The Committee of Parliament for the Investigation of Declarations of Assets (CIDA) of Article 3A of law 3213/2003 is a special body which verifies and scrutinises the declarations of assets of politicians and judicial officials. It is Article 3B of Law 3213/2003 that defines the functions of the Committee, as well as the ways in which it can and should carry out the scrutiny of asset declarations.
Article 3B of law 3213/2003 has previously been amended by Article 15 of law 4606/2019 (Government Gazette 57 A ‘/ 11-04-2019) which added the following phrase: “The harnessing of information collected through the lifting of banking, stock market, tax and professional secrecy is a precondition for the completion of any scrutiny procedure of the Committee’s competence.” This made the lifting of such secrecy mandatory in the scrutiny of asset declarations. The purpose of this provision was, among other things, to strengthen the credibility of the auditing, as well as to speed up the process (see this article as well as pages 56, 59, 61 of the parliamentary minutes). It is noted at this point that this provision was introduced for voting through a legislative amendment and was voted against by the then opposition party MPs of New Democracy and Golden Dawn (see page 68 of the parliamentary minutes), a fact which was later commented on by the then Government.
A few months later, and after elections had taken place, with the New Democracy party now in power, the provisions of Article 3B were again amended. Paragraph 3 of Article 209 of law 4635/2019 amended the penultimate paragraph of paragraph 1 of article 3B of law 3213/2003 as follows: “The harnessing of information collected through the lifting of banking, stock market, tax and professional secrecy, if necessary, is a precondition for the completion of any scrutiny procedure of the Committee’s competence.” According to the accompanying explanatory memorandum, this provision seeks to strengthen the credibility of the audit, taking into account, however, the fact that regulations are being drafted to standardise the procedure, and that the legislation of a common audit methodology is imminent. In this context the amendment was intended to facilitate the completion of the scrutiny of three years of asset declarations which were submitted together, following the decision No. A 2649/2017 of the Council of State.
However, with this modification and the addition of the words “if necessary”: a) the removal of secrecy becomes merely possible, rather than mandatory; b) it creates a process where some asset declarations will ‘slip through the net’, whilst requiring a second level of decision making for who is to judge, and how, which statements necessitate the removal of secrecy; c) it undermines the very notion of asset declaration statements, particularly in regard to their purpose of showing the origin of the assets held; and d) it raises questions about the purpose of the amendment. (see p. 40 of the minutes of the 24-10 sitting of Parliament and pp. 76-77, 87, of the minutes of the 23-10-2019 sitting of Parliament).
According to Vouliwatch, “This provision undermines transparency and accountability in relation to the crucial issue of our MPs’ finances… and is a serious step backwards in terms of legislation”, as among other things it “weakens” the obligation to remove secrecy, and may have the effect, in at least some cases where it is not deemed necessary to remove said secrecy, of the Committee’s scrutiny being based on what is presented in the declaration rather than a truly mandatory scrutiny of the flow of assets of the person in question.
The obligation to submit asset declarations aims to enhance transparency and strengthen democracy, and is a key tool in preventing corruption. Through the submission of these declarations by those obliged to do so, and their scrutiny by the appropriate bodies, it can be determined what assets are held by those in positions of power, and where they came from, which enables corruption to be detected, prevented, or investigated, if necessary.
Article 15 of law 4606/2019 amended article 3B of law 3213/2003, making the lifting of banking secrecy mandatory in the scrutiny of asset declarations for those under the jurisdiction of the CIDA Committee (politicians, judicial officers etc.).
This obligation to remove secrecy and the harnessing of the information derived from it constituted another “tool” that could be said to strengthen the reliability and thoroughness of the scrutiny process.
However, just a few months later, Article 209 of law 4635/2019 replaced the mandatory lifting of secrecy with the possible lifting of secrecy, raising concerns that this legislative “regression” may affect transparency and accountability.
Bank Account number: 1100 0232 0016 560
IBAN: GR56 0140 1100 1100 0232 0016 560
BIC: CRBAGRAA
In a time where the very foundations of democracy are gradually being eroded by the rise of extreme nationalism, alt-right movements, the spread of disinformation and corporate capture, the efforts of organisations such as Vouliwatch are more relevant than ever.
We rely on the generosity of each and every one of you to continue with our efforts for more transparency and accounta
By financially supporting Vouliwatch you support our litigation strategy, our campaigns for transparency and accountability in the political system, the development of new civic tech tools, our research projects and last but not least our impartial and accurate
