WRITTEN QUESTION E-1475/01 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Council. Public access to EU documents.
Date: 2001-05-21
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: access to EU information, confidentiality, right to information

4.4.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 81 E/29

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(3 September 2001)

The Commission does not as yet have sufficient information to deliver a detailed opinion on the issue
raised by the Honourable Member.

Nonetheless, the Commission has looked into the situation and it would appear that the case in point may
involve the European Social Fund. The matter has been referred to the relevant department,
the
Directorate-General for Employment and Social Affairs, so that it can carry out the necessary checks.

However, the following points should be made regarding the principles involved:

(cid:129) Grants awarded by the Commission are systematically subject to the condition that the recipient
permits full unrestricted access to all the supporting documents or other evidence required by the
Commission(cid:146)s inspectors. This point is clearly stated in the vade-mecum on grant management
(Article 8 of the General terms and conditions applicable to grant agreements of the European
Communities). In the event that the applicant does not comply fully with this requirement, the
Commission is entitled to terminate the grant agreement and, in that case, to demand total or partial
reimbursement of any amounts already paid.

(cid:129) If the Commission were to become aware that specific provisions or specific procedures had been laid
down nationally or in an individual case to hinder the right of access to evidence, it would of course
then have to, firstly, take the necessary corrective financial action and, secondly, issue a strong formal
protest against the use of such practices, which contravene Community rules.

(2002/C 81 E/036)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1475/01

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(21 May 2001)

Subject: Public access to EU documents

May I draw the Council(cid:146)s attention to the fact that answer P-3572/00 (1) (23 April 2001) throws no light
on the questions asked. According to the Belgian Foreign Affairs Ministry, Decision 2000/527/EC (2) was
reached in reaction to a specific request by a member of the public with which the Council did not wish to
comply (P-11 meeting of Wednesday 18 October 2000).

I consequently would still like to have an answer to the questions raised in Written Question P-3572/00:

1. When was the request concerned submitted to the Council?

2. Who submitted that request?

3. To which documents did the request relate?

4. Why did the Council not wish to comply with the request?

5. To what extent did that request and the Council(cid:146)s refusal induce the Council to resort to an emergency

procedure in order to restrict public access to European documents?

(1) OJ C 187 E, 3.7.2001, p. 17.
(2) OJ L 212, 23.8.2000, p. 9.

Reply

(20 November 2001)

In reply to the question of the Honourable Member of Parliament, the Council underlines that the reasons
which led it to adopt Decision 2000/527/EC are set out in detail in the recitals of that decision. It does not
wish to comment on the opinion allegedly expressed by a ministry of a Member State on the background
of this decision.

C 81 E/30

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

4.4.2002

As the Honourable Member of Parliament may be aware, Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council
and Commission documents (1) provides that sensitive documents as defined in Article 9(1) of
the
Regulation shall be subject to special treatment in accordance with that Article. As already pointed
out in its reply his Written Question E-2846/00 of 11 September 2000, the Council will review its
Decision 93/731/EC of 20 December 1993 on public access to documents, as last amended by Decision
2000/527/EC, in the light of the new rules provided for in the said Regulation.

(1) OJ L 145, 31.5.2001, p. 43.

(2002/C 81 E/037)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1477/01

by Rainer Wieland (PPE-DE) to the Council

(21 May 2001)

Subject: Racism in the Netherlands

1.
Is the Council aware that (cid:145)De Buddy(cid:146)s(cid:146) a Dutch church choir which is as well known in the
Netherlands as the Vienna(cid:146)s Boys(cid:146) Choir in German-speaking countries, have recently produced a CD
entitled (cid:145)Do not buy from Austrians(cid:146)?

Is the Council aware of the historic significance of this title in the light of the last hundred years of

2.
German history?

Does the Council know whether the Dutch Government is taking any action against this and other

3.
xenophobic manifestations?

Reply

(26 November 2001)

is very active in combating racism, as borne out by the establishment of the European
The Council
Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia and by the recent adoption, under the new Article 13 of
the Treaty, of a Directive implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of
racial or ethnic origin.

The Council is not aware of the specific case referred to by the Honourable Member and would in any
event be unable to comment on such matters, which come within the purview of the Member States.

(2002/C 81 E/038)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1487/01

by Jean-Claude Martinez (TDI) to the Council

(21 May 2001)

Subject: Fraud involving animal meal

In order to combat BSE or mad cow disease, France imposed a ban on animal meal intended for cattle in
July 1990 and, in July 1996, stepped up this measure by excluding (cid:145)specified risk material(cid:146) (SRM) such as
the brain, the spleen or the spinal cord.

However, a case has recently come to light revealing the manufacture and fraudulent trade of several
thousand tonnes of animal meal intended for cattle which appears to have continued after 1996.

Given the gravity of the situation and the public health risk involved, what steps will the Council take?

In particular, does it intend to strengthen cooperation between animal health and anti-fraud inspectorates?