Source: https://parltrack.org/dossier/2018/2096(INI)
Timestamp: 2020-08-11 19:31:19
Document Index: 423710951

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 16', '§ 16', 'CJEU ', 'CJEU ', 'CJEU ', 'CJEU ', 'CJEU ']

2018/2096(INI) | [ParlTrack]
General Events (2) Documents Activities (4) Votes (3) Amendments (105) History (7)
2018/2096(INI) Ombudsman’s strategic inquiry OI/2/2017 on the transparency of legislative discussions in the preparatory bodies of the Council of the EU
Lead AFCO LEINEN Jo ( S&D), TOOM Yana ( ALDE) BROK Elmar ( PPE), JAHR Peter ( PPE), KIRTON-DARLING Jude ( S&D), MARIAS Notis ( ECR), MESSERSCHMIDT Morten ( ECR), PAGAZAURTUNDÚA Maite ( ALDE), ANDERSON Martina ( GUE/NGL), KUNEVA Kostadinka ( GUE/NGL), ANDERSSON Max ( Verts/ALE), AUKEN Margrete ( Verts/ALE), CASTALDO Fabio Massimo ( EFDD), EVI Eleonora ( EFDD), ANNEMANS Gerolf ( ENF)
Lead PETI LEINEN Jo ( S&D), TOOM Yana ( ALDE) BROK Elmar ( PPE), JAHR Peter ( PPE), KIRTON-DARLING Jude ( S&D), MARIAS Notis ( ECR), MESSERSCHMIDT Morten ( ECR), PAGAZAURTUNDÚA Maite ( ALDE), ANDERSON Martina ( GUE/NGL), KUNEVA Kostadinka ( GUE/NGL), ANDERSSON Max ( Verts/ALE), AUKEN Margrete ( Verts/ALE), CASTALDO Fabio Massimo ( EFDD), EVI Eleonora ( EFDD), ANNEMANS Gerolf ( ENF)
CJ35/8/13633
RoP 54, RoP 58
1.20.04 European Ombudsman
8.40.02 Council of the Union
The European Parliament adopted by 479 votes to 18, with 81 abstentions, a resolution on the Ombudsman’s strategic inquiry OI/2/2017 on the transparency of legislative discussions in the preparatory bodies of the Council of the EU.
Following the inquiry into transparency, the Ombudsman found that the Council’s lack of transparency regarding public access to its legislative documents and its current practices with regard to transparency of its decision-making process – specifically during the preparatory stage at Coreper and working group level – constitute maladministration.
On 9 February 2018, the Ombudsman made six suggestions for improvements and three specific recommendations to the Council regarding transparency of its preparatory bodies, and asked the Council for a reply. The Council did not reply to the recommendations contained in the Ombudsman’s report within the legally prescribed timeline of three months, and, the Ombudsman decided not to grant the Council any extensions beyond this deadline, and submitted the report to Parliament.
Recalling the current criticism of the European Union for its democratic deficit, Members stressed that the fact that one of its three main institutions takes decisions without the transparency expected of a democratic institution is detrimental to the European project.
Members shared the Ombudsman's view that the Treaties impose a legal obligation to ensure that citizens are able to understand, follow in detail and participate in the legislative process, which is essential for the establishment of a modern democratic system.
Parliament stated that the decision-making process at European level should be fully democratic and highly transparent in order to increase citizens' trust in the European project and the EU institutions, especially in the run-up to the European elections in May 2019.
A high level of transparency of the legislative process is essential to enable citizens, media and stakeholders to hold their elected representatives and governments accountable but also act as a safeguard against the spread of speculation, fake news and conspiracy theories
Members deplored that, unlike committee meetings in Parliament, meetings of preparatory bodies and the majority of debates in the Council are held behind closed doors, that a large proportion of documents relating to legislative files are not published proactively by the Council and that documents relating to legislative dossiers distributed in its preparatory bodies are systematically classified under the marking 'LIMITE'.
Parliament stated that citizens, media and stakeholders must have access by appropriate means to the meetings of the Council and its preparatory bodies, including via live- and webstreaming, and that the minutes of these meetings should be published in order to ensure a high level of transparency in the legislative process.
The resolution stressed that the lack of information prevents national parliaments from monitoring government action in the Council. It also leads to an imbalance in the information available and thus gives the Council a structural advantage over Parliament.
Members also wanted a high level of transparency to be applied to trilogues, which have become commonplace in reaching agreements on legislative dossiers.
Informal bodies
Parliament criticised the practice of pre-determining far-reaching economic and financial decisions in informal formats such as the Eurogroup and the Euro Summit. It insisted that EU legislation on transparency and access to documents should be applied to informal bodies and preparatory bodies within the Council, in particular the Eurogroup. It requested that the Eurogroup be fully formalised during the next revision of the Treaties in order to guarantee proper public access and parliamentary scrutiny.
Members fully endorsed the European Ombudsman’s recommendations to the Council and urged the Council – as a minimum – to take all measures necessary to implement as swiftly as possible the recommendations of the Ombudsman, namely:
- to systematically record the identity of Member State governments when they express positions in Council preparatory bodies;
- to develop clear and publicly available criteria for how it designates documents as ‘LIMITE’, in line with EU law;
- to systematically review the ‘LIMITE’ status of documents at an early stage, before the final adoption of a legislative act, including before informal negotiations in trilogues, at which point the Council will have reached an initial position on the proposal.
