Referring to th e recent statistical data, the most
influential players while lobbying the Commission and the Parliament are individual
actors.113 There are over 35000 firms, which have developed direct lobbying in the EU
institutions.114 They constitute 40 percent of the lob bying body, whereas the Member
States account for a smaller share of 11 percent.115 Different from the American practice
think tanks do not have significant influence in the decision -making and take only 4
percent in total. This survey leads to the embarrassing findings. It appears that in
practice interest representation embodies only a ctors, which are able to fund their
activities. Therefore, this kind of interest representation does not reflect wide interest
groups. The actors who are responsible for the legislation should be aware of this
distribution in order to realize the real valu e of represented opinions.
Furthermore, ‘lobbying landscape is extremely fragmented’.116 The main reason
for this is due to the involvement of both, the public sector, which mainly consists of
NGOs; and the private sector, which includes profit -seeking orga nizations. A distinction
between the sectors can be made by the goals, which they aim to achieve. The interest
groups, who belong to the public sector, look for the positions in which ‘the society as a
whole’ could benefit, whereas private sector concentra tes on realizing their own goals.
The clear picture is depicted in the Parliament’s report on the lobbying in the EU. The
report claims that there are over 1000 trade associations, about 750 NGOs, 150 regional
offices and 130 specialized law firms.117 Howeve r, this division does not reveal a real
picture of players in lobbying field because the number of people who are represented is
not apparent.
To make the picture more complicated several things can be added. First, the
non -profit organizations represent 2 7 different policy areas, which cover issues
regarding agriculture and development, competition, consumer protection, education,
employment, environment, human rights, information society and etc. Secondly, from
the Commission’s database it occurs that the re around 950 business associations, over

113 D. Coen, J.Richardson Lobbying the European Union: Institutions, Actors and Issues (Oxford University Press, 2009)
P. 304.
114 European Parliament, ‘Lobbying in the European Union: Current rules and practices’ (Working Paper, 2003). P.12.
115 D. Coen, J.Richardson Lobbying the European Union: Institutions, Actors and Issues (Oxford Universi ty Press, 2009)
P. 304.
116 European Parliament, ‘Lobbying in the European Union: Current rules and practices’ (Working Paper, 2003) P.5.
117 European Parliament, ‘Lobbying in the European Union: Current rules and practices’ (Working Paper, 2003) P.5.

34/48 1300 European level groups and about 300 transnational firms, which participate in the
process of policy shaping.118

Human factor
The other reason why lobbying is a politically sensitive topic on the European
agen da is because of the multilevel governance and the extensive scope of people who
participate in lobbying activities. As it was mentioned before the lobbying activities
involves two parties , the one, who lobbies, and the other one, who is lobbied. Obviously ,
these two sides are represented by human beings. Therefore, the human factor in
lobbying is unavoidable.
Certainly, the EU does realize the presence of human factor. People run all the
institutions and committees. Since the concept of lobbying does not exclude any
category of people, who are not lobbied in the legislation process, everyone who directly
or indirectly participates in the legislation process can be lobbied. Therefore, lobbyists
are not only interested in the people who have the highest rank s and positions, but also
in the civil servants.
The first attempt to manage the process of interest representation followed the
practice in the United Kingdom. The provisions regarding the lobbying in the Parliament
were incorporated in the Parliament’s Rules of Procedure. Emphasis should be put on
the fact, that the Parliament is obliged to adopt such rules.119 Therefore , rules maintain a
lot of freedom, since the provisions do not have to be reconciled with other institutions.
Therefore, the Parliament in cluded provisions on lobbying activities. Furthermore, the
civil servants have to work under framework, which is compatible with the General EU
Staff Regulation (2004), and have to follow the provisions of the European Code of Good
Administrative behaviour (2005).120
However, it is still a challenging task to control and indicate all attempts of
lobbying. There are many situations , in which it is not clear, whether the person should
declare that he was lobbied. Let us look at several examples to illustrate th e high
probability of confusion.

118 Europ ean Parliament, ‘Lobbying in the European Union: Current rules and practices’ (Working Paper, 2003) P.13.
119 Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Article 232.
120 D. Coen, J. Richardson, Lobbying the European Union: Institutions, Actors and Issues (Oxford University Press, 2009)
P. 298.

