Résolution sur la transparence dans l'Union européenne
Date: 1999-01-12
Institutions: Committee on Constitutional Affairs, European Parliament
Subjects: access to EU information, administrative transparency, ministerial meeting, petrochemicals













EUR-Lex - 51998IP0476 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



51998IP0476




Official Journal C 104 , 14/04/1999 P. 0020 





A4-0476/98Resolution on openness within the European UnionThe European Parliament,- having regard to the provisions on openness in the Amsterdam Treaty, and in particular Articles A, 8d, 151, 191a and Declarations 9, 35 and 41 thereof,- having regard to the interinstitutional agreement of 25 October 1993 on democracy, transparency and subsidiarity,- having regard to the existing codes on public access to documents in the different EU institutions and bodies,- having regard to the initiatives taken on openness by the three 'explorers¨ ((Mr B. Donnelly, Mr Saint-Pierre and Mr Tsatsos: working document on 'Transparency and Democracy¨ of November 1994 (PE 210.692/A+B/rev.).)) and IGC monitor ((Mr Bonde (working documents PE 227.237, PE 222.239, and PE 222.240).)) of its Committee on Institutional Affairs,- having regard to its resolution of 16 July 1998 on the Special Report by the European Ombudsman to the European Parliament following his own-initiative inquiry into public access to documents (C4-0157/98) ((OJ C 292, 21.9.1998, p. 170)),- having regard to Rule 148 of its Rules of Procedure,- having regard to the report of its Committee on Institutional Affairs and the opinions of its Committee on Legal Affairs and Citizens' Rights and the Committee on Civil Liberties and Internal Affairs (A4-0476/98),A. whereas the development of greater openness and transparency is of vital importance if the European Union is to succeed in the future, since it will help to clarify EU policy choices, encourage wide and more balanced input into the policy process, reduce the scope for corruption and abuses of power, and generally help to promote wider public acceptance by European citizens of EU decisions,B. whereas the Amsterdam Treaty has explicitly introduced the concept of openness into the EU Treaty, both by guaranteeing that there is a public right of access to EU documents, and by stating that EU decisions must be taken as openly as possible and as closely as possible to the citizen,C. whereas there have now been several years of experience of the Commission and Council Codes of Conduct on access to documents, and whereas other EU institutions and bodies have also been adopting such codes; whereas it is now essential to build upon and to improve these existing codes,D. whereas openness has also been promoted by a number of landmark decisions in the European Court of Justice and also as a result of initiatives taken by the Ombudsman,E. whereas the new Amsterdam Treaty provisions on public access to documents will now have to be implemented by means of a new code to be agreed by codecision between the European Parliament and the Council on the basis of a proposal from the Commission; whereas it is now necessary to set out some basic principles and criteria that might help in the preparation of this proposal,F. whereas the promotion of openness is not just a question of public access to documents, but must also cover such issues as greater openness of EU meetings, fuller use of the Internet, ensuring greater clarity and simplicity of EU texts, retaining multilingualism within the EU institutions and improving the quality of EU information campaigns;1. Regards the Amsterdam Treaty provisions on openness as a first step towards establishing a genuine principle of public access in the EU. Calls for full implementation of the provisions on openness in the Amsterdam Treaty, covering not only the establishment of a new and more comprehensive code on public access to EU documents but also of the more general provision that EU decisions be taken as openly as possible and as closely as possible to the citizen;Public access to EU documents2. Believes that the necessity of drawing up a new code constitutes an opportunity to learn from existing experience, and to come up with improved rules for the future;3. Warns, however, against the risk that few such improvements will be made, and even that some new and unjustified restrictions will be introduced;4. Considers that the following guidelines should be considered in the context of a new code:i) there should be a more precise definition of documents, concentrating, in particular, on the status of internal documents. However, this should not be too restrictive in scope, and all important working documents and widely distributed preparatory material should be included;ii) incoming documents as well as documents originating within an institution should fall within the scope of any code;iii) public registers should be established in all EU institutions, and should also include classified documents, with an indication that they are considered as confidential;iv) consideration should be given to simplifying the system of classifying confidential documents, and there should be clearer guidance as to which document falls into which category. An embargo system could be envisaged for certain documents, so that they can be made publicly accessible within a specified period;v) the current exceptions to openness need to be more tightly defined, in particular the two general exceptions of 'protection of the public interest¨ (along with certain of its sub-headings such as 'public security¨ and 'international relations¨) and 'protection of confidentiality of an institution's proceedings¨;vi) requests from third-country nationals resident outside the EU should also be handled, although special charges could be levied to cover any extra costs, compared to requests from EU citizens or residents;vii) all requests not replied to within a certain period should