Doslovný záznam ze zasedání

Úterý, 28. dubna 2015 - Štrasburk

20. Odpovídající ochrana informátorů a novinářů v rámci boje proti daňovým únikům a vyhýbání se daňovým povinnostem (rozprava)

  Der Präsident. – Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgt die Aussprache über die Erklärung der Kommission zum angemessenen Schutz von Informanten und Journalisten im Zusammenhang mit der Bekämpfung von Steuerhinterziehung und —umgehung (2015/2677(RSP)).

  Věra Jourová, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, the right to freedom of expression is particularly important for journalists and other people working in the media. They must be free to criticise the state without fear of prosecution. This is an important feature of a democratic society. It may be permissible to restrict freedom of expression. However, such a restriction must be proportionate. In other words, the restriction must be no more than is necessary and appropriate and not excessive in the circumstances.

There is no harmonised system in place in the European Union for the protection of whistle-blowers but EU rules on whistle-blowing exist in some specific areas, as in EU competition law or in the new rules of the Market Abuse Regulation addressing unlawful behaviour in the financial markets. These concern whistle-blowing to public authorities. Where no applicable EU law exists it is up to the EU Member States to regulate this issue in compliance with relevant national legislation within the framework of the rules of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

  Romana Tomc, v imenu skupine PPE. – Vsi se strinjamo, da je izogibanje davkom zelo resen problem, ki seveda naredi veliko škode našim ekonomijam in nenazadnje vpliva tudi na nižji standard ljudi. In proti temu problemu se borimo iz dneva v dan in z različnimi sredstvi. In eno izmed možnih sredstev je tudi tako imenovani varni oblak, internetno orodje, kamor naj bi pošiljali informacije o škodljivih davčnih praksah.

To zveni zelo obetavno, vendar ko pridemo do tega, kako se bo stvar izvajala, se seveda zatakne. Trčimo na kup težav, ki so predvsem pravne narave. Gre za zelo, zelo občutljivo področje, ki se dotika vloge Parlamenta in varovanja osebnih podatkov.

Kako zagotoviti anonimnost, ali je to sploh mogoče, in kako zagotoviti varovanje osebnih podatkov? Skratka, ko bomo ukrepali naprej, bi se moral… bi se morali v Parlamentu zavedati svoje vloge, ki je predvsem zakonodajna, in seveda se vprašati, ali želimo to vlogo preseči.

  Peter Simon, im Namen der S&D-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Es ist der Kommission zuzustimmen: Jawohl, wir haben im Wettbewerbsrecht und in anderen Bereichen Spezialregelungen hierfür. Es ist auch zuzustimmen, dass es Sache der Mitgliedstaaten ist, jetzt Regelungen zu finden. Aber seien wir doch mal alle ehrlich, die wir hier sind: Glaubt denn irgendjemand hier im Raum, dass die Mitgliedstaaten dies ganz allein tun? Dass sie ausgewogene Regelungen finden, die eben das Spannungsfeld zwischen berechtigtem Interesse – an Verschwiegenheit, in Firmen, gegenüber dem Staat – und dem berechtigten Interesse der Öffentlichkeit, Informationen zu bekommen über Dinge, die gesellschaftlich nicht hinnehmbar sind, über staatlich organisierte Steuervermeidung auflösen? In diesem Spannungsfeld zu einer ausgewogenen Lösung zu kommen, dies den Mitgliedstaaten allein zu überlassen, muss scheitern.

Deswegen möchte ich die Kommission auffordern, hier mutig zu sein. Sie müssen ein europaweit gemeinsames Verständnis dafür schaffen, wann genau das Lüften von Geheimnissen auch gegen bestehende firmeninterne oder innerstaatlich festgelegte Verpflichtungen von solcher gesamtgesellschaftlicher Relevanz und Dimension ist, dass in einer Güteabwägung der Verstoß gegen diese Verschwiegenheitspflichten wegen des deutlichen Überwiegens eines solchen öffentlichen Interesses nicht sanktioniert wird. Einen solchen Vorschlag erwarte ich von Ihnen! Nicht in dem Sinne, dass Sie eine Rechtsverbindlichkeit entfalten können, nein! Aber als Hüterin der Verträge, als diejenige Institution, die wir uns geschaffen haben, zu sehen, dass der Konsens in Europa über das, was wir uns als Recht gesetzt haben, und das, was wir als Recht vielleicht noch entwickeln wollen, gewahrt bleibt, ist es geboten, dass die Kommission zumindest mit mutigen Vorschlägen hier voranprescht. Ich möchte Sie hierzu ermutigen!