Parliament reiterated its call for the improvement of the exchange of documents and information between Parliament and the Council and for access to be granted to representatives of Parliament as observers to meetings of the Council and its bodies, in particular in the case of legislation, in a way equivalent to which Parliament grants the Council access to its meetings.
- align its working methods with the standards of a parliamentary and participatory democracy, as required by the Treaties, rather than acting as a diplomatic forum;
- transform itself into a real legislative chamber in order to create a genuine bicameral legislative system involving the Council and Parliament, with the Commission acting as the executive;
- use qualified majority voting and refrain, as far as possible, from taking decisions by consensus and therefore without a formal public vote.
T8-0045/2019
The Committee on Constitutional Affairs and the Committee on Petitions have adopted an own-initiative report prepared jointly by Jo LEINEN (S&D, DE) and Yana TOOM (ALDE, EE) on the Ombudsman’s strategic inquiry OI/2/2017 on the transparency of legislative discussions in the preparatory bodies of the Council of the EU.
The decision-making process at European level should be fully democratic and highly transparent in order to increase citizens' trust in the European project and the EU institutions, especially in the run-up to the European elections in May 2019.
A high level of transparency of the legislative process is essential to enable citizens, media and stakeholders to hold their elected representatives and governments accountable but also act as a safeguard against the spread of speculation, fake news and conspiracy theories.
The report deplored that, unlike committee meetings in Parliament, meetings of preparatory bodies and the majority of debates in the Council are held behind closed doors , that a large proportion of documents relating to legislative files are not published proactively by the Council and that documents relating to legislative dossiers distributed in its preparatory bodies are systematically classified under the marking 'LIMITE' .
The lack of information prevents national parliaments from monitoring government action in the Council. It also leads to an imbalance in the information available and thus gives the Council a structural advantage over Parliament.
Members also wanted a high level of transparency to be applied to trilogues , which have become commonplace in reaching agreements on legislative dossiers.
Members fully endorsed the European Ombudsman’s recommendations to the Council and urges the Council – as a minimum – to take all measures necessary to implement as swiftly as possible the recommendations of the Ombudsman, namely:
The report reiterated its call for the improvement of the exchange of documents and information between Parliament and the Council and for access to be granted to representatives of Parliament as observers to meetings of the Council and its bodies, in particular in the case of legislation, in a way equivalent to which Parliament grants the Council access to its meetings.
Lastly, Members called for the Eurogroup to be fully formalised during the next revision of the Treaties in order to ensure appropriate public access and parliamentary control.
PE628.528
PE623.956
EP - LEINEN Jo (S&D) appointed as rapporteur in AFCO
EP - TOOM Yana (ALDE) appointed as rapporteur in AFCO
EP - LEINEN Jo (S&D) appointed as rapporteur in PETI
EP - TOOM Yana (ALDE) appointed as rapporteur in PETI
Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading: T8-0045/2019
Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading: A8-0420/2018
Amendments tabled in committee: PE628.528
Committee draft report: PE623.956
2016/11/22 Ombudsman’s strategic inquiry OI/2/2017 on the transparency of legislative discussions in the preparatory bodies of the Council of the EU (short presentation) RO
2016/11/22 Ombudsman’s strategic inquiry OI/2/2017 on the transparency of legislative discussions in the preparatory bodies of the Council of the EU (short presentation) DE
