WRITTEN QUESTION E-0016/03 by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Access to documents.
Date: 2003-01-20
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EC opinion, European Commission, access to EU information, audit, document, infringement procedure (EU), legal action, protection of privacy, provision of documents

7.11.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 268 E/63

(2003/C 268 E/063)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0008/03

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(9 January 2003)

Subject: Importation of dog and cat fur

Further to the Commission’s reply to my Written Question E-1810/01 (1), in the light of revelations of the
degree of cruelty involved and the debate in the Agriculture Council on 28 November 2002, will the
Commission now consider a legislative initiative?

(1) OJ C 40 E, 14.2.2002, p. 108.

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(30 January 2003)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Questions E-1810/01 by
the Honourable Member, E-1203/02 by Mr Whitehead (1), E-1748/02 by Mr Lund (2), E-2748/02 by
Mr Skinner (3) and the joint answer to E-2851/02 by Mr Flemming and E-3088/02 by Mr van den Bos (4).

(1) OJ C 301 E, 5.12.2002, p. 104.
(2) OJ C 92 E, 17.4.2003, p. 89.
(3) OJ C 92 E, 17.4.2003, p. 204.
(4) See page 20.

(2003/C 268 E/064)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0016/03

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(20 January 2003)

Subject: Access to documents

Following the entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1) on public access to European
Parliament, Council and Commission documents, can the Commission clarify whether Reasoned Opinions
sent by the Commission to Member States, in the context of infringement procedures, are or will be
available in the public domain at any stage, either in whole or in part?

In general, which kind of Commission documents are available as a result of the Regulation which were
not available before?

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

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(11 February 2003)

Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001, on public access to
Parliament, Council and Commission documents provides for a case-by-case assessment: access to a
document will be granted upon request, unless its disclosure would undermine the protection of a public
or private interest as foreseen in Article 4 of the Regulation. Reasoned Opinions are no exception to this
rule.

Under the Regulation the scope of the right of access has been extended to documents received from third
parties and held by the Commission. In addition, some of the exceptions to the right of access, which were
mandatory under the Code of Conduct implemented through Commission Decision 94/90/ECSC, EC,
Euratom of 8 February 1994 on public access to Commission documents (1) are now subject to a public
interest test e.g. the protection of commercial interests, of Court proceedings and legal advice and of the

C 268 E/64

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

7.11.2003

purpose of inspections, investigations and audits. Even when exceptions to the right of access apply, the
possibility of granting partial access to a document will have to be assessed. All these improvements have
significantly widened the public right of access to Commission documents.

(1) OJ L 46, 18.2.1994.

(2003/C 268 E/065)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0036/03

by Colette Flesch (ELDR) to the Commission

(21 January 2003)

Subject: Reinstatement of two senior officials in their positions in Paris

The press revealed in late December (Le Monde, 22/23 December 2002) that the two senior officials of the
Commission’s representation in France who had been recalled to Brussels two months before had been
reinstated in their positions in Paris.

What were the precise reasons for their recall to Brussels?

What are the precise reasons for their reinstatement in Paris?

Does the Commission believe these two measures represent sound personnel management?

Is the OLAF enquiry that called for the officials to be recalled still under way?

Is the Commission willing, when the time comes, to make known the conclusions of this enquiry?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(5 March 2003)

The Commission can only repeat what it said in its reply to the Honourable Member’s Written Question
E-3493/02.

The decision to move two officials working in the Commission’s Representation in Paris to another part of
the same Directorate-General, in the interests of the service, was taken to ensure that the investigation was
conducted under the best possible conditions.

This was a precautionary measure and did not in any way undermine the presumption of these individuals’
innocence. The Commission did not divulge their names and regrets that the press chose to do so.

Once these precautionary measures were no longer required for the purposes of the investigation at the
offices of the Commission’s Representation in Paris, they were lifted, after contacts with the European
Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF).

The Commission took the measures so as to enable OLAF to conduct its internal investigation under the
best possible conditions.

The Commission can confirm that OLAF’s investigation is still under way. Parliament will be duly informed
in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 12(3) of
of the findings of the investigation,
Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 of 25 May 1999 concerning investigations
conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) (1).

(1) OJ L 136, 31.5.1999.