  Marian Harkin, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, the parliamentary intergroup on integrity, transparency and organised crime will be launched in Parliament tomorrow evening and I hope we can use this as a vehicle to campaign for a European directive in defence of whistle-blowers.

The European Ombudsman has asked us to change our culture, admit that bad things happen, and while she argues that whistle-blowers are not enough to keep fraud, corruption and mismanagement out of EU institutions, they do have a role to play, in that they sound the alarm. Yet out of nine EU bodies, only two have responded adequately to the European Ombudsman’s insistence that they have internal rules on whistle-blowing. Only the Commission and the European Court of Auditors have in place policies for taking whistle-blowers’ concerns seriously and protecting the individual.

In regard to the protection of the LuxLeaks whistle-blowers, which is the topic we are discussing this evening, I waited to hear what the Commissioner might say, but I heard nothing – except that where there is no appropriate EU law it is up to the Member States. We know that, but I am wondering, has the Commission nothing more to say on this issue?

It is because of the LuxLeaks whistle-blowers that we have now set up the Tax Committee (Special Committee on tax rulings and other measures in nature or effect) in this Parliament. At all times, but especially in times of crisis, citizens want to see equity in the tax system and transparency in the tax system and they want to know that their governments and, at an EU level cooperatively, that we are trying to ensure tax justice.

As I said, we need a cultural change because otherwise wrongdoing in all sectors, at all levels, whether it is big, small or in-between, will go unchecked. In my view, one of the greatest deterrents to wrongdoing, fraud, embezzlement, whatever, is the fear of being caught, but if wrongdoers are safe in the knowledge that those who are in a position to whistle-blow will most likely keep quiet, then they are likely to continue with their actions.

Commissioner, we need to explore action at EU level.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 162(8))

  Victor Negrescu (S&D), întrebare adresată conform procedurii „cartonașului albastru”. – Sunt de acord cu multe dintre afirmațiile pe care le-ați făcut. Cred că trebuie să îi protejăm pe cei care atrag atenția asupra celor care fac evaziune.

Întrebarea mea este: ce credeți despre cei care au făcut evaziune și, practic, îi arată cu degetul pe alții care au făcut? Adică trebuie să îi protejăm și pe aceștia?

  Marian Harkin (ALDE), blue-card answer. – I am not sure I fully understood the question. It seemed to me that I was asked what we do about those who commit tax evasion and point the finger at other people as well. That was certainly the translation, and I am not quite sure what the relevance of the question is, but I mean that tax evasion is a crime and obviously the penalty must be paid. But I apologise to my colleague: I was not sure of the context in which he asked the question. If I knew that, I could perhaps give him a proper answer.

  President. – Maybe we can clarify this later.

  Fabio De Masi, im Namen der GUE/NGL-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Die GUE/NGL, die Linksfraktion, hat diesen Tagesordnungspunkt beantragt, und ich bedanke mich bei den Kolleginnen und Kollegen, dass wir heute Abend in dieser geselligen Runde beisammen sein dürfen. Der Journalist Edouard Perrin wurde als dritte Person in Luxemburg wegen seiner Enthüllung zu Luxleaks angeklagt. Wir verdanken ihm und Whistleblowern wie Antoine Deltour den Sonderausschuss zu Steuervorbescheiden.

Wir respektieren die Unabhängigkeit der Justiz, wir respektieren aber auch die Pressefreiheit. Luxemburg verletzt mit der Anklage das Recht auf Meinungs- und Informationsfreiheit sowie die Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention bzw. die Grundrechtecharta. Der Vorschlag der EU-Kommission für eine Richtlinie zum Schutz von Geschäftsgeheimnissen soll diesen Schutz sogar noch weiter absenken. Die Steuerzahler verlieren jährlich über 1 Billion Euro durch Steuerhinterziehung und —vermeidung, Europa wird in die Depression gekürzt, während die Anständigen die Dummen sind.

Steuerhinterziehung ist kein Geschäftsgeheimnis. Welcher Bürger in Europa kann sich beim Finanzamt auf seine Geschäftsgeheimnisse berufen? Whistleblower müssen daher gesetzlich geschützt werden, wenn sie davon ausgehen können, mit ihren Enthüllungen höhere öffentliche Interessen zu schützen. Die Kommission wird von Herrn Juncker geführt, der für die Gesetze in Luxemburg verantwortlich war. Ich erwarte von der EU-Kommission, dass sie die Strafverfolgung von Journalisten in Luxemburg verurteilt, wie sie das selbstverständlich auch in anderen Regionen in der Welt tut, und endlich Vorschläge vorlegt, die die Anständigen schützen und nicht weiter die Kriminellen in Europa.

