Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the European Transparency Initiative
Date: 2007-02-13
Institutions: Committee on Constitutional Affairs, European Committee of the Regions
Subjects: EU initiative, EU institution, access to EU information, administrative transparency, consultation procedure, dissemination of information, regional and local authorities

30.6.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/53

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the European Transparency Initiative

(2007/C 146/07)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

— welcomes the initiative of the Commission to promote transparency. Greater transparency is crucial if
EU institutions are to remain accountable and democratic; efficient and in touch with the needs of the
public; recalls,in this context, that if the EU is genuinely to increase its democratic legitimacy, there is
also a need for greater involvement of local and regional actors in the EU legislative and decision-
making processes;

— regrets, however, that that the local and regional dimension has not been mentioned in this initiative

and urges the Commission to involve it more closely;

— underlines that the EU is a multilevel institutional partnership in which regional and local authorities

are involved in European policy-making at national and European level;

— believes that it is necessary to stress once again the need to differentiate between EU institutions'
consultation with elected local and regional authorities and their associations, on the one hand, and
lobby organisations representing special interests on the other;

— welcomes the fact that the European Commission has introduced an ongoing and systematic dialogue
with local and regional authorities and their European and national associations in areas where they
are responsible for transposition or implementation; nevertheless believes that improvements can be
made to the way this dialogue is organised;

— welcomes the greater transparency that registration of lobby organisations would bring;

— does not believe, however, that an arrangement based on voluntary registration provides an adequate

framework to ensure sufficient transparency;

— is convinced that it is important to ensure an efficient and simple procedure for future registration.

The register should be managed by the European Commission;

— supports the Commission's ambition to strengthen transparency as regards the use of EU funds and
encourages Member States to administer community funds under ‘shared management’. It is in the
interest of all beneficiaries to be transparent about EU funding.

C 146/54

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.6.2007

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

Having regard to the Green Paper of the European Commission on the European Transparency Initiative
COM(2006) 194 final;

Having regard to the decision of the European Commission of 3 May 2006 to consult it on the subject,
under the first paragraph of Article 265 of the Treaty establishing the European Community;

Having regard to the decision of its Bureau of 25 April 2006 to instruct its Commission for Constitutional
Affairs, European Governance and the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice to draw up an opinion on this
subject;

Having regard to the communication to the Commission from its President, Ms Wallström, Mr Kallas,
Ms Hübner and Ms Fischer Boel of 9 November 2005 Proposing the launch of a European Transparency Initia-
tive (1);

Having regard to the communication of the European Commission Towards a reinforced culture of consultation
and dialogue — General principles and minimum standards for consultation of interested parties by the Commission
COM(2002)704 final;

Having regard to its opinion of 12 October 2005 on Better Lawmaking 2004 and Better Regulation for
Growth and Jobs in the European Union, CdR 121/2005 fin (Rapporteur: Mr Delebarre, FR-PES) (2);

Having regard to its opinion of 13 March 2002 on the White Paper on European Governance and the Commu-
nication on a new framework for cooperation on activities concerning the information and communication policy of the
European Union COM(2001) 428 final, COM(2001) 354 final, CdR 103/2001 fin (Rapporteur: Mr Michel
Delebarre FR-PES) (3);

Having regard to its draft opinion (CdR 235/2006 rev. 1) adopted on 29 November 2006 by the Commis-
sion for Constitutional Affairs, European Governance and the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice
(rapporteur: Mr Per Bødker Andersen (DK/PES), Mayor of Kolding Municipality);

1)

2)

3)

4)

Whereas transparency is one of the key elements in a democracy of multilevel governance;

Whereas it is important to give greater consideration to the principles of subsidiarity, proportionality
and proximity in order to develop simple and clear European legislation that can be readily under-
stood by European citizens;

Whereas it is vital to ensure that regional and local players are fully involved, among other things
through the CoR, in the core issues on the European agenda;

Whereas regional and local authorities, if appropriately involved in the preparation of legislative acts,
can play a key role in transposing and implementing them in their own areas;

adopted the following opinion at its 68th plenary session, held on 13 and 14 February 2007
(meeting of 13 February):

The Committee of the Regions' views and recommenda-
tions

The Committee of the Regions

1. General remarks

1.1 welcomes the initiative of the Commission to promote
transparency. The launch of the European Transparency Initia-
tive is an important step by the Commission to promote the
transparent functioning of the EU institutions. Greater transpar-
ency is crucial if EU institutions are to remain accountable and
democratic; efficient and in touch with the needs of the public;
recalls, in this context, that if the EU is genuinely to increase its
democratic legitimacy, there is also a need for greater involve-
ment of local and regional actors in the EU legislative and deci-
sion-making processes;

(1) http://ec.europa.eu/comm/eti/index_en.htm.
(2) OJ C 81 of 4.4.2006, p. 6-10.
(3) OJ C 192 of 12.8.2002, p. 24-31.

