The Commission has published a report on public access to documents: Report from the Commission on the application in 2008 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (Brussels, 2.7.2009 COM(2009) 331 final).
The legislative process to amend Regulation 1409/2001 continues, so the report has a certain relevance to the discussions in the Council and the European Parliament. The report contains references to the cases handled by the European Ombudsman and decided by the Court of first instance. It contains a summary of reasons clarified by the Court of first instance.
A statistical annex concludes the 18 page report on a subject relevant to openness and transparency in the institutions of the European Union.
Ralf Grahn
Showing posts with label public access. Show all posts
Showing posts with label public access. Show all posts
Friday, 3 July 2009
Saturday, 14 March 2009
EU Council: Abandon all hope?
Abandon all hope, you who enter Justus Lipsius? The EU Council is better known for its adherence to opaque old style diplomacy than for embracing new school open governance, but even there you can find a glimmer of hope for the future.
***
Seven ministers
This call by seven ministers for the EU to make good its commitment to transparency was published by the European Voice 5 March 2009:
The EU's current rules on public access to documents held by EU institutions are based on the principles of openness and transparency, a crucial component of efforts to increase EU citizens' confidence in its institutions.
Under those rules, citizens can be denied access only if this can be justified based on a document's actual content. The experience of the past eight years has shown that this was a wise solution that was compatible with the objective of the regulation: to guarantee the "widest possible openness".
The Commission declared that it wanted to increase transparency even more when, in April 2008, it proposed revising that regulation. However, we and like-minded colleagues in the Council of Ministers are concerned that the proposal would have the opposite effect.
In many areas, the proposed reform seems aimed mainly at changing the current openness-oriented interpretation.
In negotiations within the Council, we have found ourselves defending the current level of access in many key areas, instead of discussing improvements to it. The risk we are facing is that entire categories of documents will be excluded from the scope of EU access rules. A good example of this is the idea of denying the public access to any documents relating to investigations run by the Commission - one of its core tasks. There are better ways of guaranteeing the smooth conduct of such investigations than by categorically excluding any possibility of public access.
We have also been surprised that the idea of reconstituting member states' absolute veto power over documents originating from them has gained some support not only in the Council, but also in the European Parliament. What would the EU's citizens have to gain from such reforms?
We are therefore glad to see that the Parliament's committee on civil liberties, justice and home affairs adopted a report on 17 February that shares our vision of a more transparent Union. We also welcome the statement made by Margot Wallström, the Commission's vice-president, that the Commission is willing to reconsider those elements of its proposal that would constitute a step backward in terms of openness.
Some worries remain, including the proposed bloc exemptions of whole categories of documents. We need new ways of guaranteeing the Union's openness. This reform process should be about moving forward, not backward, in the process of opening up the EU - a Union "in which decisions are taken as openly as possible", as the EU treaty proudly declares. There are ways of responding to legitimate concerns that would be compatible with this principle of transparency - as the current regulation demonstrates, with its excellent balance between openness and the need for confidentiality.
From:
Beatrice Ask
Minister of justice, Sweden
Tuija Brax
Minister of justice, Finland
Irma Pavlini Krebs
Minister of public administration, Slovenia
Rein Lang
Minister of justice, Estonia
Cecilia Malmström
Minister of EU affairs, Sweden
Per Stig Møller
Minister of foreign affairs, Denmark
Astrid Thors
Minister of migration and European affairs, Finland
Source: http://www.regeringen.se/sb/d/11683/a/122296
Ralf Grahn
***
Seven ministers
This call by seven ministers for the EU to make good its commitment to transparency was published by the European Voice 5 March 2009:
The EU's current rules on public access to documents held by EU institutions are based on the principles of openness and transparency, a crucial component of efforts to increase EU citizens' confidence in its institutions.
Under those rules, citizens can be denied access only if this can be justified based on a document's actual content. The experience of the past eight years has shown that this was a wise solution that was compatible with the objective of the regulation: to guarantee the "widest possible openness".
The Commission declared that it wanted to increase transparency even more when, in April 2008, it proposed revising that regulation. However, we and like-minded colleagues in the Council of Ministers are concerned that the proposal would have the opposite effect.
