WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1106/98 by Panayotis LAMBRIAS to the Commission. Transparency of procedure under Article 169 of the Treaty on European Union concerning infringements of Community law
Date: 1998-04-08
Institutions: European Parliament, LAMBRIAS
Subjects: advertising, confidentiality, infringement of EU law, transparency in decision-making













EUR-Lex - 91998E1106 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91998E1106

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1106/98 by Panayotis LAMBRIAS to the Commission. Transparency of procedure under Article 169 of the Treaty on European Union concerning infringements of Community law  


Official Journal C 354 , 19/11/1998 P. 0062 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-1106/98 by Panayotis Lambrias (PPE) to the Commission (8 April 1998)Subject: Transparency of procedure under Article 169 of the Treaty on European Union concerning infringements of Community lawThe European Parliament, various non-governmental organizations and professional bodies have repeatedly voiced the need for greater transparency in the Commission's decisions taken under Article 169 of the Treaty on European Union. Although the Commission has recently made some moves towards greater transparency, secrecy is still the ruling principle for letters of formal notice.1. What are the reasons that prevent the Commission from applying the transparency principle at the stage when a letter of formal notice is sent?2. Does the Commission intend to broaden the application of the transparency principle to include the stage at which a letter of formal notice is sent?Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission (7 May 1998)The purpose of letters of formal notice ('Article 169 letters') is, as stated in Article 169 itself, to give the Member State the opportunity to submit its observations on the charges made against it. When sending out such letters, the Commission does not, as a rule, publicise the fact. Since at that stage the Commission has not yet definitely established that there has been any infringement, any publicity would be premature and could jeopardise the dialogue with the Member State, making it more difficult to subsequently resolve any infringement. In other words, Article 169 letters must be clearly distinguished from reasoned opinions, in which the Commission sets out its final position and which are usually publicised.There are, however, two exceptions to this procedure. It does not apply:- where Member States have failed to notify the Commission of national measures implementing directives or have failed to comply with rulings of the Court of Justice; this is because the matters are already in the public domain;- where the Commission decides that publicity is necessary because the issue is already being publicly discussed and there is a need to stop false rumours spreading, in which case the decision to go public or not is taken on a case-by-case basis.It should also be noted that where the infringement procedure has been triggered by a complaint, the party who made the complaint is kept informed at each stage in the procedure, including the sending of the Article 169 letter.It goes without saying that the Commission is always prepared to respond to parliamentary questions on specific cases.