1.2
considers that with the transparency initiative, the Euro-
pean Commission has launched a necessary debate and believes
that it is important to have the debate now, also in the context
of
the period of reflection and debate on Europe's future,
because decision-makers need to ensure and demonstrate that
the EU functions democratically and effectively. Ensuring trans-
parency is one crucial way of bringing Europe closer to its citi-
zens;

1.3
regrets, however, that that the local and regional dimen-
sion has not been mentioned in this initiative and urges the
Commission to involve it more closely; recalls the Commis-
sion's statement in the White Paper on European Governance
(2001) that it would ensure that regional and local knowledge
and conditions would be taken into account when developing
policy proposals;

30.6.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/55

1.4 welcomes the decision during the Finnish presidency in
the second half of 2006 to strive for more transparency in the
work of the Council. It is a very positive development that the
Council has also agreed to allow more open decision-making
and access to Council documents; believes nevertheless that
this a first step in the right direction and urges the Council to
open up more of its proceedings to the public. This is an impor-
tant way for citizens to follow the decision-making process;

1.5
feels that the term ‘improper lobbying’ should be defined
as accurately as possible so that lobbyists' activities can be moni-
tored and any infringements penalised;

considers that the objective of transparency must be to
1.6
bring the European Union closer to its citizens;
in order to
promote transparency and thus reduce the distance between the
European institutions and citizens, and that it is of fundamental
importance to encourage measures which, like those developed
under the Plan D for Democracy, Dialogue and Debate, endeavour
to publicise the activities and competences of the Union among
Europeans and among young people in particular, as is the
intention with the Youth Forum.

2. Multilevel partnership and governance

2.1
underlines that the EU is a multilevel institutional part-
nership in which regional and local authorities are involved in
European policy-making at national and European level. The
best way to ensure that new EU law is relevant and practicable
is to consult local and regional authorities on relevant issues,
stepping up dialogue and forums for participation and decision-
making. These authorities are responsible for implementing and
transposing EU policies and thus play a major part in ensuring
transparency;

2.2
recognises, however, that not only the European Union
has an obligation to ensure transparency. The Member States,
but also the CoR and all
levels of government it represents
should set an example by providing efficient service-minded and
local and
democratic public administrations. Consequently,
regional authorities in the Member States should also be open-
minded towards ensuring transparency in their own administra-
tion.

3. More consultation

regional authorities it represents, it is part of European govern-
ance and that it should therefore be directly involved in any
initiative by the European Commission to improve the trans-
parent functioning of decision-making in the Union;

calls on the European Commission to annex to any legis-
3.2
lative or non-legislative proposal a list of meetings held and
received position papers in the preparation of
the specific
proposal;

underlines that

3.3
the structured dialogue between the
Commission and the associations of local and regional govern-
ment, which has been developed on the basis of the White
Paper on European Governance, is an important step towards
actually
involved;
and regional
welcomes this development and stresses the central role it is
called upon to play in this context;

authorities

getting

local

3.4 welcomes the fact that the European Commission has
introduced an ongoing and systematic dialogue with local and
regional authorities and their European and national associa-
tions in areas where they are responsible for transposition or
implementation. It is important to continuously develop this
dialogue so that both parties can fully benefit from it. In this
to strengthen this
connection,
dialogue in the drafting of those legislative proposals that affect
regional and local authorities;

is particularly important

it

nevertheless believes that improvements can be made to

3.5
the way this dialogue is organised and therefore suggests that:

— four sessions per year normally take place,

including the
annual event attended by the President of the Commission,
so as to guarantee optimum political visibility;

— in order to make the discussions more inter-active and spon-
taneous, the structured dialogue should become more of a
questioning and answering time;

— the agenda for the structured dialogue should be developed
in close cooperation between the CoR and local and regional
authorities; and that the themes identified should be refo-
cused on those aspects of fundamental importance to local
and regional authorities;

— the interface with local and regional media should be devel-

oped;

3.1
believes that it is necessary to stress once again the need
to differentiate between EU institutions' consultation with
elected local and regional authorities and their associations, on
the one hand, and lobby organisations representing special inter-
ests on the other; stresses that, together with the local and

— local and regional authorities should be able to submit
written comments, and to propose topics that are of general
interest to local and regional authorities and coincide with
the political agenda of the European Union;

C 146/56

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.6.2007

— the Commission should also be able to provide written feed-

back following meetings;

— emphasis be placed on better monitoring of the structured
dialogue through regular evaluation in close cooperation
with the CoR and the local and regional authorities it repre-
sents;

— the dialogue should whenever possible be targeted more
clearly towards those local and regional stakeholders which
are directly affected by a legislative proposal;

3.10
believes that impact assessments must play a substan-
tial role in reducing the administrative burden of EU legislation
on local and regional authorities, as stated in the opinion on
better lawmaking (CdR 121/2005);

reiterates its opinion that the preliminary assessments,
3.11
apart
from analysing the policy objective of a legislative
proposal and the most appropriate policy instruments, must
include an impact assessment of
legislative acts at local and
regional level in financial terms.