In many areas, the proposed reform seems aimed mainly at changing the current openness-oriented interpretation.
In negotiations within the Council, we have found ourselves defending the current level of access in many key areas, instead of discussing improvements to it. The risk we are facing is that entire categories of documents will be excluded from the scope of EU access rules. A good example of this is the idea of denying the public access to any documents relating to investigations run by the Commission - one of its core tasks. There are better ways of guaranteeing the smooth conduct of such investigations than by categorically excluding any possibility of public access.
We have also been surprised that the idea of reconstituting member states' absolute veto power over documents originating from them has gained some support not only in the Council, but also in the European Parliament. What would the EU's citizens have to gain from such reforms?
We are therefore glad to see that the Parliament's committee on civil liberties, justice and home affairs adopted a report on 17 February that shares our vision of a more transparent Union. We also welcome the statement made by Margot Wallström, the Commission's vice-president, that the Commission is willing to reconsider those elements of its proposal that would constitute a step backward in terms of openness.
Some worries remain, including the proposed bloc exemptions of whole categories of documents. We need new ways of guaranteeing the Union's openness. This reform process should be about moving forward, not backward, in the process of opening up the EU - a Union "in which decisions are taken as openly as possible", as the EU treaty proudly declares. There are ways of responding to legitimate concerns that would be compatible with this principle of transparency - as the current regulation demonstrates, with its excellent balance between openness and the need for confidentiality.
From:
Beatrice Ask
Minister of justice, Sweden
Tuija Brax
Minister of justice, Finland
Irma Pavlini Krebs
Minister of public administration, Slovenia
Rein Lang
Minister of justice, Estonia
Cecilia Malmström
Minister of EU affairs, Sweden
Per Stig Møller
Minister of foreign affairs, Denmark
Astrid Thors
Minister of migration and European affairs, Finland
Source: http://www.regeringen.se/sb/d/11683/a/122296
Ralf Grahn
Wednesday, 4 March 2009
European Union: Interinstitutional agreements (EP)
The “institutional triangle” of the European Union ─ the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament ─ needs internal cooperation to function properly.
The treaties define the competences of the European Union (European Community) as a whole and assign the roles to the players, but much of their interaction is left unregulated at this level.
The institutions have therefore developed practices and concluded agreements to ensure functioning relations. Interinstitutional agreements are a means to this end.
These agreements are neither well indexed nor presented on the web pages of the institutions, but we aim to present a rough sketch on the basis of what we find on the basis of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament. This leaves certain interinstitutional agreements outside the scope of this blog post (at least in part: Council, budget procedures, comitology, subsidiarity, better regulation).
One of the annexes to the EP Rules of Procedure has direct bearing on the rights of EU citizens. We add some information about the current stage of the Commission’s controversial proposal regarding public access to documents.
***
EP Rules of Procedure: General rule
The Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament (16th edition, October 2008) illustrate the aims and the forms of so called interinstitutional agreements. The aim is to improve or clarify procedures. According to Rule 120 these interinstitutional agreements can appear in various forms. They are subject to scrutiny before approval by the European Parliament:
CHAPTER 6 INTERINSTITUTIONAL AGREEMENTS
Rule 120 Interinstitutional agreements
1. Parliament may enter into agreements with other institutions in the context of the application of the Treaties or in order to improve or clarify procedures.
Such agreements may take the form of joint declarations, exchanges of letters or codes of conduct or other appropriate instruments. They shall be signed by the President after examination by the committee responsible for constitutional affairs and after approval by Parliament. They may be annexed to the Rules of Procedure for information.
2. Where such agreements imply the modification of existing procedural rights or obligations or establish new procedural rights or obligations for Members or bodies of Parliament, or otherwise imply modification or interpretation of the Rules of Procedure, the matter shall be referred to the committee responsible for examination in accordance with Rule 201(2) to (6) before the agreement is signed.
***
Annexing interinstitutional agreements to the EP Rules of Procedure
As we saw in Rule 120, interinstitutional agreements may be annexed to the EP’s Rules of Procedure. Rule 204 gives further directions on the arrangement of annexes, with point (c) dedicated to interinstitutional agreements.
