Source: http://parltrack.euwiki.org/dossier/2018/2096(INI)
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 03:04:36+00:00

Document:
Da. whereas the Charter introduces third general rights, as is the one to transparent administration and access to documents (Article 42).
Db. whereas the CJEU has decided that increased openness enabled citizens to participate more closely in the decision- making process and guarantees that the administration enjoys greater legitimacy and is more effective1a; __________________ 1aCJEU, Joined Cases C-39/05 P and C- 52 P, Kingdom of Sweden and Maurizio Turco v. Council of the European Union, European Court Reports 2008 I-04723.
Fa. whereas the principle of transparency firstly was elucidated in 1995 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in a case against the Council 1a, the institution almost three decades later has not ensured a high level of adherence to the principle; __________________ 1aJudgement of the Court of First Instance of 19 October 1995, John Carvel and Guardian Newspapers Ltd. v. Council of the European Union, Case T-194/94.
Ja. whereas the European Parliament has regularly requested more transparency from the Council, for example in its resolutions of 18 April 20181a and 28 April 20161b on the discharge of the Council as well as in its resolution on 14 September 2017 on Transparency, accountability and integrity in the EU institutions1c; __________________ 1aEuropean Parliament resolution of 18 April 2018 with observations forming an integral part of the decision on discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2016, Section II - European Council and Council (2017/2138(DEC)),P8_TA(2018)0125 the European Union for the financial year 2014 Section II – European Council and Council (2015/2156(DEC)). 1cEuropean Parliament resolution of 14 September 2017 on transparency, accountability and integrity in the EU institutions (2015/2041(INI)), P8_TA(2017)0358.
4a. Strongly believes transparency is an essential ingredient of the rule of law, while ensuring that it is observed throughout the legislative process affects the effective materialization of the right to vote and the right to stand in elections and a handful of rights, i.e. right of expressions and its particular aspect the freedom of speech and the right to receive information. Considers also that forging an active European citizenship Underlines that this would contribute to the gradual familiarization with basic concepts of the legislative process and foster the participatory elements of the democratic life of the Union.
6a. Considers that the Committees of Permanent Representatives (COREPER I- II) meeting documents should be made publicly available as well as the general position of each member state before the beginning of negotiations.
affiliated informal organs related to the European Council (i.e., the Euro Group, the Euro Summit, and the EU-27) should be properly formalized and engulfed properly in the constitutional structure of the Union. Transparency obligations should be applicable indiscriminately to their activities and publicity of documents should include analytical agendas and working documents (non-papers) that are circulated prior to meetings.
9. Considers the Council’s practice of systematically classifying documents distributed in its preparatory bodies relating to legislative files as ‘LIMITE’ to be a violation of CJEU case law1 and of the legal requirementRecognises that the ruling of the ECJ should be fully implemented and that there should be the widest possible public access to legislative documents; __________________ 1 For the principle of the widest possible public access, see: Joint Cases C-39/05 P and C-52/05 P Sweden and Turco v. Council  ECLI:EU:C:2008:374,till existing inconsistencies and divergent para 34; Case C-280/11 P Council v. Access Info Europe  ECLI:EU:C:2013:671, para 27; and Case T-540/15 De Capitani v. Parliament  ECLI:EU:T:2018:167, para 80ctices should be avoided.
9. ConsiderDeplores the Council’s endemic practice of systematically classifying documentsall ‘LIMITE’ to be a violation of CJEU case law1 and of the legal requirement that there should be the widest possible public access to legislative documents; observes that in 2015, 84% of requests for public access to documents marked as "LIMITE", and related to on-going legislative procedures in 2015 were granted; __________________ 1 For the principle of the widest possible public access, see: Joint Cases C-39/05 P and C-52/05 P Sweden and Turco v. Council  ECLI:EU:C:2008:374, para 34; Case C-280/11 P Council v. Access Info Europe  ECLI:EU:C:2013:671, para 27; and Case T-540/15 De Capitani v. Parliament  ECLI:EU:T:2018:167, para 80.
10. Deems it unacceptable that the positions taken in the preparatory bodies of the Council by individual Member States are neither published norWelcomes the Council's practice regarding the disclosure of legislative documents containing Member States' individual positions upon request, as a consequence of the ECJ's judgement, as an important step for the legitimacy of EU legislation, however deems it insufficient. Recommends the systematically recorded, making it impossible for citizens, media and stakeholders to effectively scrutinise the behaviour of their elected governments;ing of the names of the Member States, where it is deemed appropriate, when expressing positions in preparatory bodies, allowing thus for greater transparency on the position taken by national governments on EU laws.