2016/11/22 Ombudsman’s strategic inquiry OI/2/2017 on the transparency of legislative discussions in the preparatory bodies of the Council of the EU (short presentation) EL
2016/11/22 Ombudsman’s strategic inquiry OI/2/2017 on the transparency of legislative discussions in the preparatory bodies of the Council of the EU (short presentation) FI
A8-0420/2018 - Jo Leinen et Yana Toom - § 16/1
2019/01/17 Outcome: +: 506, -: 51, 0: 27
Albert DESS, Andreas SCHWAB, Axel VOSS, Birgit COLLIN-LANGEN, Christian EHLER, Daniel CASPARY, David McALLISTER, Dennis RADTKE, Dieter-Lebrecht KOCH, Hermann WINKLER, Ingeborg GRÄSSLE, Jens GIESEKE, Joachim ZELLER, Markus FERBER, Markus PIEPER, Michael GAHLER, Monika HOHLMEIER, Norbert LINS, Peter JAHR, Peter LIESE, Rainer WIELAND, Reimer BÖGE, Renate SOMMER, Sabine VERHEYEN, Stefan GEHROLD, Thomas MANN, Werner KUHN, Werner LANGEN
Alain LAMASSOURE, Angélique DELAHAYE, Anne SANDER, Arnaud DANJEAN, Brice HORTEFEUX, Elisabeth MORIN-CHARTIER, Franck PROUST, Françoise GROSSETÊTE, Geoffroy DIDIER, Jérôme LAVRILLEUX, Marc JOULAUD, Michel DANTIN, Michèle ALLIOT-MARIE, Nadine MORANO, Philippe JUVIN, Rachida DATI, Tokia SAÏFI
Agustín DÍAZ DE MERA GARCÍA CONSUEGRA, Antonio LÓPEZ-ISTÚRIZ WHITE, Carlos ITURGAIZ, Esteban GONZÁLEZ PONS, Francisco José MILLÁN MON, Francisco de Paula GAMBUS MILLET, Gabriel MATO, José Ignacio SALAFRANCA SÁNCHEZ-NEYRA, Luis de GRANDES PASCUAL, Pilar del CASTILLO VERA, Ramón Luis VALCÁRCEL SISO, Rosa ESTARÀS FERRAGUT, Santiago FISAS AYXELÀ
Andor DELI, Andrea BOCSKOR, András GYÜRK, György SCHÖPFLIN, Kinga GÁL, László TŐKÉS, Lívia JÁRÓKA, Norbert ERDŐS, Tamás DEUTSCH
Adam SZEJNFELD, Agnieszka KOZŁOWSKA-RAJEWICZ, Andrzej GRZYB, Barbara KUDRYCKA, Bogdan Andrzej ZDROJEWSKI, Bogusław SONIK, Czesław Adam SIEKIERSKI, Danuta JAZŁOWIECKA, Danuta Maria HÜBNER, Dariusz ROSATI, Elżbieta Katarzyna ŁUKACIJEWSKA, Jan OLBRYCHT, Janusz LEWANDOWSKI, Jarosław KALINOWSKI, Jarosław WAŁĘSA, Jerzy BUZEK, Julia PITERA, Krzysztof HETMAN, Marek PLURA, Michał BONI, Tadeusz ZWIEFKA
Arndt KOHN, Arne LIETZ, Babette WINTER, Bernd LANGE, Birgit SIPPEL, Constanze KREHL, Dietmar KÖSTER, Evelyne GEBHARDT, Gabriele PREUSS, Ismail ERTUG, Jens GEIER, Jo LEINEN, Michael DETJEN, Norbert NEUSER, Peter SIMON, Petra KAMMEREVERT, Susanne MELIOR, Sylvia-Yvonne KAUFMANN, Tiemo WÖLKEN
Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY, Edouard MARTIN, Eric ANDRIEU, Gilles PARGNEAUX, Guillaume BALAS, Isabelle THOMAS, Karine GLOANEC MAURIN, Pervenche BERÈS, Vincent PEILLON, Virginie ROZIÈRE
Clara AGUILERA, Eider GARDIAZABAL RUBIAL, Elena VALENCIANO, Enrique GUERRERO SALOM, Inma RODRÍGUEZ-PIÑERO, Inés AYALA SENDER, Iratxe GARCÍA PÉREZ, Jonás FERNÁNDEZ, José BLANCO LÓPEZ, Juan Fernando LÓPEZ AGUILAR, Soledad CABEZÓN RUIZ
Andrea COZZOLINO, Brando BENIFEI, Caterina CHINNICI, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Damiano ZOFFOLI, Daniele VIOTTI, David Maria SASSOLI, Elena GENTILE, Elly SCHLEIN, Flavio ZANONATO, Goffredo Maria BETTINI, Isabella DE MONTE, Luigi MORGANO, Massimo PAOLUCCI, Mercedes BRESSO, Michela GIUFFRIDA, Nicola CAPUTO, Nicola DANTI, Paolo DE CASTRO, Patrizia TOIA, Pier Antonio PANZERI, Renata BRIANO, Sergio Gaetano COFFERATI, Silvia COSTA
Alex MAYER, Clare MOODY, David MARTIN, Derek VAUGHAN, John HOWARTH, Jude KIRTON-DARLING, Julie WARD, Lucy ANDERSON, Mary HONEYBALL, Paul BRANNEN, Seb DANCE, Siôn SIMON, Theresa GRIFFIN
Cornelia ERNST, Helmut SCHOLZ, Martin SCHIRDEWAN, Martina MICHELS, Stefan ECK
Javier COUSO PERMUY, Lola SÁNCHEZ CALDENTEY, Miguel URBÁN CRESPO, Tania GONZÁLEZ PEÑAS, Xabier BENITO ZILUAGA
Dimitrios PAPADIMOULIS, Kostadinka KUNEVA, Nikolaos CHOUNTIS
Bill ETHERIDGE, David COBURN, James CARVER, Jonathan ARNOTT, Julia REID, Margot PARKER, Nigel FARAGE, Patrick O'FLYNN, Raymond FINCH, Tim AKER, William (The Earl of) DARTMOUTH
Arne GERICKE, Bernd LUCKE
Amjad BASHIR, Anthea McINTYRE, Ashley FOX, Charles TANNOCK, Daniel DALTON, Daniel HANNAN, David CAMPBELL BANNERMAN, Emma McCLARKIN, Geoffrey VAN ORDEN, James NICHOLSON, John FLACK, John PROCTER, Nirj DEVA, Rupert MATTHEWS, Sajjad KARIM, Syed KAMALL
Beata GOSIEWSKA, Bolesław G. PIECHA, Czesław HOC, Edward CZESAK, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Kosma ZŁOTOWSKI, Marek JUREK, Mirosław PIOTROWSKI, Stanisław OŻÓG, Sławomir KŁOSOWSKI, Tomasz Piotr PORĘBA, Urszula KRUPA, Zbigniew KUŹMIUK, Zdzisław KRASNODĘBSKI