Rule 204 Arrangement of annexes
The annexes to these Rules of Procedure shall be arranged under the following three headings:
a) implementing provisions for procedures under these Rules, adopted by a majority of the votes cast (Annex VI);
b) provisions adopted in implementation of specific terms of the Rules of Procedure and in accordance with the procedures and majority rules laid down therein (Annexes I, II, III, IV, V, VII(A) and (C), IX and XV);
c) interinstitutional agreements or other provisions adopted pursuant to the Treaties which are applicable within Parliament or which have a bearing on its operation. Decisions to annex such provisions to the Rules of Procedure shall be taken by Parliament by a majority of the votes cast, on a proposal from its committee responsible (Annexes VII(B), VIII, X, XI, XII, XIII, XIV and XVI).
***
Annexed interinstitutional agreements
The annexes mentioned in Rule 204(c) and in the Index of the EP Rules of Procedure give an indication of the subjects covered.
***
Annex VII.B
VII.B.Access by Parliament to sensitive information in the field of security and defence policy
Interinstitutional Agreement of 20 November 2002 between the European Parliament and the Council concerning access by the European Parliament to sensitive information of the Council in the field of security and defence policy (OJ 30.11.2002 C 298/1).
***
Annex VII.C
VII.C.Implementation of the Interinstitutional Agreement governing Parliament access to sensitive information in the sphere of security and defence policy
European Parliament decision of 23 October 2002 on the implementation of the Interinstitutional Agreement governing European Parliament access to sensitive Council information in the sphere of security and defence policy (OJ 30.11.2002 C 298/4).
***
Annex VIII
Annex VIII Detailed provisions governing the exercise of the European Parliament's right of inquiry
Decision of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission of 19 April 1995 on the detailed provisions governing the exercise of the European Parliament's right of inquiry (OJ 19.5.1995 L 113/2).
***
Annex X
Annex X Performance of the Ombudsman's duties
Annex X.A Decision of the European Parliament on the regulations and general conditions governing the performance of the Ombudsman's duties (adopted by Parliament on 9 March 1994, OJ 4.5.1994 L 113/15, and amended by its decisions of 14 March 2002, OJ 9.4.2002 L 92/13, and 18 June 2008, OJ 17.7.2008 L 189/25), and Annex X.B Decision of the European Ombudsman adopting implementing provisions (adopted on 8 July 2002 and amended by decision of the Ombudsman of 5 April 2004), are at least formally separate decisions, but the inquiries of the Ombudsman require cooperation from the EU institutions and bodies.
***
Annex XI OLAF
At least formally Annex XI contains a unilateral decision adopted on 18 November 1999 by the European Parliament, but it pertains to investigations by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF):
ANNEX XI Prevention of fraud, corruption and any illegal activity detrimental to the Communities' interests
European Parliament Decision concerning the terms and conditions for internal investigations in relation to the prevention of fraud, corruption and any illegal activity detrimental to the Communities' interests
***
Annex XII Comitology
The so called Comitology procedures are mainly played out between the Council (member states) and the Commission, but a complementary agreement between the European Parliament and the Commission provides that the EP is to be kept informed about the committee proceedings.
In a gracious bow to transparency the EU member states even allow the European Parliament to know ‘lists of the authorities to which the persons designated by the Member States to represent them belong’. [Wow!]
ANNEX XII Agreement between the European Parliament and the Commission on procedures for implementing Council Decision 1999/468/EC laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission, as amended by Decision 2006/512/EC.
***
Annex XIII Framework agreement Commission
The relations with the Commission have been covered in a Framework Agreement (EP decision of 26 May 2005), with provisions on confidential information in Annex 1 and a timetable for the Commission’s legislative and work programme in Annex 2.
.
Annex XIII Framework Agreement on relations between the European Parliament and the Commission has the following scope:
I. SCOPE
1. The two Institutions agree on the following measures to strengthen the political responsibility and legitimacy of the Commission, extend constructive dialogue, improve the flow of information between the two Institutions and improve the coordination of procedures and planning.
