Amended proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the re-use and commercial exploitation of public sector information (presented by the Commission pursuant to Article 250 (2) of the EC Treaty)
Date: 2003-03-17
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: access to information, approximation of laws, data protection, dissemination of information, public service, source of information

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

Brussels, 17.3.2003
COM(2003) 119 final

2002/0123 (COD)

Amended proposal for a

DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

on the re-use and commercial exploitation of public sector information

(presented by the Commission pursuant to Article 250 (2)
of the EC Treaty)

2002/0123 (COD)

Amended proposal for a

DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

on the re-use and commercial exploitation of public sector information

1. 

BACKGROUND

Transmission  of 
the  European  Parliament
(COM(2002) 207 final  –  2002/0123(COD))  in  accordance  with  article  95(1)  of  the  Treaty:
26 June 2002

the  Council  and 

the  proposal 

to 

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee: 11 December 2002

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions: 21 November 2002

Opinion of the European Parliament – first reading: 12 February 2003

2. 

OBJECTIVE OF THE COMMISSION PROPOSAL

The  proposal  aims  at  a  minimum  harmonisation  of  the  rules  for  the  re-use  of  public  sector
information in the European Union. Public sector information (e.g. geographical information,
business  information,  traffic  information)  is  an  important  economic  asset.  It  provides  raw
material for new digital products and services and is a key data input for e-commerce trading.
Information held by the public sector can become a strong asset for new wireless applications.

The rules for the re-use of this information resource vary widely throughout the Union. This
hampers the development of added-value cross-border services that use this information as an
input.  A  European  framework  for  the  re-use  of  public  sector  information  will  increase
certainty  and  thus  foster  investments  in  creativity  and  innovation  in  the  area  of  content
provision and in other sectors.

3. 

COMMISSION OPINION ON THE AMENDMENTS ADOPTED BY PARLIAMENT

Of the 23 amendments adopted by the European Parliament, 10 amendments are accepted by
the Commission (amendments 1, 3, 4, 14, 24, 26, 27, 28, 32 and 34) and 8 amendments are
accepted in part or in principle (amendments 7, 10, 12, 13, 18, 20, 21 and 31).

3.1. 

Amendments accepted by the Commission

Amendment  1  changing  the  words  ‘document’  and  ‘documents’  into  ‘information’
throughout the proposal for a directive. The Commission can accept this change including the
consequential grammatical changes.

Amendment 3 further clarifying what types of information are collected by the public sector.

2

Amendment 4 indicating that the tradition of the exploitation of public sector information by
public sector bodies has developed in many different ways and that this should be taken into
account.

Amendment  14  (article  1,  paragraph  2,  point  (fa),  new)  clarifying  that  information  which
constitutes trade or business secrets falls outside the scope of the directive.

Amendment 24 (article 6, paragraph 1(a), new) giving the right to an applicant who considers
that charges made by the public sector body exceed those allowed under the charging article
of the directive to request a review of the charges.

Amendment 26, (article 7, paragraph 3) taking out the words ‘where re-use is allowed’.

Amendment 27 (article 8, paragraph 1) taking out the words ‘and appropriate’.

Amendment 28 (article 8, paragraph 2) taking out the words ‘and appropriate’.

Amendment  32  (article  12,  paragraph  2(a),  new)  linking  the  review  more  clearly  to  the
objectives of the directive.

Amendment 34, aligning the wording of recital 12 with the wording of article 6.

3.2. 

Amendments accepted in part or in principle by the Commission

Amendment 7 incites public sector bodies to use public data-gathering systems that are not
dependent on the use of specific software and states that all the information must be presented
not  only  in  graphic  form  but  also  in  textual  mode,  in  order  to  enable  people  with  sensory
difficulties to use it. The Commission agrees that the formats used by public sector bodies can
have an influence on the possibilities to re-use information. The Commission therefore adds
the following sentence to the original recital number 10, to take into account the fact that the
use of specific formats can be a barrier to re-use: ‘It is therefore necessary to promote public
data-gathering systems which are not dependent on the use of specific software.’

An obligation to present information both in graphic form and textual mode to enable people
with  sensory  difficulties  to  use  it,  as  proposed  by  this  amendment  and  by  amendment
number 18,  cannot  be  accepted  within  the  context  of  this  directive.  It  imposes  a  burden  on
public  sector  bodies  that  cannot  be  justified  in  the  light  of  the  objectives  of  the  directive.
Moreover  it  is  linked  to  issues  of  access  to  information  rather  than  to  issues  of  re-use  of
information or the way public sector bodies operate in the information market and therefore
goes beyond the scope of the directive.