35/48 First example: The minister of transport and communication from the country A
receives a proposal (regarding the recent attempt to harmonize the rules in the public
transport at the EU level) from the transport service pro vider in countries A and B. The
transport provider has dominant position in country B. The proposal is handed in
country C. The framework under which the mister should work becomes uncertain.
Although the service provider and the minister represent country A, the attempt to
make influence is on the European level, since it involves two countries. Moreover, the
lobbying activity took place in country C. The question rises, under which jurisdiction
the action should be evaluated: country A, country B or count ry C.
Second example: The Executive Agency for Health and Consumers was asked to
give an opinion regarding safety requirements of food products. The entity X is the
biggest fruit importer in the EU. However, in order to maintain permanent flow of
products to the distributors it sprays fruits with liquid, which in big quantities might
cause health risks. Therefore, the entity seeks to achieve the establishment of the
highest permissible dose. In order to do that, the entity provides supporting resear ch
results. According to them, the liquid does not cause any health risks. Two main
questions arise: is it lobbying activity, if yes, how such actions should be registered.
Both examples are valuable, since they are related to different problems
regarding lob bying. The first example raises the issue of possibility to lobby regarding
the European matters at the state level. This example raises the question of jurisdiction,
in particular, under which lobbying regulation the minister and company should work.
The second example illustrates the possibility of lobbying the consultative bodies.
Nonetheless, it should be asked, whether this example is considered as lobbying.

The connotation of lobbying
Lobbying faces another issue, which adds weight to it as being a politically
sensitive topic. Lobbying has a negative connotation in the most of the Members of the
EU. The following paragraphs examine existing situation in Eastern European countries,
namely Lithuania and Poland. However, older Member States are also not an exception.

36/48 As in Germany, ‘lobbying has always been and still is considered a foreign word with
strong connotations of secretive policy process where illegitimate influence is sought’.121
Lithuania is the first European country, which adopted a speciali zed legal act on
lobbying. However, most members of the Lithuanian society cannot define lobbying and
additionally link ‘lobizmas’ with ‘lubizmas’.122 ‘Lubizmas’ derives from the surname of B.
Lubys who is one of the richest entrepreneurs in Lithuania. His s urname became
publicly known after the scandalous privatization of ‘Azotas’, in 1994. The state owned
company was sold for a comparatively low price. After the privatization , it was branded
under the name of ‘Achema’ group and at the present it is one of the most profitable
undertakings . Moreover, in his speeches and interviews he promotes lobbying.
According to his opinion, lobbying should be done by all undertakings, which can afford
it, and the legislative branch should take this activity seriously.
Poland is another good example of a country in which lobbying has negative
associations, although the law fully regulates it. The Act on Legislative and Regulatory
Lobbying was introduced in 2005. However, the number of registered lobbyists is
surprisingly s mall. There are only 16 officially registered lobbyists. This means that for
almost 12 times larger population than in Lithuania, Poland has less officially registered
lobbyists. One might ask why the situation is like that and how legislation process work s
without any interest representation.
Although there is no critique regarding the present situation on the international
level, some information is available in the Polish media, which portrays lobbying in a
negative light.123 It appears that the Members o f both houses, namely Sejm and Senat,
see lobbying as a threat to the reputation status and some of them are not even
introduced to the fact that lobbying activities are legal.124 Therefore, the legislative
branch prefers to receive advice from independent e xperts regarding a particular field,
who most of the time, receive remuneration for their task. Essentially, the se
independent experts can be categorised as lobbyists, since while giving an advice they
usually represent the position of a particular organiz ation.125 Therefore, there is a clear