  Eva Joly, au nom du groupe Verts/ALE. – Monsieur le Président, Madame la Commissaire, le 23 avril, Édouard Perrin, le journaliste qui avait dévoilé un pan entier du scandale Luxleaks, a été mis en examen par la justice luxembourgeoise. Comme le lanceur d'alerte Antoine Deltour, il est poursuivi pour violation du secret des affaires.

C'est un coup dur porté à notre vie démocratique. Il révèle la brutalité d'un système mis à mal par des révélations successives. En matière de justice fiscale, mais aussi d'environnement et de droit du travail, le rôle des lanceurs d'alerte et des journalistes est vital. Alors que la demande de transparence n'a jamais été aussi pressante, l'Union européenne, à travers sa directive sur le secret des affaires, fait le choix du secret et de l'opacité.

Madame la Commissaire, les cas d'Édouard Perrin et d'Antoine Deltour sont inacceptables. Alors qu'ils devraient être portés en héros et protégés, vous souhaitez étendre aux vingt-huit États membres des lois d'un autre temps, dans l'intérêt de quelques-uns contre l'intérêt général. Il se trouve que nous connaissons le nom de ces intérêts particuliers, de leurs lobbyistes et de leurs conseils. La nouvelle Commission et la nouvelle commissaire s'honoreraient en faisant la complète lumière sur les relations qui existaient dans l'ancienne Commission.

  Marco Zanni, a nome del gruppo EFDD. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, oggi in Parlamento si discute di lotta all'evasione e all'elusione fiscale e abbiamo anche istituito una commissione speciale, ma tutto questo è stato possibile solo grazie all'indispensabile intervento di giornalisti e informatori, come Antoine Deltour, che hanno reso queste pratiche scorrette di dominio pubblico.

Ben si capisce quindi l'importanza di tutelare in maniera adeguata coloro che decidono di rivelare pratiche distorsive e illegali rispetto alla normale concorrenza, soprattutto in materia fiscale. Chi vuole approfondire ricerche su casi e tematiche ancora non del tutto chiari deve avere determinate garanzie, così come coloro che dall'interno di questi meccanismi voglio far emergere tutte le lacune del sistema oggi in vigore. È vero che molti di questi informatori sono stati loro stessi complici o artefici di pratiche illegali e poco trasparenti, ma in Europa esistono tutele per pentiti che hanno commesso crimini ben più gravi.

Dobbiamo tenere ben presente qual è il nostro obiettivo finale, ovvero la dissoluzione di tutte queste tecniche di elusione ed evasione fiscale, e per far questo è indispensabile avere il loro appoggio, dando loro la necessaria tutela.

  Bernard Monot (NI). – Monsieur le Président, Madame la Commissaire, les lanceurs d'alerte en matière fiscale ont permis de mettre au jour différents scandales majeurs, depuis le fichier d'HSBC jusqu'au Luxleaks.

Sans ces sources, la justice, pas plus que l'opinion publique, n'aurait eu vent de ces affaires. Il faut donc protéger ceux qui ont le courage de dénoncer des faits de nature illégale, prenant souvent le risque de représailles professionnelles, ou personnelles, pour défendre l'intérêt général des citoyens.

Mais je considère que la protection des lanceurs d'alerte doit être globale et concerner également les faits de corruption au sens large, notamment du fait des dirigeants politiques, ou encore les infractions à la réglementation du travail ou en matière d'environnement. Pourquoi pas, aussi, la dénonciation des réseaux d'immigration clandestine et des trafics?

Sur les faits de nature fiscale, la limite doit rester le respect de la vie privée. Il ne s'agit pas d'encourager une forme de délation malsaine. La dénonciation calomnieuse doit être poursuivie. Au-delà de sanctions sérieuses à infliger aux fraudeurs actifs, il faut aussi viser les établissements financiers et les cabinets de conseil, tout aussi coupables d'organiser délibérément cette fraude. C'est, par exemple, le cas du cabinet PriceWaterhouseCoopers dans le scandale Luxleaks.

Dans le cadre de la directive sur le secret des affaires, l'Union européenne doit veiller à rester cohérente et à bien en délimiter le champ. Si cet équilibre est réussi, le Front national est favorable à cette directive de protection des lanceurs d'alerte et des journalistes.