A8-0420/2018 - Jo Leinen et Yana Toom - § 16/2
2019/01/17 Outcome: +: 360, -: 191, 0: 34
Andrea COZZOLINO, Brando BENIFEI, Caterina CHINNICI, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Damiano ZOFFOLI, Daniele VIOTTI, David Maria SASSOLI, Elena GENTILE, Elly SCHLEIN, Flavio ZANONATO, Goffredo Maria BETTINI, Isabella DE MONTE, Luigi MORGANO, Massimo PAOLUCCI, Mercedes BRESSO, Michela GIUFFRIDA, Nicola CAPUTO, Nicola DANTI, Paolo DE CASTRO, Patrizia TOIA, Pier Antonio PANZERI, Renata BRIANO, Roberto GUALTIERI, Sergio Gaetano COFFERATI, Silvia COSTA
Alex MAYER, Clare MOODY, Claude MORAES, David MARTIN, Derek VAUGHAN, John HOWARTH, Jude KIRTON-DARLING, Julie WARD, Linda McAVAN, Lucy ANDERSON, Mary HONEYBALL, Paul BRANNEN, Rory PALMER, Seb DANCE, Siôn SIMON, Theresa GRIFFIN
Clara AGUILERA, Eider GARDIAZABAL RUBIAL, Elena VALENCIANO, Enrique GUERRERO SALOM, Inma RODRÍGUEZ-PIÑERO, Inés AYALA SENDER, Iratxe GARCÍA PÉREZ, Jonás FERNÁNDEZ, José BLANCO LÓPEZ, Ramón JÁUREGUI ATONDO, Soledad CABEZÓN RUIZ
Arndt KOHN, Arne LIETZ, Babette WINTER, Bernd LANGE, Birgit SIPPEL, Constanze KREHL, Dietmar KÖSTER, Evelyne GEBHARDT, Gabriele PREUSS, Jens GEIER, Jo LEINEN, Michael DETJEN, Norbert NEUSER, Peter SIMON, Petra KAMMEREVERT, Susanne MELIOR, Sylvia-Yvonne KAUFMANN, Tiemo WÖLKEN
Beatriz BECERRA BASTERRECHEA, Carolina PUNSET, Enrique CALVET CHAMBON, Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA, Javier NART, Maite PAGAZAURTUNDÚA
Barbara LOCHBIHLER, Helga TRÜPEL, Julia REDA, Klaus BUCHNER, Maria HEUBUCH, Martin HÄUSLING, Reinhard BÜTIKOFER, Romeo FRANZ, Ska KELLER, Sven GIEGOLD, Terry REINTKE
Amjad BASHIR, Anthea McINTYRE, Ashley FOX, Charles TANNOCK, Daniel DALTON, David CAMPBELL BANNERMAN, Emma McCLARKIN, Geoffrey VAN ORDEN, James NICHOLSON, John FLACK, John PROCTER, Nirj DEVA, Rupert MATTHEWS, Sajjad KARIM, Syed KAMALL
Dominique MARTIN, France JAMET, Gilles LEBRETON, Jacques COLOMBIER, Jean-Luc SCHAFFHAUSER, Joëlle MÉLIN, Marie-Christine ARNAUTU, Marie-Christine BOUTONNET, Mylène TROSZCZYNSKI, Nicolas BAY, Philippe LOISEAU, Steeve BRIOIS
Adam SZEJNFELD, Agnieszka KOZŁOWSKA-RAJEWICZ, Andrzej GRZYB, Barbara KUDRYCKA, Bogdan Andrzej ZDROJEWSKI, Bogusław SONIK, Czesław Adam SIEKIERSKI, Danuta JAZŁOWIECKA, Dariusz ROSATI, Elżbieta Katarzyna ŁUKACIJEWSKA, Jan OLBRYCHT, Janusz LEWANDOWSKI, Jarosław KALINOWSKI, Jarosław WAŁĘSA, Jerzy BUZEK, Julia PITERA, Krzysztof HETMAN, Marek PLURA, Michał BONI, Róża THUN UND HOHENSTEIN, Tadeusz ZWIEFKA
A8-0420/2018 - Jo Leinen et Yana Toom - Résolution
2019/01/17 Outcome: +: 479, 0: 81, -: 18
Albert DESS, Andreas SCHWAB, Axel VOSS, Birgit COLLIN-LANGEN, Christian EHLER, Daniel CASPARY, David McALLISTER, Dennis RADTKE, Dieter-Lebrecht KOCH, Hermann WINKLER, Ingeborg GRÄSSLE, Jens GIESEKE, Joachim ZELLER, Markus FERBER, Markus PIEPER, Michael GAHLER, Monika HOHLMEIER, Norbert LINS, Peter JAHR, Peter LIESE, Rainer WIELAND, Reimer BÖGE, Renate SOMMER, Sabine VERHEYEN, Stefan GEHROLD, Thomas MANN, Werner KUHN
Alain LAMASSOURE, Angélique DELAHAYE, Anne SANDER, Arnaud DANJEAN, Elisabeth MORIN-CHARTIER, Franck PROUST, Françoise GROSSETÊTE, Geoffroy DIDIER, Jérôme LAVRILLEUX, Marc JOULAUD, Michel DANTIN, Michèle ALLIOT-MARIE, Nadine MORANO, Philippe JUVIN, Rachida DATI, Tokia SAÏFI
Agustín DÍAZ DE MERA GARCÍA CONSUEGRA, Antonio LÓPEZ-ISTÚRIZ WHITE, Carlos ITURGAIZ, Esteban GONZÁLEZ PONS, Francisco José MILLÁN MON, Gabriel MATO, José Ignacio SALAFRANCA SÁNCHEZ-NEYRA, Luis de GRANDES PASCUAL, Pilar del CASTILLO VERA, Ramón Luis VALCÁRCEL SISO, Rosa ESTARÀS FERRAGUT, Santiago FISAS AYXELÀ
Andrea COZZOLINO, Brando BENIFEI, Caterina CHINNICI, Cécile Kashetu KYENGE, Damiano ZOFFOLI, Daniele VIOTTI, David Maria SASSOLI, Elly SCHLEIN, Flavio ZANONATO, Goffredo Maria BETTINI, Isabella DE MONTE, Luigi MORGANO, Massimo PAOLUCCI, Mercedes BRESSO, Michela GIUFFRIDA, Nicola CAPUTO, Nicola DANTI, Paolo DE CASTRO, Pier Antonio PANZERI, Renata BRIANO, Roberto GUALTIERI, Sergio Gaetano COFFERATI, Silvia COSTA
Alex MAYER, Clare MOODY, Claude MORAES, David MARTIN, Derek VAUGHAN, John HOWARTH, Jude KIRTON-DARLING, Julie WARD, Linda McAVAN, Lucy ANDERSON, Mary HONEYBALL, Paul BRANNEN, Rory PALMER, Seb DANCE, Theresa GRIFFIN
