WRITTEN QUESTION P-0392/00 by Inger Schörling (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Public access to information and protection of source.
Date: 2000-02-08
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: fraud against the EU, transparency in decision-making

C 374 E/64

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

28.12.2000

(2000/C 374 E/074)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0387/00

by Camilo Nogueira RomÆn (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

Subject: Seizure of Galician boats by Irish naval vessels

(15 February 2000)

There have been various incidents in recent days in which Galician boats fishing in the Sole area have been
seized by vessels belonging to the Irish navy, on the grounds that the Galician boats had committed
technical irregularities. The boats were released following payment of a symbolic fine, but the halting of
fishing activity during the seizures caused serious economic damage.

Is the Commission aware of these incidents, which have been recurring constantly, and is it aware of the
pressure under which the Galician fleet is operating? Does it consider such behaviour on the part of the
Irish authorities to be appropriate?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(13 March 2000)

The Commission was not aware of the facts referred to by the Honourable Member.

The Commission would ask the Honourable Member to provide precise details so that it can carry out the
investigations required.

(2000/C 374 E/075)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0392/00

by Inger Sch(cid:246)rling (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

Subject: Public access to information and protection of source

(8 February 2000)

Commissioner Neil Kinnock has maintained in the Swedish press that the Swedish model of public access
to information and protection of the source of information is not appropriate for the Commission. In
Kinnock(cid:146)s view, apparently,
important decisions would be taken informally if public access were
introduced and protection of the source of information would result in more secretiveness. Kinnock also
claimed that Paul van Buitenen had changed from being a worthy informant exposing irregularities within
the Commission into an unworthy informant aiming to blacken the name of the Commission as an
institution.

Can Commissioner Kinnock elaborate on the reasons why he has concluded that public access to
information and protection of the source of information would have the opposite effect from that
intended if applied in the EU? Can the Commissioner describe in more detail what it is in Paul van
Buitenen(cid:146)s conduct which has transformed him from a worthy into an unworthy informant?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(24 March 2000)

The Commission recently published its proposal for a regulation concerning public access to documents of
the European Institutions (1). It sets out the principles and rules, which are in the Commission(cid:146)s opinion
necessary in order to guarantee transparency for the European citizens with regard to information held by
the Institutions. In drawing up its proposal the Commission has taken account of the positive experience it
has acquired in connection with the code of conduct (2), Member States(cid:146)
legislation on access to
documents,
the
Communities.

in particular good practice in the Nordic countries, and the specific situation of

The Parliament and Council will discuss this text and finally lay down the binding rules on this topic.

28.12.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 374 E/65

In Parliament and elsewhere, the Vice-President responsible for Personnel and administrative reform has
given particular recognition to the fact that Sweden has a long and positive tradition of public access to
information and, consequently, standards which are worthy of aspiration but, realistically, not likely to be
completely replicated in the European Institutions in the very near future.

In public statements, the Vice President also noted the fact that, in Sweden, the informal exchanges that
take place before a document is given the status of being official are not accessible to the public. In the
proposal put forward by the Commission, the definition of a document excludes (cid:145)texts for internal use
such as discussion documents, opinions of departments and informal messages(cid:146). If there was no such
exclusion which (cid:129) in the view of the Committee of Independent Experts was necessary because (cid:145)the
Commission needs the space to think to formulate policy before it enters the public domain(cid:146) (cid:129) people
might be reluctant to produce and exchange those documents and that could lead to greater secrecy whilst
not adding to the effectiveness of work.

the references in the question misquote the Vice President. He has repeated that

Meanwhile,
the
irregularities disclosed by a Commission official were all the subject of disciplinary or legal proceedings
before that disclosure. He has also referred to allegations reported in the Swedish press that fraud was
continuing among thousands of officials within the organisation. Patently this is not true and it is the sort
of generalised allegation that unfairly defames the Commission and its staff and provokes unjustified
distrust of citizens.

(1) COM(2000) 30 final.
(2) Code of conduct concerning public access to Council and Commission documents, adopted by the Council on
20.12.1993 (OJ L 340, 31.12.1993, p. 43), and by the Commission on 8 February 1994 (OJ L 46, 18.2.1994, p.
58). The European Parliament adopted a decision on public access to its documents on 10 July 1997 (OJ L 263,
25.9.1997, p. 27).

(2000/C 374 E/076)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0399/00

by Ioannis Averoff (PPE-DE) and Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(15 February 2000)

Subject: Implementation of Community legislation and Community funding for Greece for the protection

of forestry

Community regulations 3528/86 (1) and 2158/92 (2) on the protection of forestry from atmospheric
pollution and fires impose specific obligations on the Member States, such as the provision of fire
prevention schemes. The regulations also enable Member States to finance actions falling with the scope
of the provisions of these regulations.

Will the Commission say in respect of the implementation of the above regulations in Greece:

1. Have the Greek authorities forwarded to the Commission, in accordance with Article 10 of the Treaty

of Amsterdam, the information specially referred to in regulation 2158/92?

2. Can it give a breakdown of the amounts received by Greece under these two funding regulations since
1995 and say what percentage they represent compared with the other Mediterranean Member States?

3. Has Greece benefited from any other Community financial means for the protection of its forestry? If
so, what sums are involved and what percentage do they represent compared with the other
Mediterranean Member States?

(1) OJ L 326, 21.11.1986, p. 2.
(2) OJ L 217, 31.7.1992, p. 3.