  Емил Радев (PPE). – Господин председател, създаването на интернет страница, на която да могат да се подават анонимни сигнали към комисията относно данъчните постановления и другите мерки, сходни по естество или въздействие, е доста рисково начинание, което няма да доведе до търсените резултати. Доводите против това предложение са много.

На първо място, тази възможност може да доведе до много злоупотреби и разчистване на сметки. Проверката на истинността на информацията ще изисква усилия и компетенция, с които Европейския парламент не разполага.

Второ, имайки предвид отрицателното становище, дадено от правната служба на Европейския парламент, ние не можем да осигурим анонимността на подадените сигнали. Като европейски депутати ние не разполагаме със същата правна защита, с която разследващите журналисти разполагат по отношение на източниците на информация.

Трето, създаването на „secure clouds“ може да доведе до опасен прецедент, който да бъде впоследствие приложен и към други законодателни комисии на Европейския парламент. Какво ще правим тогава?

Подкрепям решението, взето вече в самата комисия за данъчните постановления, и позицията, изразена от правната служба на Европейския парламент, че такава страница не е необходима.

  Ana Gomes (S&D). – Senhor Presidente, a maior parte dos países da União Europeia não assegura proteção legal adequada aos denunciantes de corrupção, evasão fiscal e outros crimes. Por isso, este Parlamento, no relatório da Comissão Crime em 2013, pediu à Comissão uma proposta legislativa com um programa europeu eficaz para a proteção daqueles que denunciam casos de má gestão e irregularidades nos setores público e privado, a nível nacional e transfronteiriço.

Esta recomendação aplica-se a revelações conhecidas com os LuxLeaks. É insuportável que um Estado-Membro fundador da União Europeia acuse criminalmente jornalistas e outros denunciantes em relação à revelação de atos de dumping fiscal praticados durante anos pela administração luxemburguesa e por companhias privadas. A atitude das autoridades do Luxemburgo viola o direito europeu, o interesse público e demonstra desprezo pela liberdade de imprensa, pelo direito à informação e à transparência, pilares cruciais das nossas democracias. Antoine Deltour e outros informaram os cidadãos sobre práticas injustas, imorais e possivelmente ilegais. A sua importância geral sobrepõe-se à violação da lei luxemburguesa sobre a confidencialidade dos acordos, que será ilegal se forem adotadas as regras recentemente propostas pela Comissão Europeia sobre troca de informações entre os Estados-Membros no que respeita a acordos fiscais.

Por isso, apelo ao bom senso do Ministério Público luxemburguês para que arquive estas acusações contra os denunciantes e jornalistas envolvidos no LuxLeaks.

  Marisa Matias (GUE/NGL). – Senhor Presidente, nós estamos a ter este debate por uma questão muito específica, o Sr. Perrin, jornalista, divulgou informação de interesse público relativamente ao Luxleaks e foi o terceiro a ser acusado por esta matéria. Ora bem, é tão relevante e tão de interesse público a informação que revelou que nós criámos mesmo uma comissão especial neste Parlamento para averiguar esta situação. Isto prova o estado a que chegámos, porque quem deveria estar a prestar contas sobre esta situação é o Sr. Juncker e não o Sr. Perrin, quem está a ser julgado foi quem ajudou os cidadãos.

No entanto, quem prejudicou os cidadãos está a presidir à Comissão Europeia. Eu acho que este exemplo é muito claro do estado a que chegámos, é muito claro - por isso mesmo é que os cidadãos europeus olham de lado para as instituições europeias - e se a Comissão Europeia, numa matéria tão sensível como esta, não fizer rigorosamente nada para proteger estas pessoas está a dar um sinal aos cidadãos que, de facto, têm de desconfiar das instituições europeias. Portanto, nós devemos agradecer o trabalho destas pessoas e protegê-lo e não condená-los e esse papel cabe à Comissão Europeia e a mais ninguém.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – A Uachtaráin, tá áthas orm cúpla focal a rá ar an ábhar tábhachtach seo.

I suppose the word ‘whistle-blowers’ comes from sport. The referee is the person who blows the whistle and, like the whistle-blowers, the referee is usually not loved but nevertheless probably respected and indeed necessary. The same applies here to whistle-blowers who act in the public interest. It is not a popular thing to do but often it takes great courage, particularly in exposing a wrongdoing in relation to tax avoidance and tax evasion. Indeed in relation to tax avoidance some big multinationals have proven themselves very adept in that regard.