They also agree on specific implementing measures for the forwarding of confidential Commission documents and information, as set out in Annex 1 and on the timetable for the Commission’s legislative and work programme, as set out in Annex 2.
***
Annex XIV
Annex XIV is mentioned in Rule 204(c), but it has been deleted.
***
Annex XVI Public access to documents
The provisions on the public’s access to documents takes the form of a joint Regulation:
Annex XVI Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 on public access to documents
European Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 31.5.2001 L 145/43).
This Regulation has direct bearing on the rights of EU citizens. Therefore there is reason to mention the Commission’s controversial proposal to amend the Regulation: Draft Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (Brussels, 30.4.2008 COM(2008) 229 final).
On 19 February 2009 the European Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) has tabled a report A6-0077/2009, by rapporteur Michael Cashman.
The report proposes the approval of the proposal as adapted to the recommendations of the Consultative Working Party of the Legal Services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission (and incorporating the technical amendments approved by the Committee on Legal Affairs), with amendments:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+REPORT+A6-2009-0077+0+DOC+PDF+V0//EN
Ralf Grahn
The treaties define the competences of the European Union (European Community) as a whole and assign the roles to the players, but much of their interaction is left unregulated at this level.
The institutions have therefore developed practices and concluded agreements to ensure functioning relations. Interinstitutional agreements are a means to this end.
These agreements are neither well indexed nor presented on the web pages of the institutions, but we aim to present a rough sketch on the basis of what we find on the basis of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament. This leaves certain interinstitutional agreements outside the scope of this blog post (at least in part: Council, budget procedures, comitology, subsidiarity, better regulation).
One of the annexes to the EP Rules of Procedure has direct bearing on the rights of EU citizens. We add some information about the current stage of the Commission’s controversial proposal regarding public access to documents.
***
EP Rules of Procedure: General rule
The Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament (16th edition, October 2008) illustrate the aims and the forms of so called interinstitutional agreements. The aim is to improve or clarify procedures. According to Rule 120 these interinstitutional agreements can appear in various forms. They are subject to scrutiny before approval by the European Parliament:
CHAPTER 6 INTERINSTITUTIONAL AGREEMENTS
Rule 120 Interinstitutional agreements
1. Parliament may enter into agreements with other institutions in the context of the application of the Treaties or in order to improve or clarify procedures.
Such agreements may take the form of joint declarations, exchanges of letters or codes of conduct or other appropriate instruments. They shall be signed by the President after examination by the committee responsible for constitutional affairs and after approval by Parliament. They may be annexed to the Rules of Procedure for information.
2. Where such agreements imply the modification of existing procedural rights or obligations or establish new procedural rights or obligations for Members or bodies of Parliament, or otherwise imply modification or interpretation of the Rules of Procedure, the matter shall be referred to the committee responsible for examination in accordance with Rule 201(2) to (6) before the agreement is signed.
***
Annexing interinstitutional agreements to the EP Rules of Procedure
As we saw in Rule 120, interinstitutional agreements may be annexed to the EP’s Rules of Procedure. Rule 204 gives further directions on the arrangement of annexes, with point (c) dedicated to interinstitutional agreements.
Rule 204 Arrangement of annexes
The annexes to these Rules of Procedure shall be arranged under the following three headings:
a) implementing provisions for procedures under these Rules, adopted by a majority of the votes cast (Annex VI);
b) provisions adopted in implementation of specific terms of the Rules of Procedure and in accordance with the procedures and majority rules laid down therein (Annexes I, II, III, IV, V, VII(A) and (C), IX and XV);
c) interinstitutional agreements or other provisions adopted pursuant to the Treaties which are applicable within Parliament or which have a bearing on its operation. Decisions to annex such provisions to the Rules of Procedure shall be taken by Parliament by a majority of the votes cast, on a proposal from its committee responsible (Annexes VII(B), VIII, X, XI, XII, XIII, XIV and XVI).
***
Annexed interinstitutional agreements
The annexes mentioned in Rule 204(c) and in the Index of the EP Rules of Procedure give an indication of the subjects covered.
