Brussels, 21/12/2009 (Agence Europe) - On Thursday 17 December, the European Parliament in Strasbourg called for an update in regulation on access to documents from the institutions and criticised the European Commission for not having amended its proposal despite appeals to do so. On 11 March last, the EP adopted amendments from the report compiled by Michael Cashman (S&D, United Kingdom) but postponed the vote on the legislative resolution. The EP chose not to conclude its first reading (co-decision) in an effort to allow the Commission to amend its proposal and help the new European Parliament to negotiate with the Council after the summer, under the Swedish Presidency.
By adopting (341 votes in favour, 206 votes against, 20 abstentions) a resolution submitted by the S&D, ALDE, Greens/EFA, ECR and GUE/NGL groups on improvements to introduce to the legal framework on document access following entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, the EP “deplores the fact that, despite the demands clearly expressed on 11 March 2009”, the Commission has not prepared an amended version of its legislative proposal. The Parliament wants the regulation to be updated in compliance with the jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice. A historic decision made on 1 July 2008 (“Turco” ruling, joint affairs C-39/05 P and C-52/05 P), called on the Council to provide access to documents, including opinions from the legal service.
Expansion of the field of application to European agencies and bodies. The EP considers that after entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, Regulation 1049/2001 must immediately be updated to: - expand its field of application to all institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union, which are not currently covered, such as the European Council, European Central Bank, European Court of Justice, Europol and Eurojust; - ensure broad access to many documents (opinions of the legal service, Council documents, including positions and the number of votes cast, draft international agreements, documents on the protection of personal data and the basic contents of institutions' data).
Greater user-friendly access. MEPs consider that access to information “will facilitate objective evaluation of the application of EU rules, acts, measures and programmes in member states”. They are calling for access to EU documents to be enhanced by creating more user-friendly systems. They support the idea raised by the inter-institutional committee to set up a single internet page with corresponding links to sites that promote citizens' access.
The EP is calling on the current Presidency, as well as the next Presidency of the Council to “immediately initiate inter-institutional dialogue at a political level in order to create the basis for a new regulation on document access by 30 June 2010 at the latest”.
In 2001, 15 countries coming from very different cultures were able to reach an agreement on document access: this result can unhesitatingly be described as “historic” and was concluded under another Swedish Presidency, recalled British Labour Party MEP Michael Cashman in his presentation of an oral question to the Council in relation to improvements to introduce to the legal framework for document access following the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty. Rights of access to documents must be reinforced and also extended to agencies and even the European Central Bank and European Court of Justice.
Access to documents has been significantly expanded since 2001, confirmed Cecilia Malmström, speaking on behalf of the Council, despite restrictions that still remain with regard to the European Court of Justice, EIB and the European Court of Auditors. The Commission produced proposals to improve access in May 2008 and a working group met on two occasions to adopt technical provisions. The three institutions, however, still have to discuss the matter together and Ms Malmström and Ms Wallström met Diana Wallis, the British liberal, to examine how they ought to proceed.
Speaking on behalf of the Commission, Margot Wallström indicated that the new legal basis does not introduce any major changes and mainly aims to expand the scope of the regulation to other bodies and institutions. The Parliament is also expected to have its say on this subject.
According to Renate Sommer (EPP, Germany) this oral question and the resolution accompanying it are irrelevant and Mr Cashman is presenting them without the agreement of the EPP Group. On the other hand, Diana Wallis believed that everyone agreed with it and welcomed the contacts she had had with representatives from the Council and Commission, with whom it had been agreed that the three institutions should meet in the next six months.
The majority of MEPs agree that there should be greater transparency but some of them draw attention to the need for certain restrictions, particularly Salvatore Iacolino (EPP, Italy) who mentioned the case of negotiations with third countries on sensitive subjects. Heidi Hautala (Greens/EFA, Finland) affirmed that international negotiations should not be put in danger but citizens had the right to be informed if this affected their daily lives. Mr Cashman made a spirited defence against the criticism made Ms Sommer, whose group had been correctly informed and had taken part in the discussions on the resolution. He praised a visibly moved Margot Wallström and stated that even if we have sometimes fought “for our own institution in our separate corners… you have always done what you believed was fair and right”. Ms Wallström concluded that “a Commission proposal exists and we need a first reading from the Parliament: if it gives us one, as soon as possible, we will be able to discuss the matter and reach a decision”. (L.C./L.G./transl.fl)