121 The Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, ‘The Regulation of Lobbyists in Canada, the
USA, the EU institutions, and Germany’ (Report 2006)P.56.
122 A. Kubilius, ‘Lobizmo institucionalizavimas – demokratinio proceso pranašumas ar t rūkumas?’ (Interesų grupės,
valdžia ir politika. Metinės konferencijo s tekstai, Pradai 1998). P.87 -93.
123 K.Jasiecki, ‘Regulating lobbying in Poland: Background, scope and expectations’(Cracow 2006 ).
124 C. Łazarewicz , ‘Zadżumieni’ (Polityka.pl 2010 -05-19). Link:
http://wiadomosci.gazeta.pl/Wiadomosci/1,97659,7905792,Zadzumieni.html
125 C. Łazarewicz, ‘Zadżumieni’ (Pol ityka.pl 2010 -05-19). Link:
http://wiadomosci.gazeta.pl/Wiadomosci/1,97659,7905792,Zadzumieni.html

37/48 trend to rename lobbyist under more sophisticated title of ‘independent expert’.
Moreover, the distinction between two categories is hard to make. The official number of
contracts made by the government and independent e xperts is not found.

Interest representatives versus lobbyists
The principal confusion while discussing lobbying activities occurs due to the
lack of clarity in the definition of lobbying. In most of the recent legal documents ,
lobbying is used in bracke ts next to interest representation.126 Some scholars use
lobbying in the context of interest representation , which is made by the industrial sector
and the others us lobbying as talking about all kind of interest representation. Therefore,
the usage of the same words in different contexts causes puzzlement. For example social
partners in the context of social dialogue, regarding lab our law issues, consist of
workers and employers’ associations, whereas the civil dialogue includes all actors, who
want to participate in the legislation’s shaping process. Moreover, sometimes the latter
dialogue is also called the social dialogue.

Conc lusion
As it appears, there are many factors, which influence the perception of lobbying.
All of them confirm the hypothesis that lobbying, as a policy area is a politically sensitive
topic in the EU context . Obviously, the position of the Member States ha s a major impact
on lobbying regulation due to the reason that the creation of policy line is in the capacity
of the Member States during the Council meetings. Nonetheless, the European
institutional structure, the fragmentation of interests and human fact or are also the
aspects, which make lobbying hard to conceptualize and regulate. Therefore, at present
lobbying stays the ‘meta -game of triple P’, this involves persons, positions and
procedures.127 In detail, this ‘game’ consists of finding mindful and the most engaging
person in the most influential position at the right procedural stage.128

126 European Commission, Green Paper ‘European Transparency Initiative‘, C OM (2006) 194.
127 V. Marziali, ‘Lobbying in Brussels: Interest representation and Need for Information’ (Discussion Paper C 155,
2006). P.27.
128 V. Marziali, ‘Lobbying in Brussels: Interest representation and Need for Information’ (Discussion Paper C 155,
2006). P.27.

38/48 CHAPTER IV
WHAT CAN THE EUROPEAN UNION LEARN FROM THE LOBBYING PRACTICES
PRESENT IN OTHER COUNTRIES?

Chapter overview
This is the final chapter of the thesis. Therefore, this chapter aims at completing
and bringing coherence to the thesis, while providing the answer to the second part of
the thesis’s central question, which is ‘to what extent does the EU need to set up a legal
framework for it and what should this framework look like’. However, the main
challenge of this chapter remains to answer the questions ‘what can the European Union
learn from the lobbying practices in other countries’ a nd whether the EU can do so .
Seeking for the answer to the latter question , the following paragraphs point out strong
and weak points of existing regulations. Furthermore, the chapter considers the
possibilities of the upcoming regulation and proposes recommendations for the future
development of the lobbying regulation.

A smart one is le arning f rom the mistakes of others.

Why and what lessons should the EU learn from others?
There are two main reasons why the EU should learn from existing practice
regarding lobbying. In the following paragraphs, both of them are evaluated.
Although initially the six founding Member States signed the Treaty of Rome as
the international treaty, it has become a sui generis legal order. Therefore, the EU has
specific institutional settlement, yet the institutional structure has some similarities
with traditional separation of powers. However, these ‘similarities’ melt away after
every actor is analyzed. Moreover, there is no single institution, which is responsible for
the legislation. According t o the TFEU, in the ordinary legislative procedure the
European Parliament, the Comm ission and the European Council are obliged to interact