***
Annex VII.B
VII.B.Access by Parliament to sensitive information in the field of security and defence policy
Interinstitutional Agreement of 20 November 2002 between the European Parliament and the Council concerning access by the European Parliament to sensitive information of the Council in the field of security and defence policy (OJ 30.11.2002 C 298/1).
***
Annex VII.C
VII.C.Implementation of the Interinstitutional Agreement governing Parliament access to sensitive information in the sphere of security and defence policy
European Parliament decision of 23 October 2002 on the implementation of the Interinstitutional Agreement governing European Parliament access to sensitive Council information in the sphere of security and defence policy (OJ 30.11.2002 C 298/4).
***
Annex VIII
Annex VIII Detailed provisions governing the exercise of the European Parliament's right of inquiry
Decision of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission of 19 April 1995 on the detailed provisions governing the exercise of the European Parliament's right of inquiry (OJ 19.5.1995 L 113/2).
***
Annex X
Annex X Performance of the Ombudsman's duties
Annex X.A Decision of the European Parliament on the regulations and general conditions governing the performance of the Ombudsman's duties (adopted by Parliament on 9 March 1994, OJ 4.5.1994 L 113/15, and amended by its decisions of 14 March 2002, OJ 9.4.2002 L 92/13, and 18 June 2008, OJ 17.7.2008 L 189/25), and Annex X.B Decision of the European Ombudsman adopting implementing provisions (adopted on 8 July 2002 and amended by decision of the Ombudsman of 5 April 2004), are at least formally separate decisions, but the inquiries of the Ombudsman require cooperation from the EU institutions and bodies.
***
Annex XI OLAF
At least formally Annex XI contains a unilateral decision adopted on 18 November 1999 by the European Parliament, but it pertains to investigations by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF):
ANNEX XI Prevention of fraud, corruption and any illegal activity detrimental to the Communities' interests
European Parliament Decision concerning the terms and conditions for internal investigations in relation to the prevention of fraud, corruption and any illegal activity detrimental to the Communities' interests
***
Annex XII Comitology
The so called Comitology procedures are mainly played out between the Council (member states) and the Commission, but a complementary agreement between the European Parliament and the Commission provides that the EP is to be kept informed about the committee proceedings.
In a gracious bow to transparency the EU member states even allow the European Parliament to know ‘lists of the authorities to which the persons designated by the Member States to represent them belong’. [Wow!]
ANNEX XII Agreement between the European Parliament and the Commission on procedures for implementing Council Decision 1999/468/EC laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission, as amended by Decision 2006/512/EC.
***
Annex XIII Framework agreement Commission
The relations with the Commission have been covered in a Framework Agreement (EP decision of 26 May 2005), with provisions on confidential information in Annex 1 and a timetable for the Commission’s legislative and work programme in Annex 2.
.
Annex XIII Framework Agreement on relations between the European Parliament and the Commission has the following scope:
I. SCOPE
1. The two Institutions agree on the following measures to strengthen the political responsibility and legitimacy of the Commission, extend constructive dialogue, improve the flow of information between the two Institutions and improve the coordination of procedures and planning.
They also agree on specific implementing measures for the forwarding of confidential Commission documents and information, as set out in Annex 1 and on the timetable for the Commission’s legislative and work programme, as set out in Annex 2.
***
Annex XIV
Annex XIV is mentioned in Rule 204(c), but it has been deleted.
***
Annex XVI Public access to documents
The provisions on the public’s access to documents takes the form of a joint Regulation:
Annex XVI Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 on public access to documents
European Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 31.5.2001 L 145/43).
This Regulation has direct bearing on the rights of EU citizens. Therefore there is reason to mention the Commission’s controversial proposal to amend the Regulation: Draft Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (Brussels, 30.4.2008 COM(2008) 229 final).
On 19 February 2009 the European Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) has tabled a report A6-0077/2009, by rapporteur Michael Cashman.
The report proposes the approval of the proposal as adapted to the recommendations of the Consultative Working Party of the Legal Services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission (and incorporating the technical amendments approved by the Committee on Legal Affairs), with amendments:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+REPORT+A6-2009-0077+0+DOC+PDF+V0//EN
Ralf Grahn
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Subscribe To Grahnlaw
Posts
All Comments