be deemed to be approved rather than rejected, as at present;viii) documents that have been requested should, where appropriate, also be transmitted in electronic form;ix) documents with only a few sensitive features might be transmitted in part rather than in full;5. Reiterates its call for any new code to apply not only to Commission, Council and European Parliament documents, but to those of all other EU institutions and bodies. Calls, in particular:- on the Court of Justice to finally distinguish between its judicial and administrative documents, and to adopt a code of access to its documents as soon as possible;- on the European Central Bank and EUROPOL to develop codes which take account of their special characteristics but do not lead to too restrictive a policy on access to their documents;- on the European Investment Bank to develop a much less restrictive code than at present, and one in which those requesting documents do not have to state the purpose for which their request is made;6. Undertakes to improve its own system of access to documents by:- ensuring that its political documents enter the public domain as soon as they have been distributed to all members of the relevant committee, but with a clearer indication on the cover as to the current status of each document;- improving the distribution of its documents both in paper and in electronic form;- setting down clearer criteria as to which of its internal documents fall within the criteria of confidentiality, and over which time frame;7. Calls for practical steps to improve access to Council documents when it is acting in its legislative capacity, which should be defined in agreement with the European Parliament and with the Commission. Believes that Council documents covered should also include full texts of Council meetings, as well as documents related to preparatory Council working groups and COREPER meetings (if necessary with the names of specific countries struck out). Calls for the publication of all Council declarations on the implementation or interpretation of pending legislation and urges the Council to end the practice of secret declarations, in particular in the co-decision procedure;8. Believes that public access to comitology documents should be greatly improved, and that such texts should be included in registers. Reiterates the importance of transparency as regards the comitology process and believes, in particular, that information concerning the composition of the committees and their tasks should be made available to the public;9. Considers that privileged access to certain documents might be established for Members of Parliament and their staff, subject to the introduction or adaptation of rules on the handling of confidential texts;Extending the practice of open meetings10. Proposes that the following steps be taken:i) the practice of open meetings of the Council when it meets in its legislative capacity should be considerably extended, with them not just being restricted to initial discussions, and also being more widely announced and transmitted,ii) the agendas of its own public meetings should be better publicised than at present and interested citizens should be given a clearer idea as to how they can attend,iii) the Commission should make greater use of the technique of holding public hearings and inquiries in different parts of the EU,iv) a list of criteria should be established to help in evaluating whether a particular EU meeting should be opened up or closed, on the lines of the criteria and exceptions in the 1976 US 'Government in the Sunshine Act¨,v) a clearer distinction might be envisaged than at present between those meetings where there might be general public access, and those where only the presence of politicians or civil servants from other EU institutions could be authorised;Fuller use of the Internet11. Calls for all EU legislative proposals, comitology texts and other important EU documents (as well as the various registers of all documents) to be placed on the Internet, in order both to inform EU citizens and organizations and also, where appropriate, to consult them as well;More responsible EU administrations12. Calls for more open administrative cultures to be developed within the various EU institutions and bodies, with citizens having a clearer idea as to who is responsible for what, with a right to rapid and courteous responses to their oral or written inquiries and with adequate review and complaints procedures. Believes that establishment of codes of public administration, as suggested by the Ombudsman, could help in these respects;Complementary measures13. Calls for:i) rapid progress to be made on an interinstitutional agreement on improving the quality of the drafting of Community legislation, leading to clearer and simpler EU texts in the future,ii) further progress in consolidating and codifying EU legislation,iii) maintenance of multilingualism even in an enlarged EU, so that all EU citizens can be informed about EU activities and participate in EU decision-making procedures in their own language, and with each EU institution and body devoting adequate resources to properly fulfil the requirements of the new third paragraph of Article 8d of the Treaty,iv) improvements in the quality of EU information campaigns, with their objectives being better defined in advance;v) improvements in the transparency of the EU's over-complicated institutional structure, through such measures as the simplification of EU legislative, budgetary and comitology procedures;vi) full interinstitutional cooperation in the area of information technology and, in particular, the need to establish common norms for document structure that facilitate storage, transfer, archiving and management of documents and information;14. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Commission, the Council and the parliaments and governments of the Member States.