The European Parliament has adopted a new code of conduct for its members. The Code lays down rules and principles, which the parliamentarians have to keep dealing with external contacts in order to avoid conflicts of interest.The guiding principle of the Code is transparency. MPs will also be required to disclose their paid jobs and their remuneration outside of parliament, and other features that might constitute a conflict of interest, in unambiguous statements. The Code also includes an explicit ban, payment or consideration for the influence to take on parliamentary decisions. There are clear rules for the acceptance of gifts and the position of former Members who work as lobbyists.
The main provisions are:
Financial Statement: MPs need to specify any professional activity; they have performed in the three years before their election to Parliament. This is valid also for each board member of a company, an NGO, and / or post at interest groups during the same period as and at the present time.Any paid activities that are at the office, /even on an occasional basis, exercised, including technical advisory services in oral or written/, must be published, if the earnings exceed € 5,000 per year. Financial support of any kind and financial interests that could cause a conflict of interest must also be disclosed. Any amendment to the declaration must be reported within 30 days. In the case of non-compliance with the MPs lose their right to hold office in Parliament.

Gifts: All gifts or benefits worth more than 150 €, the deputies obtained during the course of their duties, must be rejected, or if Parliament is officially represented, will be forwarded to the President of Parliament. Reimbursement of direct expenses is not considered a gift; the MEP attended each event following an official invitation.
Sanctions: Any violation of the Code, a decision of the President after consultation with the Advisory Committee constituted under the new code, separate MEP may be sanctioned. It comes to a reprimand, forfeiture, deprivation of daily compensation for up to ten days suspension from participation in the parliament (without losing the right to vote) for up to 10 days, and withdrawal of the status of rapporteur or other official function in the EP.

The decision of the Commission of the European Union, the new Member States of the European Community to provide the amounts for the elimination of the date of their accession to the Union in their territory surpluses of agricultural products into account, violates the Act of Accession of these countries.Thus the decision of the Court of the European Union in the present case of complaints of Poland, Slovakia, Czech Republic and Lithuania for annulment of the Commission decision.In the enlargement of the European Union, on the 1st May 2004 ten new Member States are party, took the Union and the States concerned in the negotiations on agriculture, especially on the legal treatment of the surplus of agricultural products. It comes to the date of accession within the territory of the new Member States present and in free circulation stocks these products, which exceed the amount, which could be regarded as normal transmission stocks.After the Act of 20031, all surpluses can be eliminated at the expense of the new Member States – both private and public. The Commission shall take the necessary measures. In 2007, the Commission adopted, based on the provisions of this Act, a decision in which it determined the surpluses on the 1st May 2004 passed the territory of the new Member States. Poland, Slovakia, the Czech Republic and Lithuania have brought an action for annulment. If the action is well founded, the act is annulled. Decision of the Court of the European Union
Through creating of system must be ensured by that avoided either by the sale of the surplus on the domestic market caused disturbances. In addition, their economic impact can be compensated. The Commission may decide if this is carried out by the new Member States or by the Community, in the latter case it puts the cost to the Member States concerned.In the same time, the elimination of the surplus may cause an increase in demand in the internal market for the agricultural products. Thus, compensate for all or part of the detrimental effect of the existence of the surplus on the stability of the markets. The Commission’s decision is explained by the judgments of the Court of the European Union null and void.