67. Are there provisions for conflict of interests for candidates and/or elected officials?

The most detailed policy document to prevent conflicts of interest and political corruption at federal or regional level in Belgium is the code of conduct for members of the Flemish Parliament and Government (including the staff in their private offices), which provides rules on contact with citizens in Flanders. The national government coalition agreement from 1 December 2011 contains a chapter on ethics in politics which states that central and all other regional parliaments should work on conflicts of interest and ethical rules. It also envisages the establishment of an independent ethics committee that should prepare a draft code of ethics for the national parliament. This code should also contain provisions on conflicts of interest. To date, this commitment has not been met and similar attempts have failed in the past.  It is therefore important that these commitments are kept on the agenda and that — even outside the national parliament — ethical codes and mechanisms to prevent corruption and conflicts of interest are in place for members of all regional parliaments and members of the executive at all levels, as well as for private office staff. The adoption of these codes should be accompanied by the establishment of oversight mechanisms to ensure proper implementation. In order to prevent conflicts of interest, Members of Parliament and senior elected officials have to submit a declaration of interests to the Court of Audit at least once a year.3 This information was published for the first time in 2012. An asset declaration has also been required from MPs and senior elected officials since 2005.  While the Court of Audit provides extensive explanations on how to make the required declarations, there is no information available about the effectiveness of the control mechanism. The most significant information provided by the Court of Audit is the list of those who failed to submit their declarations. Failing to submit declarations may be punished by a maximum penalty of EUR 5 000. No data are available on the actual implementation of this rule, although at least one person is reported to have been penalised. Asset declarations are submitted in a sealed envelope, and are opened only in the event of a criminal investigation. Lack of institutional oversight combined with the lack of public access to any data on asset declarations means that such declarations are not effectively verified in practice (Source:  EUROPEAN. COMMISSION. Brussels, 3.2.2014. COM(2014) 38 final. REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN. PARLIAMENT. EU ANTI-CORRUPTION REPORT (ANNEX 1 Belgium)), pp. 6-7.