— the Commission should intensify its cooperation and use of
hearings with elected representatives and the experts from
the national and European associations of regional and local
government, using the appropriate channels;

4. Registration of lobbyists

calls on the Commission to improve the existing tools
3.6
for providing feedback on its opinions, which contain concrete
responses to the Commission's request for consultation and
tangible proposals that take account of regional and local inter-
ests. Furthermore,
the Commission should, as a minimum,
explain or clarify the reasons for not taking its recommenda-
tions into account;

3.7
considers that the introduction of minimum standards
for consultation in 2002 opened up new possibilities for a wide
consultation of stakeholders and in-depth impact assessments
prior to legislative proposals. These standards attach a specific
importance to local and regional authorities, which has been
confirmed in the Cooperation Agreement between the CoR of
the Regions and the Commission. It is important that consulta-
tion is timely and gives the stakeholders a real possibility to
respond to legislative proposals;

3.8 would like to see other forms of direct and pre-legisla-
tive consultation of regions and cities developed alongside the
structured dialogue with the associations of local and regional
government, under the auspices of the Committee, so that the
voices of these stakeholders can also be regularly heard during
the preparation stage of proposed legislation; notes that, in this
the
connection,
Commission's 2002 initiative aimed at establishing minimum
standards for consultation and that, in this context, the CoR was
asked to play a proactive role, by organising consultations on
behalf of the Commission (4);

envisaged as part of

consultations were

4.1 welcomes the greater transparency that registration of
lobby organisations would bring. As part of the EU governance
system, the CoR and its members are themselves the focus of
lobbying activity and therefore agree that a system of registra-
tion/accreditation could improve the transparent functioning of
the EU political process;

4.2
stresses that, owing to their-democratic legitimacy, local
and regional authorities and their associations are clearly
different from commercial lobbyists or special interest groups.
Local and regional authorities are part of the European govern-
ance structure. Any registration must take this difference into
account. Local and regional authorities should, therefore, not be
listed on the register of lobbyists, in any way which could risk
blurring the distinction between their role and that of other
organisations on the list;

does not believe, however, that an arrangement based
4.3
on voluntary registration provides an adequate framework to
ensure sufficient transparency. A voluntary arrangement will not
contain public speculation and mistrust
in the institutions'
consultations with private parties. Registration should be a
lobby organisations to any EU
requirement for access by all
institution, as is already the case with the European Parliament;

regrets that

3.9
the territorial dimension is not given
enough consideration in the Green Paper on the European
Transparency Initiative, and likewise in the new impact analysis
therefore calls on the Commission to mainstream
strategy;
consultation of
local and regional authorities in all work on
multi-level governance and to extend the method of consulta-
tion it is already applying, successfully, in relation to the cohe-
sion policy, to all policies with a regional or local impact;

(4) COM(2002)704, p. 8.

than individuals. Given that

4.4
is convinced that it is important to ensure an efficient
and simple procedure for future registration. The register should
be managed by the European Commission. There should be
only one contact point for registration with all EU institutions
and registration should be required for entire organisations
rather
the Committee already
possesses information on regional and local authorities and the
associations representing them, there is no need for every local
and regional authority or their associations to register individu-
ally. The CoR could therefore pass this information on to the
Commission so that it can be included in the relevant section of
the register;

30.6.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/57

feels there is a need to specify the nature, frequency and

4.5
required scope of the information to be provided by lobbyists.

description of
face’;

lessons learned and initiatives with a ‘human

5. Disclosure of beneficiaries of community funds

5.1
supports the Commission's ambition to strengthen
transparency as regards the use of EU funds and encourages
Member States to administer community funds under ‘shared
management’,
aimed at
improving exchanges of best practice. It is in the interest of all
beneficiaries to be transparent about EU funding;

fund projects

structural

the

i.e.

5.2 welcomes the initiative of the Commission to create a
website providing access to existing information about the bene-
ficiaries of projects and programmes. In order to make available
information which is comparable in respect of all citizens of EU
Member States and hence transparent, the requisite data should
be published on a central basis by the European Commission. It
would be in the interest of the European citizens also to have a

Brussels, 13 February 2007.

5.3 welcomes the Green Paper's proposal to create common
community-wide regulations for publicising how EU funds are
spent.

6. Revision of regulation 1049 on access to documents

6.1
is satisfied that in 2001 the Commission opened access
to unpublished documents of the EU institutions and bodies
through a register of documents or following individual requests
and underlines that in 2002 it followed this up by introducing
a code of Good Administrative Behaviour which defines rules
on public access to documents. Both initiatives are major steps
towards ensuring the transparency of the European Commis-
sion;

looks

6.2
lation 1049 and intends to contribute to this process.

forward to the planned revision of

regu-

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Michel DELEBARRE