Amendment 10 establishes the link between the accessibility of information and the right to
knowledge  and  states  that  public  administrations  should  promote  the  re-use  of  information
made  available  by  them.  The  Commission  cannot  accept  the  first  two  sentences  of  this
amendment  that  are  more  about  the  access  to  information  than  about  the  re-use  of
information. It can, however, accept the last sentence of the  amendment,  provided the word
‘therefore’ that links it to the former sentences is taken out.

3

Amendment 12 (article 1, paragraph 1) adds the notion of re-use, in line with the title of the
directive  and  adds  the  notion  of  practical  accessibility  (a  reference  to  the  asset  lists  of
amendment 31). The Commission can accept the first addition. As to the notion of ‘practical
accessibility’,  the  Commission  accepts  the  idea  of  the  amendment,  but  proposes  to  replace
‘and  the  practical  accessibility’  by  ‘and  the  practical  modalities  facilitating  this  re-use  and
exploitation’.  This  will  avoid  the  incorrect  suggestion  that  this  document  is  about  access  to
information.

Amendment 13 (article 1, paragraph 2, point (d)) changes documents ‘held by’ public service
broadcasters which are  excluded from  the  scope  of the  directive into documents ‘within the
power of disposal of’ public broadcasters. The Commission can accept the proposed change,
but  does  not  think  it  is  necessary  in  the  light  of  the  justification  of  the  amendment.  The
amendment seems to be based on a translation issue in the German language version.

Amendment  18  (article  4,  paragraph  1)  obliges  public  sector  bodies  to  make  information
available  in  a  format  that  is  not  dependent  on  the  use  of  specific  software  and  states  that,
where possible and appropriate all the information must be presented not only in graphic form
but  also  in  textual  mode,  in  order  to  enable  people  with  sensory  difficulties  to  use  it.  The
Commission agrees that the formats used by public sector bodies can have an influence on the
possibilities  to  re-use  information.  The  Commission  therefore  proposes  the  following
reformulation  of  article  4,  paragraph  1  to  take  into  account  the  fact  that  the  use  of  specific
formats  can  be  a  barrier  to  re-use:  ‘Public  sector  bodies  shall  make  their  information
available in  any pre-existing format  or  language, through  electronic  means where  possible.
This does not imply an obligation for public sector bodies to create information or to adapt
information  in  order  to  comply  with  the  request.  Public  sector  bodies  shall  make  available
their  own  documents  in  a  format  which  as  far  as  possible  is  not  dependent  on  the  use  of
specific software.’

An obligation to present information both in graphic form and textual mode to enable people
with sensory difficulties to use it, cannot be  accepted within  the  context of this directive.  It
imposes a burden on public sector bodies that cannot be justified in the light of the objectives
of the directive. Moreover it is linked to issues of access to information rather than to issues
of re-use of information or the way public sector bodies operate in the information market and
therefore goes beyond the scope of the directive.

Amendment 20 (article 5, paragraph 1) proposes to take into account the purpose of the re-
use  in  determining  the  timeframes  that  are  reasonable  for  treating  requests  for  re-use.  The
amendment  is  valuable  in  drawing  the  attention  to  the  change  of  the  value  of  some
information over time, which makes a quick delivery of the information necessary to allow re-
use (for example for dynamic information such as traffic information or weather information).
The  Commission  reformulates  article  5  (1)  as  follows:  ‘Public  sector  bodies  shall  make
information  available  to  the  applicant,  through  electronic  means  where  possible,  within  a
reasonable  time  that  is  not  longer  than  the  timeframes  foreseen  for  treating  requests  to
accessing the information and that takes into account the purpose of the re-use.’

Amendment 21 (article 5, paragraph  3)  relates  to  the  obligation  for  public  sector  bodies  to
provide information on the identity of the third party right-holder. It limits this obligation to
cases  where  the  public  sector  body  is  able  to  provide  such  information.  Furthermore  it
establishes liability for  public sector bodies for  giving a  wrong  reference in  cases involving
bad faith. The Commission accepts the first part of this amendment. Although the spirit of the
second  part  of  the  amendment  might  be  acceptable,  the  presence  of  “bad  faith”  is  hard  to
assess and therefore this part of the amendment is not taken on board.

4

Amendment 31 (article 9, paragraph 1 a, new) establishes an obligation for Member States to
make  available  lists  of  main  content  assets  held  by  public  sector  bodies.  The  Commission
accepts the first sentence of this amendment and proposes to reformulate the second sentence
as follows: ‘Such lists shall be made available for free and shall indicate which are the public
sector bodies responsible for making the information available for re-use’.

3.3. 

Amended proposal

Having regard to Article 250 (2) of the EC Treaty, the Commission modifies its proposal as
indicated above.

5