39/48 with each other in order to adopt the legal act s.129 Despite the differences, the EU
policymaking works in the same man ner as the policymaking on the national level. It
works throughout the adoption of legal acts. Therefore, the EU could learn some lessons
from the existing practice regarding the lobbying regulation.
Moreover, the EU is already taking advantage of the bes t practice while the
policymaking process is guided by the method of open coordination. This method was
introduced in order to implement the Strategy of Better Regulation. Due to this, the
strategy policymaking shifted from the top -down approach to bottom -up. This trend
became more visible after the Lisbon agenda, which was set in the European Council
meeting in 2000, introduced the open method of coordination.130 According to the
Presidency Conclusion, the method is aimed at ‘spreading best practice and achi eving
greater convergence towards the main EU goals’.
Furthermore, this method should help the Member States to adopt ‘appropriate
quantitative and qualitative indicators and benchmarks (…) tailored to the needs of
differen t Member States and sectors as means of comparing best practice’.131 The
method was developed further in the White Paper on Good Governance and in the Inter –
institutional agreement on better lawmaking (2003). Although the method ‘concerns
forms of non -binding policy coordination’, it is evaluated as a successful tool by the
SOLIDAR. This network of NGOs132 argued that the method is successful due its
involvement of public authorities and interest groups at national and European level.
Therefore, the OMC could be used in order to establish c ommon framework for lobbying
activities.

What lessons and from whom should the EU take?
As it follows from Chapter 1 and 3, not all lobbying practices can be considered as
successful ones. The adoption of legal acts does not ensure the implementation of i ts
provisions. Therefore, the most obvious lesson can be learnt from the Eastern European
countries. Their example illustrates that the adoption of legal acts regarding lobbying
does not solve the problem of transparency and openness in the legislative bra nch.

129 The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Article 289.
130 P.Craig, G. de Burca EU Law: Text, Cases, Material (Oxford University Press, 4th ed. 2008) P. 151.
131 Lisbon European Council, ‘Presidency Conclusions’ ( 2000). Paragraph 37.
132SOLIDAR, ‘Evaluation of the Open Method of Coordination in the field of social inclusion and social protection’
(Report to the European Commission, June 2005).

40/48 Despite that, they are also worthy to take into consideration while trying to establish a
common framework for lobbying activities on the European level.
Nonetheless, even the USA and C anada regulation can be criticis ed in several
respects. The legit imacy of the activities does not enhance the public trust in the
legislation process. Moreover, according to the Transparency International the
corruption index did not significantly increase after the adoption of legal acts in any of
the Easter European c ountries.133 Therefore, it can be declared that first a negative
attitude towards lobbyists in the society has to be changed in order for the provided
framework to precede.
The other important lesson is that strict penalties, which are common in the USA
and Canada, prevent the abuse of access to the legislative branch and enhance
responsibility and accountability among the lobbyists. The most recent fine in the USA
reached $111.000.134 It was gi ven due to a failure in disclosing the represented interests.
In Lithuania, practice towards sanctions differs. During a ten -year period, no one has
ever received a fine. Is it just a coincidence? Otherwise, is it a consequence of a vague
provision in the reg ulation?135
While regulating lobbying , one of the main concerns that countries struggle with,
is the level of disclosure. How much disclosure of information is enough? There is no
unanimous answer, since the gathered information from the lobbyists is used f or
different purposes. In Canada, other lobbyists use the information in order to follow the
actions of their competitors, whereas in the USA legislators use the information in order
to evaluate the strength and representativeness of the voice that is decl ared.
Furthermore, the definition of lobbying has to be sufficient in the sense that it
would let exemptions due to which circumvention of rules could become possible. The
definition balanced in a way it could ensure the uniform understanding without room
for misinterpretation.136 ‘Good regulation says what it is and what it’s not’137. However,

133 The Presentation on the Corruption Index of 2009, Slide no.6. Link:
http://www.transparency.lt/new/images/ti_ksi_2009.pdf .
134 B.Niolet, ‘Former Lobbyist fined $ 111000’Link: http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/04/27/455387/former –
lobbyist -fined -111000.html .
135 Article 15 Responsibility for the infringement of the act. Law on Lobbying Activities. No. VIII -1749 of 27 June
2000/Revised.
136 OECD,‘ Lobbyists, Governments and Public Trus t: Building Legislative Framework for Enhancing Transparency and
Accountability in Lobbying‘( Report 2008) P.21.
137 The Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, ‘The Regulation of Lobbyists in Canada, the
USA, the EU institutions, and G ermany’ (Report 2006)P.88.