Barbara LOCHBIHLER, Julia REDA, Klaus BUCHNER, Maria HEUBUCH, Martin HÄUSLING, Reinhard BÜTIKOFER, Romeo FRANZ, Ska KELLER, Sven GIEGOLD, Terry REINTKE
Helmut SCHOLZ, Martin SCHIRDEWAN, Martina MICHELS
Lola SÁNCHEZ CALDENTEY, Maria Lidia SENRA RODRÍGUEZ, Miguel URBÁN CRESPO, Tania GONZÁLEZ PEÑAS, Xabier BENITO ZILUAGA
Javier COUSO PERMUY, Paloma LÓPEZ BERMEJO, Ángela VALLINA
Dimitrios PAPADIMOULIS, Kostadinka KUNEVA
Beata GOSIEWSKA, Bolesław G. PIECHA, Czesław HOC, Edward CZESAK, Jadwiga WIŚNIEWSKA, Kosma ZŁOTOWSKI, Marek JUREK, Mirosław PIOTROWSKI, Ryszard CZARNECKI, Stanisław OŻÓG, Sławomir KŁOSOWSKI, Tomasz Piotr PORĘBA, Urszula KRUPA, Zdzisław KRASNODĘBSKI
Amjad BASHIR, Anthea McINTYRE, Ashley FOX, Charles TANNOCK, Daniel DALTON, Daniel HANNAN, Emma McCLARKIN, Geoffrey VAN ORDEN, James NICHOLSON, John FLACK, John PROCTER, Nirj DEVA, Rupert MATTHEWS, Sajjad KARIM, Syed KAMALL
105 2018/2096(INI)
2018/11/06 AFCO, PETI 105 amendments...
A. whereas Article 228 TFEU and Article 3 of the Statute of the Ombudsman allows the Ombudsman to conduct inquiries for which she finds grounds, either on the basis of a complaint or on her own initiative;
Kostadinka KUNEVA, Martina ANDERSON, Dennis de JONG, Kostas CHRYSOGONOS, Sofia SAKORAFA, Barbara SPINELLI, Ángela VALLINA
Ea. whereas the Union function lies on a dual structure of legitimacy as provided in Article 10(2) of the TEU. The Union is founded on representative democracy as stipulated in Article 10(1) and should operate on principles and mechanisms of participatory democracy as per Article 11, paragraphs 1-3 TEU. Transparency is a sine-qua-non component of this dual legitimacy as it is only when citizens know who, why and how decisions have been made they participate in the electoral process and in other forms of political participation beyond elections in an informed and enlightened manner;
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.
17a. Further recommends that the Council: (a) enlists documents regardless of their status in the Document Register even those that are not available to the public with the relevant indication that corresponds to the level of publicity; (b) provides justification for the level of classification on the basis of the criteria developed; (c) provides in an easily comprehensible manner for all citizens votes, explanation of votes and minutes , materializing the obligation provided in article 8 and 9 of the internal rules of procedure1a; __________________ 1a Council Decision of 22 March 2004 adopting the Council’s Rules of Procedure, 2004/338/EC, Euratom;
17b. Considers that, in order to provide the widest possible public access to legislative documents, each document that is not made public in full has to be accompanied by an argumentation why, in a specific and actual manner relating to the document at hand the document would undermine either (a) the institutions’ decision-making process or (b) the protection of institutions interest in seeking legal advice, as well as accompanied by an argumentation why there is no overriding public interest;
18a. Regrets the Draft Policy Paper on legislative transparency produced by the General Secretariat of the Council of the European Union and addressed to the Permanent Representatives Committee, was classified as ‘LIMITE’1a; considers that the milestone approach presents no added value whatsoever and puts forward a scheme that allows selective publication of documents only after they have been considered by the competent bodies; Considers that certain elements of the new approach are mutually exclusive (i.e. built-in flexibility and greater standardization) and incompatible with the constitutional norms of the Union; Deplores the fact that the Council proclaimed it will strive to strike a balance between the case law and various calls for greater transparency and the need to preserve the necessary flexibility for effective legislative work, which implies not conforming with the jurisprudence of the CJEU as it stands; __________________ 1a General Secretariat of the Council, Draft Polity Paper on Legislative Transparency, 11099/18, Brussels, 13 July 2018.
