Lobbyism, interest representation, civil society, public diplomacy – phrases well known in political affairs. In relation to the EU, they usually mean nothing good: For many, interest representation equals negotiations between lobbyists and “eurocrats” somewhere in a dark back room. Only very rarely it is described as a way to establish a transparent dialog between institutions and interests groups in the European policy. EM Germany wants to change that!

The inclusion of interest groups in the European legislative procedures now finds a new ground in article 11 of the Treaty of Lisbon. In a 2009 ruling, the German Federal Constitutional Court itself explicitly refers to this new dimension: “Besides the elements completing the participative democracy and the requirement to the citizens of the European Union and to the representative organizations to communicate their point of view in an organized way, the Treaty of Lisbon provides for the elements of an associative and direct democracy.” Translating this legal basis into practice was the ambition of a conference EM Germany organized, on November 16th, 2010, for its member organizations and institutional partners. “EBD Exklusiv” gathered approx. 40 scholars, officials and lobbyists who gave insights in their respective points of view. The discussions were introduced by Prof. Dr. Christian Calliess (Jean Monnet Institute for European Integration, Free University Berlin), Katharina Wolf (EM Germany Board member, German Civil Service Association (dbb)), Dr. Joachim Wuermeling (German Insurance Association (GDV)). EM Germany Board Member Dr. Christine Pütz (of Heinrich Böll Stiftung, the Green Political Foundation) hosted the event.

The participants agreed that while the practice of interest representation in Brussels has not changed with the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty, the integration of “representative associations and civil society” into the treaty text can be read as acknowledgement of the role interest groups play in the European decision making process, even as their legitimating as part of the European democratic model. But which associations are “representative” and thus entitled to the “open, transparent and regular dialogue“ with European institutions? What if interest groups do not represent a “common European interest” but a regionally limited concern, e.g. the Spanish torero association? The panelists underlined that while art. 11 EUV establishes a function to “filter” a European position among the many associations of one industry – and thus privileges associations of “organized” interest over lobby firms –, specific problems which only apply to particular regions will still be heard. In order to foster transparent interest representation in the decision making procedures, the participants called for a translation of the consultation process into national decision making procedures, and for an evaluation report at the end of a consultation procedure detailing to which extend the respective interests presented have been taken into account and why.