41/48 before defining lobbying, the legislator should clarify the goals it aims to achieve with
particular legislation.

Is the ‘copy -paste’ approach applicable in the case of the EU?
As it appears, most of the time new legal or political system is built on the
examples of others. Lithuania is a very good case. The country was left without any
relevant legal database after the rehabilitation of independence in 1990 . It had to adapt
the change as quickly as possible to keep stability in the country. There was no time for
novel inventions in the legal regulation. Therefore, lawyers looked at the best practice
from other countries. Certainly, the acceptance of best practice was not blind. First, it
was examined, whether the norm complies with the expectations of the majority of the
society. In this way, some of the good practices were rejected. Can this copy -paste
example be applicable in the case of lobbying regulation in the E U?
As it is mentioned above, the Treaties provide a diffusive and, in this sense, a very
specific framework for the decision -making in the EU. In addition to this, legislative
procedure depends on the policy area and the purpose of the legislation. The is sues
regarding agricultural matt ers are solved in the European C ouncil whereas the line of
competition policy is in the hands of the Commission. The Council mostly adopts
regulations , whereas directives and recommendations are in th e competence of the
Comm ission and the European Parliament. The specificity of the legislation process in
the EU compared with the legislation process on the state level is obvious and cannot be
denied. Since ‘there is no “legist”, nor even in fact one “legislator”, the process i s dynamic
and leads from the establishment of an initial text by one or two officials within the
Commission, through consultation and rewriting, to a final political negotiation and
decision by national ministers within the Council’.138
Due to the specificity of the European legislation procedure it is logical to
consider, whether the EU can apply existing practice regarding lobbying. However, ‘in all
innovations in public institution building , there is a degree of borrowing from past
experiences’.139 Despite the specificity of the EU legislation process, the EU should apply
the lessons learnt from the countries, which regulate lobbying.

138 R. Wainwright, ‘Determination of the Norm Content’, (Contributions to the Methodology of the Creation of Written
Law, European Association of Legislation, 1996). P. 13.
139 D. Coen, J.Richardson Lobbying the European Union: Institutions, Actors and Issues (Oxford University Press, 2009)
P.338.

42/48 However, the copy -paste approach cannot be applied. The EU governance is a
multi -level governance; it is based on t he work of European institutions as well as on the
work of national actors. Therefore, the EU has to find its own way to regulate lobbying
activities. In order to do that the EU has to set clear goals , which are to be achieved by
the lobbying regulation. However, the question has to be raised, whether i t is all for the
transparency and enhancement of the public t rust in the legislation process, or is i t for
the involvement of a wider range of actors in the legislation process , in order to adopt
the legislat ion, which would reflect the interests of the society? Although it might appear
that the purpose of the regulation is different, the goal has to be set in order to guide
legislators while establishing a common framework.

What regulation possibilities does the EU have?
There are many possibilities how the EU could regulate lobbying. Since the EU
institutions seek to regulate lobbying activities on the EU level, they hold exclusive
competence and responsibility regarding the issue.
According to the TFEU, i n order ‘to exercise the Union's competences, the
institutions shall adopt regulations, directives, decisions, recommendations and
opinions’.140 Certainly, the type of legislative act purely depends on the final goal, which
it aims to achieve. Obviously, an opinion is an unsuitable legal tool to regulate lobbying
activities, since it is not binding. The choice of regulation or directive also seems to be
inappropriate, as the final goal is to regulate lobbying in the EU institutions and not in its
Member State s. Therefore, the option of provision’s regarding lobbying incorporation
into the Treaty should be considered. At this moment it seems likely to happen,
however, such possibility cannot be denied because the EU is still shaping its legal
system. The best p roofs are the establishment of Ombudsman, and sports inclusion to
the Treaty. Nonetheless , at the present the inclusion of provision on the topic of lobbying
to the Treaty seems to be too challenging due to the complicated and long ratification
process, which threatens the functioning of the EU. Nonetheless, the EU could declare it
as a future goal and start preparatory jobs.
Above all, the position of the Member States should not be set aside because
lobbying activities are in the field of their interest. Moreover, the inclusion of the
Member States in the decision -making regarding lobbying c ould benefit the EU. First, the

140 The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Article 288.

43/48 Member States would be more motivated to follow the provisions, which they created
themselves, and second, the participation of the Member States in the policy shaping
could bring balance and promote bottom -up legislation ap proach.