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; __________________ 1a Judgement of the General Court of 22 March 2011, Access Info Europe v. Council of the European Union, Case T- 233/09, par. 56.
Fa. whereas in order to create a genuine bicameral legislative system which is democratic and transparent in its decision-making Council decisions should be taken by one single legislative Council, while the existing specialised legislative Council configurations should be turned into preparatory bodies, similar to committees in the Parliament;
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; __________________ 1a Judgement 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.
Martina ANDERSON, Kostadinka KUNEVA, Dennis de JONG, Kostas CHRYSOGONOS, Sofia SAKORAFA, Barbara SPINELLI, Ángela VALLINA
H. whereas following the inquiry, the Ombudsman found that the Council’s current practices with regard to transparency of its decision-making process, in specific regards to preparatory discussions that take place at Coreper and National Working group level, constitute maladministration;
Eleonora EVI, Fabio Massimo CASTALDO
H. whereas following the inquiry, the Ombudsman found that the lack of transparency by the Council on public access to its legislative documents and the Council’s current practices with regard to transparency of its decision-making process constitute maladministration;
Ha. whereas the Court of Justice has established that the principles of publicity and transparency are inherent to the EU legislative process, and that the effectiveness and integrity of the legislative process cannot undermine the principles of publicity and transparency which underlie that process1a; __________________ 1a Judgment of the General Court of 22 March 2018 — De Capitani v Parliament (Case T-540/15), par. 81 and 83
J. whereas the Council did not reply to the recommendations contained in the Ombudsman’s report within the legally prescribed timeline of three months, and, because of the importance of the issue of legislative transparency, the Ombudsman decided not to grant the Council any extensions beyond this deadline, and submitted the report to the European Parliament;
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; __________________ 1a European 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 1b European Parliament decision of 28 April 2016 on discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2014 Section II – European Council and Council (2015/2156(DEC)). 1c European Parliament resolution of 14 September 2017 on transparency, accountability and integrity in the EU institutions (2015/2041(INI)), P8_TA(2017)0358.
Jb. whereas the Ombudswoman also ruled in Complaint 1271/2017/ANA that the Council was not justified in holding back access to an opinion of its Legal Service concerning an inter-institutional agreement;
Recital J c (new)
Jc. whereas the Conference of Parliamentary Committees for Union Affairs of Parliaments of the European Union adopted during its Plenary Meeting in Sofia on 17/19 June 2018 its resolution in which it urges the Council to reflect on the proposals made by 26 national parliaments of Member States to enhance the openness of legislative deliberations at EU-level 1a; __________________ 1a Contribution of the LIX COSAC, articles 2.6 and 2.7
Aa. whereas the integrity of the Statute and the independence of the Ombudsman depend on avoiding any overlap between the powers constitutionally assigned to the latter and those of the European Parliament and the Court of Justice of the European Union;
-1. Is deeply concerned that a common criticism of the European Union is that it is democratically deficient. Therefore, by having one of its three main institutions taking decisions without the transparency that is to be expected from a democratic establishment is detrimental to the ambitious venture that is the European project;
1. Is deeply convinced that democratic and transparent decision-making at the European level is indispensable to increase citizens’ trust in the European project and the EU institutions, especially in the run-up to the European elections in May 2019, and is therefore determined to defend and enhance European democracyenhance the democratic accountability of all EU institutions;
1. Is deeply convinced that a fully democratic and transparent decision- making at the European level is indispensable to increase citizens’ trust in the European project and the EU institutions, especially in the run-up to the European elections in May 2019, and is therefore determined to defend and enhance European democracy;
2. Shares the view of the Ombudsman that ensuring that citizens are able to follow the progress of legislation is a legal requirement under the Treaties, as EU decisions must be taken “as openly and as closely as possible to the citizen”;
2. Shares the view of the Ombudsman that ensuring that citizens are able to followunderstand and follow in detail the progress of legislation is a legal requirement under the Treaties;
2a. Believes that there is currently a distinct gap between formal transparency, i.e. the legal recognition and insertion of transparency in the EU legal foundations as a self-standing principle closely linked to the rule of law, and of substantial transparency, i.e. steps to effectively materialise in a corresponding level;
2b. Reiterates that the Inter- institutional Agreement on a mandatory Transparency which is being negotiated, is a first good step; notes that the current text only covers high ranking officials of the Council;
2c. Deeply regrets the fact that the Council has blocked the revision of the Regulation 1049/2001 and urges the Council to re-open its discussions based on the position adopted by Parliament in second reading as laid down in resolution of 12 June 2013 1a. __________________ 1a European Parliament resolution of 12 June 2013 on the deadlock on the revision of Regulation (EC) No. 1049/2001 (2013/2637(RSP))
Kostadinka KUNEVA, Martina ANDERSON, Dennis de JONG, Sofia SAKORAFA, Barbara SPINELLI, Ángela VALLINA
2d. Shares the viewpoint of the Ombudswoman’s strategic inquiry; deplores the fact that the Council did not reply within the deadline in the findings. Regrettably this is a recurring topic and is constantly showcased also from complaints submitted to the Ombudswoman. This matter should be considered of high importance in the democratic life of the Union and the effective participation of citizens across the continent hindering the fulfilment of the constitutional treaties and the Charter;
Ca. whereas the Ombudswoman has contributed greatly to highlight issues of transparency in the life of the Union through inquiries and cases brought before her;
3. Emphasises that transparency at all stagesa high degree of transparency of the legislative process is essential to enable citizens, media, and stakeholders to hold their elected representatives and governments accountable;
3. Emphasises that full transparency at all stages of the legislative process, including in the informal negotiations between the three main EU institutions (‘trilogues’), is essential to enable citizens, media, and stakeholders to hold their elected representatives and governments accountable;
3a. Recalls that transparency has four distinct aspects that are intertwined, namely (a) openness of the legislative process (b) right to access to documents (c) transparency of the legal norm as concomitant to legal certainty (d) offering wide reasoning and sufficient explanation of the motives of a legislative text;
4. Believes that a high degree offull transparency acts as a safeguard against the emergence of speculation, fake news and conspiracy theories;
4. Believes that a high degree of transparency acts as a safeguard against the emergence of speculation, fake news and conspiracy theories, in that it provides a factual basis for publicly refuting such claims;
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 necessitates margin for public scrutiny, review and evaluation of the process and the prospect to challenge the outcome. 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.