Anything that helps us to save EUR 1 trillion, which is what it is estimated that we are losing through these illegal methods annually, is something to be welcomed. The whistle-blower deserves every protection in that regard because without it we would not be able to deal with these terrible afflictions.

Catch-the-eye-Verfahren

  Νότης Μαριάς ( ECR). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, η Επιτροπή ήταν ιδιαίτερα φειδωλή στη δήλωσή της. Καταλαβαίνουμε για ποιους λόγους. Η φοροδιαφυγή και η φοροαποφυγή είναι αντικοινωνικές δράσεις και για τον λόγο αυτό πρέπει να τιμωρούνται σκληρά. Η φοροδιαφυγή και η φοροαποφυγή μπορούν να αποκαλυφθούν και με τη δημοσιογραφική έρευνα. Αυτό σημαίνει λοιπόν ότι δεν υπάρχει αντίφαση μεταξύ του δημοσίου συμφέροντος και της δημοσιογραφικής έρευνας που αποκαλύπτει τη φοροδιαφυγή, διότι αυτό είναι το δημόσιο συμφέρον.

Η δίωξη κατά του δημοσιογράφου Edouard Perrin είναι παράνομη και απαράδεκτη, διότι ο συγκεκριμένος δημοσιογράφος αποκάλυψε το σκάνδαλο των LuxLeaks, αποκάλυψε τις ευθύνες που έχουν συγκεκριμένες χώρες, φορολογικοί παράδεισοι που δίνουν την ευκαιρία στις πολυεθνικές να φοροδιαφεύγουν. Επομένως, η δίωξή του αυτή είναι απαράδεκτη, είναι παράνομη, είναι αντίθετη με την ίδια την ευρωπαϊκή σύμβαση για την προστασία των ανθρωπίνων δικαιωμάτων.

Καταγγέλλουμε λοιπόν όσα συμβαίνουν, διότι αποτελούν φίμωση του δικαιώματος της ελεύθερης έκφρασης.

  Miguel Viegas (GUE/NGL). – Senhor Presidente, os paraísos fiscais, a fraude e a evasão fiscal estão no centro da atualidade política e mediática. São, em si mesmo, um libelo acusatório dirigido a um sistema capitalista que está podre por dentro e que de podre há de cair empurrado pela luta dos povos. O facto de estarmos aqui a discutir a necessidade de proteger os denunciantes revela a completa falência dos sistemas judiciais e de todos os aparelhos de controlo e execução fiscal que estão há muito tempo ao serviço das grandes empresas. Com efeito, há muito que o poder político se encontra capturado pelo poder económico, servindo os seus interesses em detrimento das populações. O facto de Antoine Deltour, entre outros, arriscar-se a cinco anos de prisão e a uma multa superior a 1 milhão de euros é outro aspeto que nos revela outra inversão completa dos valores e das regras que determinam quem deve estar preso e quem deve estar em liberdade.

(Ende des Catch-the-eye-Verfahrens)

  Věra Jourová, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, I would like to thank the Members for this discussion.

I would not like to give here the impression that the Commission is not doing anything. I mentioned that we have several pieces of legislation where other forms of protection for whistle-blowers is included. It was said here that whistle-blowers must be respected because they fulfil a very important task for society, for democracy and for law and that we should protect them; however, as I said before, this should be done mainly through national legislation.

As for the European level, I have already mentioned that protection has been included in the Market Abuse Directive. Data protection was also mentioned, so I would like to inform you that the Article 29 Data Protection Working Party issued guidance for the Member States on how to protect whistle-blowers within data protection legislation at national level. I would also like to inform you that the Anti-Money-Laundering Directive which was adopted in December 2014 contains a part which includes the protection of those who report suspicious financial transactions; this is also very important.

To go back to the LuxLeaks, which was mentioned several times, I hope you understand that the Commission cannot interfere in the Member States’ jurisdictions as is the case described here. However, we are taking the necessary measures to increase the transparency on tax rulings. This is a preventive measure to fight tax evasion and tax avoidance which would better protect whistle-blowers. On the European level, we want to introduce measures through which the public will get information in a very transparent way on the advantages that are provided by the Member States to companies in the tax sphere. We at the Commission have already approved the first step, which is reporting by the Member States. This reporting will use a central register, so everybody will see where these tax rulings are adopted.

The second step would involve country-by-country reporting, also from the companies themselves. This will be assessed in the course of the next few months to be sure that it will be the most efficient measure to fulfil the purpose, which is transparency and full information provided to European citizens.