Conclusion
As it appears, the EU has to make some hard choices. Obviously, regulation
regarding lobbying is a challenging task for the EU because it is based on multi -level
governance and European institutions are the same important actors at the EU level as
its Member States. Moreover, it is expected to act fast because existing situation is rather
awkward and both public and pr ivate actors are seeking for the clarity.
The EU has to remember that it seeks transparency in its legal system. The
lobbying regulation could be one of the ways to achieve it. Despite that, the EU should
realize that lobbying benefits three categories of people , namely lobbyists, legislators
and citizens. The lobbyists represent client’s interests, the legislator receives explicit
information regarding the topic of legislation, and citizens have a possibility to be heard.
The EU should take advantage of the existing practice regarding lobbying.
Although the EU has a diffusive institutional structure and cannot use a ‘copy -paste’
approach, it has to look at the examples of others. The EU has a possibility to choose
methods, which work. Therefore, it should avoid mistakes, which were done by others.
The extent of lobbying regulation and the level on which it is done, directly depends on
the goal that is aimed to be achieved with the regulation.
Nevertheless, the EU should follow the recommendations, which are presented in
the OECD Report on Lobbyists Governme nts and Public Trust. Before establishing the
regulation, the EU institutions and actors, which are involved in the legislation
processes, should ask themselves: who is to be regulated, what is the level o f disclosure
needed, how can they be regulated and how the integration of lobbying regulation to
overall legal system can be secured.

44/48 Recommendations
Based on the findings of the analysis, several recommendations can be made.
However, most of my person al recommendations comply with the OECD report, which
stresses out the elements, which might have an essential impact on the creation and
implementation of the lobbying regulation.
According to it, first, ‘a clear and unambiguous definition of the regulat ory target’
is needed.141 Otherwise, the circumvention of legislation is unavoidable. Therefore, the
EU should think about clarifying the present concepts of lobbyists and lobbying
activities. I do support the idea that the ‘legislation should differentiate between paid
lobbyists, ordinary citizens and representative s of sectoral groups’.142
Furthermore, the disclosure requirements should be ‘meaningful and attainable’
in a sense that the purpose for which the information is used should be clarified.
Moreover, the regulation should provide procedures, which are ‘realistic and attainable’
and would be proportional to the results. Above all, the regulation should find place
among the present legal system and become an integral part of the legislation process.
Nev ertheless, the legislation should be aimed to achieve not a declarative goal but a
practical one. Therefore, the EU should specify the role of lobbying in the process of
decision -making.

141 OECD,‘ Lobbyists, Governments and Public Trust: Building Legislative Framework for Enhancing Transparency and
Accou ntability in Lobbying‘( Report 2008) P. 49.
142 The Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, ‘The Regulation of Lobbyists in Canada, the
USA, the EU institutions, and Germany’ (Report 2006) P.88.