4b. Reminds that the principles of publicity, openness and transparency are inherent to the EU Legislative process, in order to allow citizens to find out the considerations underpinning legislative actions and therefore ensures effective exercise of their democratic rights 1a. __________________ 1a Joined Cases C-39/05 and C-52/05 P, Kingdom of Sweden and Maurizio Turco v. Council of the European Union, European Court Reports 2008 I-04723
5. Recalls that the European Parliament represents the interests of European citizens in a fullyn open and transparent manner, and welcomes the substantial progress made by the Commission; calls on the Commission to make substantial progress in improving its transparency standards ensuring full transparency, inter alia, in the conduct of international negotiations and its interactions with interest representatives; notes that the Council does not yet follow comparable(and the European Council) do not yet ensure full transparency standards;
Cb. whereas the European Ombudswoman opined that the lack of transparency regarding EU Member States’ positions during negotiations amount to maladministration and a violation of Article 41 of the Charter;
5. Recalls that the European Parliament represents the interests of European citizens in a fully open and transparent manner, and welcomes the substantial progress made by the Commission in improving its transparency standards, inter alia in the conduct of international negotiations and its interactions with interest representatives whereas ‘revolving-door’ still remains an alarming issue; notes that the Council does not yet follow comparable transparency standards;
5a. Reiterates its call on the Council, including its preparatory bodies, to join the Transparency Register as soon as possible; calls on all Member States to introduce binding rules advancing the transparency of interest representation; calls on the Member States to introduce rules for their representatives including but not limited to, at COREPER and Working Group Levels;
6. Points out that the work of the preparatory bodies of the Council, i.e. the Committees of Permanent Representatives (Coreper I + II) and more than 150 working groups, is an integral part of the Council’s decision-making procedure; argues that these structures must proactively improve the transparency of decision-making procedures at working group and Coreper levels, as to improve the overall transparency of the legislative process in the European Council;
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.
6b. Considers it regrettable that the Council and the European Council have still not adopted a code of conduct for their members; recalls its call to the Council to introduce a specific code of ethics, including sanctions, which addresses the risks specific to national delegates; insists that the Council must be just as accountable and transparent as the other institutions;
6c. Strongly believes that informal formations, subsidiary organs or other 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.
7. Deplores the fact that, unlike committee meetings in the European Parliament, meetings of the preparatory bodies of the Council as well as the majority of debates in the Council are held in camera; proposes that citizens, media and stakeholders should have access by appropriate means to the meetings of the Council and its preparatory bodies, includ via livestreaming viaand web-streaming, as well as making the minutes of these meeting publically available in order to make all stages of the legislative process in both components of the European legislature fully transparent;
7. Deplores the fact that, unlike committee meetings in the European Parliament, meetings of the preparatory bodithe majority of the debates ofin the Council as well as the majority of debaspecialised legislative Council configurations , which should become preparatory bodies similar to committees in the CouncilEuropean Parliament, are held in camera; proposes that citizens, media and stakeholders should have access by appropriate means to the meetings of the Council and its preparatory bodies,specialised Council configurations including via webstreaming, in order to make all stages of the legislative process in both components of the European legislature fully transparent;
Cc. whereas the treaties (Article 15(3) of TFEU) and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (Article 42) have attributed constitutional value to the principle of transparency;
7. Deplores the fact that, unlike committee meetings in the European Parliament, meetings of the preparatory bodies of the Council as well as the majority of debates in the Council are held in camera; proposbelieves that citizens, media and stakeholders should havemust have full access by appropriate means to the meetings of the Council and its preparatory bodies, including via webstreaming, in order to make all stages of the legislative process in both components of the European legislature fully transparent and accessible;
7a. Stresses the paramount importance of guaranteeing full transparency and full public access to the documents held by the EU institutions; highlights the fact that EU legislation on access to documents is seriously outdated; strongly regrets that the Council is blocking the revision of Regulation (EC) No. 1049/2001;
7a. Opines that denying the access to documents to Members of the European Parliament, has the potential to threaten the principle institutional balance and to negate the essential practice of the mutual sincere cooperation. Notes that it is an excessive burden for the effective function of parliamentary duties, having to pursue an ex post check on an ad hoc basis after every refusal of a request to access documents.