11. Points out that thisRecalls that, under Article 10(2) of the Lisbon Treaty, national governments are democratically accountable to national parliaments, and considers this to be the linchpin for the functioning of national parliaments in the European Union; points out that the lack of information and transparency also hampers the ability of national parliaments to control the actions of national governments in the Council, and enables members of national governments to distance themselves in the national sphere from decisions made at the European level which they shaped and took themselves; considers ithat this practice, which must be urgently ended, is conducive to infringement of the Treaties and irresponsible on the part of members of national governments to undermine trust in the European Union byhat are ‘blaming Brussels’ for decisions that they themselves were involved in; demands an immediate end to this practice;.
12a. Reminds that the institutions have agreed in the inter-institutional agreement of 13 April 2016 1a to promote the utmost transparency of the legislative process and that according to the on an equal footing. That being said equality of the two institutions should also extend unequivocally to the obligations prescribed by the primary European law. __________________ 1aInterinstitutional Agreement between the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union and the European Commission on Better Law-Making, OJ L 123, 12.05.2016, par. 1.
13a. Reiterates that following the strategic inquire concerning the transparency of the trilateral negotiations1a, some progress was made but there are still recommendations that have not taken up largely due to the reluctance of the Council. Taking into account the fact that trilogues have diminished significantly the need to have a second and third reading, overtaking the majority of legislative files to be the default decision-making process. Opines that this has led to expedited procedure, which accelerate legislation making on the one hand but have significantly hampered transparency and integrity of the institutions. The recommendations of the Ombudswoman included publication of the ‘’trilogue calendar’’, publication of the four-column documents and list of attendees. __________________ 1a Decision of the European Ombudsman setting out proposals following her strategic inquiry OI/8/2015/JAS concerning the transparency of Trilogues, 12 July 2016.
13b. Considers that in order to achieve transparency in the trilogues all three institutions should contribute because as per the settled case law trilogues form part of the legislative process, there is no general presumption against non- disclosure based on article 13 TEU and article 294 TFEU 1a and finally trilogues cannot represent a space for European organs to think. __________________ 1aJudgement of the General Court of 22 March 2018, Emilio De Capitani v. European Parliament, Case T-540/15, Digital Reports (unpublished).
17. Takes note of the statement made by the Austrian Presidency to the joint committee on Constitutional Affairs and on Petitions on keeping the European Parliament informed on the progress of the Council’s ongoing reflections on how to improve its rules and procedures as regards legislative transparency, and expressing readiness to engage with Parliament at the appropriate level in a joint reflection on those topics that require interinstitutional coordination; and regrets that no input has been so far submitted to the European Parliament.
18b. Notes that according to the jurisprudence of the CJEU the “space to think” is to be viewed as an exception and not the norm and consequently as a restriction of the principle of transparency1a; reiterates that giving the public the widest possible right of access entails, that the public must have a right to full disclosure of the requested and thus application of exception should be strict; __________________ 1aJudgement of the General Court of 22 March 2011, Access Info Europe v. Council of the European Union, Case T- 233/09, par. 56.
9. ConsiderDeplores the Council’s endemic practice of systematically classifying documentsall ‘LIMITE’ to be a violation of CJEU case law1 and of the legal requirement that there should be the widest possible public access to legislative documents; observes that in 2015, 84% of requests for public access to documents marked as “LIMITE”, and related to on-going legislative procedures in 2015 were granted; __________________ 1 For the principle of the widest possible public access, see: Joint Cases C-39/05 P and C-52/05 P Sweden and Turco v. Council  ECLI:EU:C:2008:374, para 34; Case C-280/11 P Council v. Access Info Europe  ECLI:EU:C:2013:671, para 27; and Case T-540/15 De Capitani v. Parliament  ECLI:EU:T:2018:167, para 80.
10. Deems it unacceptable that the positions taken in the preparatory bodies of the Council by individual Member States are neither published norWelcomes the Council’s practice regarding the disclosure of legislative documents containing Member States’ individual positions upon request, as a consequence of the ECJ’s judgement, as an important step for the legitimacy of EU legislation, however deems it insufficient. Recommends the systematically recorded, making it impossible for citizens, media and stakeholders to effectively scrutinise the behaviour of their elected governments;ing of the names of the Member States, where it is deemed appropriate, when expressing positions in preparatory bodies, allowing thus for greater transparency on the position taken by national governments on EU laws.
13a. Reiterates that following the strategic inquire concerning the transparency of the trilateral negotiations1a, some progress was made but there are still recommendations that have not taken up largely due to the reluctance of the Council. Taking into account the fact that trilogues have diminished significantly the need to have a second and third reading, overtaking the majority of legislative files to be the default decision-making process. Opines that this has led to expedited procedure, which accelerate legislation making on the one hand but have significantly hampered transparency and integrity of the institutions. The recommendations of the Ombudswoman included publication of the ‘‘trilogue calendar’’, publication of the four-column documents and list of attendees. __________________ 1a Decision of the European Ombudsman setting out proposals following her strategic inquiry OI/8/2015/JAS concerning the transparency of Trilogues, 12 July 2016.

References: CJEU 
 v. 
 v. 
 CJEU 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 CJEU 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 CJEU 
 v. 
 CJEU 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.