45/48 Appendi x 1: The comparison of different approaches to lobbying
Country Name of
regulation Year of
adoption Definition of Lobbyist Definition of lobbying
activities Controlling body
(confirms and
evaluates) Who can be
lobbied Sanctions/ penalties/
fines Frequency
of reports Prohibition
on lobbying
USA Lobbying
Disclosure Act 1995 Individual who
represents
clients/employers
interests and gets
remuneration Contacting, planning,
research The Secretary of the
Senate and the Clerk of
the House of
Representatives Legislative
and executive
branches Not more than $50,000
or imprisonment (1 -5
year);
Semi –
annual One year
Canada The Lobbying
Act 2008 Individual who for
payment represents
interest of the third
party for the public
office holder in order to
influence his behaviour No precise definition he Office of the
Commissioner of
Lobbying Public office
holders Up to $50,000 or
imprisonment up to 6
months/
Up tp $200,000 or to
imprisonment up to 2
years Monthly Five year
Lithuania Law on
Lobbying
Activities 2003 Legal or natural persons
who is registered as a
lobbyist Representation of
client’s interest for
remuneration or
without it the Chief Official
Ethics Commission State officers Suspension/
determination of
activities Annual –
Poland Act on
Legislative and
Regulatory
Lobbying 2005 – legal action aimed to
influence the legislative
or regulatory actions of
Public Authority Minister having
jurisdiction over
matters related to
public administration
controls the Register Legislative
bodies: Sejm,
Senate From PLN 3000 to
50,000 Annual –
Hungary Act on
Lobbying
Activities 2006 A natural person who is
registered as lobbyist
and runs lobbying
activities Activity or conduct
aimed to influence
executive decisions or
fostering interests under
economic consideration the Central
Office of Justice Legislative or
administrativ
e actions Withdraw the lobby
license/ suspension for
2 years/
Up to 10 million forints,
Proportional to the
crime committed Quarterly –
Germany Annex 2 of the
Rules of
procedure 2003 Representa tives who are
in public list Interest representation
regarding associations
of trade and industry The President of the
Bundestag Bundestag –
legislative
branch _ _ _

46/48 Bibliography

Legislation:
1. Consolidated versions of the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning
of the European Union (Vol. 51 Official Journal of the EU 2008/C 115/01).
2. Canada. Lobbying Act 2008. Link: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/L -12.4/ page -1.html .
3. European Commission, European Parliament and the Council, ‘European Transparency
Initiative: the Register of Interest Representatives, one year’ (COM 2009) 612.
4. European Commission, Green Paper ‘European Transparency Initiative’ (COM 2006) 194 .
5. European Commission, ‘Towards a reinforced culture for dialogue and consultation. General
principals and minimum standards for consultation of interested parties by the
Commission’ (COM 2002).
6. European Parliament, Council, Commission ‘Inter -institutiona l agreement on Better Law
Making’ ( 2003/C 321).
7. Hungary Act XLIX of 2006 on Lobbying Activities.
8. Lithuania. Law on Lobbying Activities. No. VIII -1749 of 27 June 2000. Link:
http ://www3.lrs.lt/pls/inter3/dokpaieska.showdoc_l?p_id=208884 .
9. Lithuania. Law on Lobbying Activities. No. VIII -1749 of 27 June 2000/Revised.
10. Poland. Act on Legislative and Regulatory Lobbying 2005.
11. USA. Lobbyist Regulation Act 1946. Link: http://www.sos.state.nm.us/pdf/lra2.pdf .
12. USA. Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995.
13. USA. Lobbying Disclosure Act Guidance. Section 1. Link:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/resources/pdf/S1guidance.pdf .
14. The Protocol on the Application of Principles of Subsidiarity and Proportionality. Annex to
the Treaty of Amsterdam.

Books:
1. Heinrich Turk The Concept of Legislation in European Community law : A Comparative
perspective (Kluwer Law International: 2006).
2. D.Coen, J.Richardson Lobbying the European Union: Institutions, Actors and Issues (Oxford
University Press, 2009).
3. European Commission, Better regulation – simply explained (Luxembourg: o ffice for official
Publications of the European Communities 2006).
4. J.Peterson and M.Shackleton The Institutions of the European Union (Chapter 14 2 ed. 2006)
5. P.Craig, G. de Burca EU Law: Text, Cases, Material (Oxford University Press, 4th ed. 2008).
6. S.Urbina Reason, D emocracy, Society: A Study on the basis of legal thinking (Kluwer Academic
Publishers, 1996).
7. T. Koopmans Courts and Political Institutions: A Comparative view (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2003).

Articles:
1. A.Kubilius, ‘Lobizmo institucionalizavimas – demokratinio proceso pranašumas ar
trūkumas?’( Interesų grupės, valdžia ir politika. Metinės konferencijo s tekstai, Pradai 1998).
2. C.P. Harris, ‘Lobbying and Public Affairs in the UK: The Relationship to Political
Marketing’(Doctoral Thesis, Manchester Metropolitan University 1999).
3. D. Obradovic and J.M. A. Vizcian, ‘Good Governance requirements concerning the
participation of the interest groups in EU consultations’ (Common Law Review 2006).