I believe these preventive steps will also help us fight tax evasion and tax avoidance, and, together with the protection of whistle-blowers at Member State level, this can help solve the problems we spoke about here.

  Der Präsident. – Die Aussprache ist geschlossen.

Schriftliche Erklärungen (Artikel 162 GO)

  Ivan Jakovčić (ALDE), napisan. – Zaštita novinara, zviždača i antikorupcijskih aktivista koji razotkrivaju utajivače poreza nedvojbeno je u javnom interesu i u interesu građana koji uredno plaćaju porez. Svjedoci smo vrlo neujednačenog pravnog okvira među pojedinim zemljama članicama EU-a kada je riječ o učinkovitom pružanju takve zaštite. Zbog toga imamo niz primjera pritisaka, uvreda i ozbiljnih prijetnji kojima su izloženi novinari i zviždači kada u javnost iznesu svoja saznanja o osobama, tj. kriminalcima koji varaju porezne organe.

Neke su zemlje članice adekvatno zaštitile novinare i zviždače. Pojedina nacionalna zakonodavstva propisuju sankcije za osobe koje diskriminiraju ili prijete zviždačima. Potrebno je sačuvati anonimnost osoba koji razotkrivaju kriminalce. Ali upozoravam na činjenicu da nacionalni propisi unutar EU-a često zaostaju za međunarodnim standardima i najboljom praksom. U mijenjanju takvog stanja i mi, zastupnici u EP-u moramo biti aktivniji i odgovorniji.

Zabrinjava me i to da od Europske komisije dobivamo samo općenite ocjene stanja u području zaštite zviždača i novinara uz objašnjenje da je zakonodavna regulativa u rukama pojedinih zemalja članica. Novinarima i zviždačima koji razotkrivaju skandale oko utaje poreza moramo dati čvrsta jamstva i sigurnu zaštitu. Zato smatram da EK u području usklađivanja nacionalnih zakonodavstava i normi o zaštiti novinara i zviždača koji razotkrivaju utajivače poreza mora učiniti više.

  Benedek Jávor (Verts/ALE), in writing. – It is difficult to imagine corruption without the contribution of players who have the ability to abuse resources – mostly public resources – for the purpose of generating a private; only people with some kind of power in their hands are able to act as such. In order to prevent those powerful people from misusing public money we need people to counter them. Today, we cannot talk about a serious anti-corruption policy without meaningful protection for these brave men and women.

Whistleblowers play an important role in a democracy ensuring vital information in the public interest is brought to light. The level of the extent to which legal means and guarantees that serve to protect whistleblowers as well as the level of specially protected reporting channels are shockingly uneven when it comes to the different Member States. In view of the anomalies of different regulations, the weakness of national institutions, and recent atrocities and lawsuits brought against whistleblowers, it is high time that whistleblowers were guaranteed protection minimum across Europe.

The resolution voted by the EP in March on the report on the fight against fraud has demanded the Commission to propose legislation to this end and stop stalling.

  Marco Valli (EFDD), per iscritto. – Dopo lo scandalo LuxLeaks, che ha acceso i riflettori del mondo sulle inaccettabili pratiche di elusione fiscale in Europa, è seguita l'istituzione di una commissione speciale di inchiesta sui tax ruling, un nuovo pacchetto della Commissione sulla trasparenza e un intenso dibattito a livello istituzionale sulla necessità di porre fine alle pratiche di concorrenza fiscale sleale e procedere a una vera riforma del sistema fiscale.

Tutto questo grazie alla denuncia di un auditor di PWC, Antoine Deltour , che alla difesa a priori degli interessi commerciali delle multinazionali ha preferito agire a sostegno della trasparenza, rivelando informazioni di vitale interesse pubblico circa scandalosi accordi fiscali agevolati tra Lussemburgo e multinazionali. Eppure Antoine oggi rischia la galera per il reato di violazione dell'obbligo di segretezza commerciale. Una situazione paradossale, che rivela ancora più profondamente le falle di un sistema totalmente asservito agli interessi delle lobby e dei poteri forti anziché al bene pubblico.

La legge persegue anche penalmente chi contribuisce a lottare contro l'evasione fiscale, mentre lascia di fatto impunite le pratiche fiscali aggressive. Per lo meno, è indispensabile adottare urgentemente un regime di tutela degli informatori. Sono loro che più di tutti, in un sistema coperto da assoluta segretezza, possono concretamente contribuire alla lotta all'evasione e all'elusione fiscale.