WRITTEN QUESTION E-2847/00 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Access to EU documents.
Date: 2000-09-08
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Coreper, access to EU information, civil defence, common security and defence policy, confidentiality, right to information

C 136 E/108

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

8.5.2001

Since this is an initial judgment based on Article 228 (former Article 171) of the EC Treaty requiring the
payment of a penalty by a Member State, the Commission, taking account of the existing rules (2), will send
a letter to the Greek authorities setting out the conditions attached to payment of the amount involved in
the daily penalty payment which began to take effect on the date when the abovementioned judgment was
handed down and which will continue to be due until Greece meets the requirements of the order.

(1) Case C-387/97.
(2) Decision of 14 December 1994 on the internal-procedure provisions governing the recovery of lump sums or

periodic penalty payments required by the Court of Justice under Article 171 of the EC Treaty.

(2001/C 136 E/123)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2847/00

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(8 September 2000)

Subject: Access to EU documents

During the summer months a working party of senior Coreper officials drew up a proposal for a drastic
reduction in the accessibility of EU documents. Yet the Treaty of Amsterdam expressly provides for the
right of access to such documents.

The working party wants to use the written procedure to enshrine this proposal in a binding text. This will
excluder the European Parliament, the Commission and the September Council.

Only the representatives of the Netherlands, Sweden and Finland have opposed the curtailing of the right
of access. The other Coreper representatives appear to believe that the Commission proposal (cid:129) a code of
conduct via the codecision procedure (cid:129) does not reflect their personal views on access to EU documents.

Does the Commission subscribe to the proposal concerning access to EU documents as drawn up by

1.
a working party of senior Coreper officials? If not, will it appeal against the proposal in question?

2.
Does the Commission believe that the proposal concerning access to EU documents as drawn up by
a working party of senior Coreper officials undermines its own proposal, i.e. a code of conduct via the
codecision procedure? If so, what action will the Commission take to ensure that its proposal is the official
guideline for access to EU documents?

Does the Commission think the proposal by the Coreper officials is an infringement of the provision
it challenge this

3.
in the Treaty of Amsterdam on access to EU documents? If so,
infringement of the provisions of the Treaty?

in what way will

Answer given by Romano Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(26 October 2000)

On 14 August 2000, the Council adopted Decision 2000/527/EC amending Decision 93/731/EC on public
access to Council documents and Decision 2000/23/EC on the improvement of information on the
Council(cid:146)s legislative activities and the public register of Council documents (1). As a result of the new
Decision, documents classified as top secret, secret or confidential which relate to security and defence
matters are excluded from the scope of the provisions on access to documents and are no longer included
in the public register of Council documents.

Until this Decision was adopted, access to Council documents was governed by a joint code of conduct for
the Council and Commission, which did not a priori preclude access to any document; however, one
exception was access to documents whose disclosure could undermine the public interest and,
in
particular, public safety.

8.5.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 136 E/109

The proposal for a regulation adopted by the Commission on 26 January 2000 (2) implementing Article
255 (ex Article 191a) of the EC Treaty does not exclude a priori from the scope of the regulation classified
documents relating to defence issues but stipulates that the institutions should refuse access to any
document whose disclosure could seriously undermine the public interest and, in particular, public safety
and defence.

At the Coreper meeting of 26 July 2000, when the draft decision was approved, the Commission declared
that it would undertake to examine its own provisions on public access to documents in order to ensure
the same level of protection for ESDP documents. Where necessary, it would investigate the need for an
amendment of its proposal for a regulation with regard to public access to documents produced by the
Parliament, Council and Commission pursuant to Article 255(2) of the EC Treaty.

The Commission is currently exploring the possibility of follow-up measures to the Council Decision.

(1) OJ L 212, 23.8.2000.
(2) COM(2000) 30 final.

(2001/C 136 E/124)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2848/00

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(8 September 2000)

Subject: Recognition of typical products from Emilia-Romana and policy on the recognition of typical

products

The Italian Minister for Agriculture, Alfonso Pecoraro Scanio, recently extended recognition to more than
2000 typical
local products and asked the European Union to grant them the status of products of
registered and protected designation of origin. 73 of these are typical products from Emilia-Romagna,
including the traditional (cid:145)spongata(cid:146) cake, which was the subject of a previous question.

Bearing in mind that food is an element in the culture of peoples, nations and regions and that enhancing
the value of typical products is of vital importance in the interests of safeguarding cultural diversity in
Europe to encourage peaceful cooperation between different peoples:

(cid:129) will the Commission grant all the products from Emilia-Romagna listed by the Italian Ministry for
Agriculture and all those from other regions of Italy the status of typical products of protected
designation of origin?

(cid:129) will it draw up a European policy giving the various regions and local communities responsibility for
safeguarding and enhancing typical products, so as to ensure greater respect for cultural diversity
within the Member States?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(17 October 2000)

The Commission is not aware of the request by the Italian Minister for Agriculture concerning the
registration of more than 2 000 local products as protected designations of origin, including a product
named (cid:145)Spongata(cid:146) for which the reply to Written Question E-2631/99 (1) by the Honourable Member is still
applicable.

The Honourable Member is reminded that, since 1992, the cultural characteristics of the various regions of
the Community are already highlighted and protected at Community level by Council Regulation (EEC)
No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for
agricultural products and foodstuffs (2).