47/48 4. European Parliament, ‘Lobbying in the Europ ean Union’ (Constitutional Affairs: Briefing
Paper: 2007).
5. European Parliament, ‘Lobbying in the European Union: current rules and practices’
(Constitutional Affairs: Working Paper 2003).
6. Friends of the Earth Europe, ‘Lobbying in Brussels: How much do the top 50 companies in
the EU spend?’ (Report 2010).
7. G.F. Mancini, D.T. Keeling,‘ Democracy and the European Court of Justice‘, (Vol. 57 The
Morden Law Review 1994).
8. K. Jasiecki, ‘Regulating lobbying in Poland: Background, scope and expectations’(Cracow
2006).
9. L. Senden, ‘Soft Law, Self -regulation and Co -regulation in European Law: Where Do They
Meet’, (Vol. 9.1. Electronic Journal of Comparative Law 2005) Link: http://www.ejcl.org .
10. Lisbon European Council, ‘Presidency Co nclusions’ ( 2000).
11. M. Malone, ‘Regulation of Lobbyists in Developed Countries, Current Rules and Practises’
(The I nstitute of Public Administration, Dublin, 2003 ).
12. Parliamentary Assembly, ‘Lobbying in a Democratic society(European Code of Conduct on
Lobb ying)’ (Report 2009). Link:
http://assembly.coe.int/Documents/WorkingDocs/Doc09/EDOC11937.pdf .
13. R. Wainwright, ‘Determination of the Norm Content’, (Contributions to the Methodo logy of
the Creation of Written Law, European Association of Legislation, 1996).
14. The OECD, ‘Lobbyists, Governments and Public Trust: Building a Legislative Framework for
Enhancing Transparency and Accountability’ (Report 2008).
15. The Department of the Enviro nment, Heritage and Local Government, ‘The Regulation of
Lobbyists in Canada, the USA, the EU institutions, and Germany’(Report 2006).
16. V. Marziali, ‘Lobbying in Brussels: Interest representation and Need for Information’
(Discussion Paper C 155, 2006).
17. W. Dinan, S. and E. Wesselius, ‘Brussels – a lobbying paradise’ ( Alter -EU Bursting the
Brussels Bubble 2010).

Electronic resources:
1. Article ‘The Commission launches lobbyists register’ ( 24 June 2008 )Link:
http://www.euractiv.com/en/pa/commission -launches -lobbyists -register/article -173591 .
2. Article ‘Parliament report calls for common EU lobbyists register’ (3 April 2008 ) Link:
http://www.euractiv.com/en/pa/parliament -report -calls -common -eu-lobbyists –
register/article -171299 .
3. B.Niolet, ‘Former Lobbyist fined $ 111000’. Link:
http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/04/27/455387/former -lobbyist -fined -111000.html .
4. C. Łazarewicz , ‘Zadżumieni’ (Polityka.pl 2010 -05-19). Link:
http://wiadomosci.gazeta.pl/Wiadomosci/1,97659,7905792,Zadzumieni.html .
5. Information from the website on the Chief Official Ethics Commission. Link:
http://www.vtek.lt/vtek/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=372&Itemid=4
2.
6. L.Phillips, ‘Majority of Brussels lobby firms avoid registry’. Link:
http://e uobserver.com/9/29658 .
7. The official website on the USA Constitution.
Links: http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am1.html ,
http://www.usconstitution.net/constamrat.html#BoR .
8. The offi cial website of the UK Parliament . Link: http://www.parliament.uk/get –
involved/have -your -say/lobbying/ .
9. The official web site of the European Public Health Alliance. Link:
http://www.epha.org/a/1842 .

48/48 10. The European Commission Press Release , 21 March 2007. Link:
http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/07/367&format=HTML&age
d=0&language=EN .
11. The Presentation on the Corruption Index of 2009, Slide no.6. Link:
http://www.transparency.lt/new/images/ti_ksi_2009.pdf .
12. B.Niolet, ‘Former Lobbyist fined $ 111000’. Link:
http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/04/27/455387/former -lobbyist -fined -111000.html .