8. NotDeplores that the Council does not proactively publish most documents related to legislative files, and that available information is presentedpreventing citizens also from knowing in real time which documents actually exist, thus limiting citizens’ exercise of their right to request public access to documents; regrets that available information on legislative documents is presented by the Council in a register which is incomplete and not user- friendly; welcomes in this regard the progress made by the Commission, Parliament and the Council in the creation of a joint database for legislative fileunderlines that the Commission, Parliament and the Council must swiftly complete all necessary steps to adopt the joint database for legislative files with a view to ensuring full transparency and a simplified and full public access to all related information and documents;
Martina ANDERSON, Kostadinka KUNEVA, Dennis de JONG, Sofia SAKORAFA, Barbara SPINELLI, Ángela VALLINA
8. Notes that the Council does not proactively publish most documents related to legislative files, and that available information is presented in a register which is incomplete and not user-friendly; calls on the Council to act on the Ombudsman’s proposals to list all the documents available on its registrar, irrespective of their format and whether or not they are partially or accessible at all; welcomes in this regard the progress made by the Commission, Parliament and the Council in the creation of a joint database for legislative files;
8a. Considers that all documents (legislative, intergovernmental conferences and meeting documents) from the period before 1999 should be de- classified and uploaded to the Document Archive of the Council being available publicly;
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 [2008] ECLI:EU:C:2008:374,till existing inconsistencies and divergent para 34; Case C-280/11 P Council v. Access Info Europe [2013] ECLI:EU:C:2013:671, para 27; and Case T-540/15 De Capitani v. Parliament [2018] ECLI:EU:T:2018:167, para 80ctices should be avoided.
9. ConsiderDeplores the Council’s endemic practice of systematically classifying all documents distributed in its preparatory bodies relating to legislative files as ‘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 [2008] ECLI:EU:C:2008:374, para 34; Case C-280/11 P Council v. Access Info Europe [2013] ECLI:EU:C:2013:671, para 27; and Case T-540/15 De Capitani v. Parliament [2018] ECLI:EU:T:2018:167, para 80.
D. whereas the European Parliament works with a high degree of transparency at all stages of thein its legislative procedure, including the committee stage, making it possible for citizens, the media and stakeholders to clearly identify different positions within Parliament and the origin of specific proposals, as well as to follow the processes leading to compromises and the adoption of final decisions;
9a. Exceptions of Article 4 of the Regulation No 1049/2001 pending its revision should not be applied by default and whereas jurisprudence does not require justification for limiting access to a document, institutions shall strive to offer the fullest reasoning possible for taking such a decision that is a restriction of Article 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and as such should adhere by the principle of proportionality. Further supports that a decision to restrict access should be accompanied by an argumentation why, in a specific and actual manner relating to the document at hand;
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.
10. Deems it unacceptable that the positions taken in the preparatory bodies of the Council by individual Member States are neither published nor systematically recorded, making it impossible for citizens, media and stakeholders to effectively scrutinise the behaviour of their elected governments; calls for a systematic record of Member State governments to be kept and made publically available, where appropriate, when they express positions in council preparatory bodies;
10. DStresses that the positions of the Member States within the Council during the EU legislative process must be recorded and made a matter of public knowledge in a timely and accessible manner; deems it unacceptable that the positions taken in the preparatory bodies of the Council by individual Member States are neither published nor systematically recorded, making it impossible for citizens, media and stakeholders to effectively scrutinise the behaviour of their elected governments; underlines that in a system based on the principle of democratic legitimacy, co-legislators must be held accountable to the public for their actions;
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;.
11. Points out that this lack of information 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 it irresponsible on the part of members of national governments to undermine trust in the European Union by ‘blaming Brussels’ for decisions they themselves were involved in; demands an immediate endargues that a systematic record of the positions of Member States in Preparatory Bodies would act as a positive disincentive to this practice;
11 Points out that this lack of information 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 it irresponsible on the part of members of national governments to undermine trust in the European Union by ‘blaming Brussels’ for decisions they themselves were involved in; demands an immediate end to this practice; notes that this practice plays into the hands of populist politicians, who seek to delegitimise the EU in the eyes of the public, and was a major contributing factor to the Brexit vote in June 2016;
11a. Considers that the traceability of the legislative process is also an inherent aspect of transparency which is essential to ensure that citizens not simply receive documents in abstracto but can competently follow the legislative procedure. Highlights the Legislative train schedule1a and the European Parliament legislative observatory1b as good practices of the European Parliament that suggests to be integrated in the website of the Council in order to allow citizens to follow the legislative procedure from its inception until its completion. __________________ 1a http://www.europarl.europa.eu/legislative- train/ 1b http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/home/ home.do
12. Considers it incompatible with democratic principles that,the lack of transparency in interinstitutional negotiations between the co-legislators, the lack of transparency in the Council leads to an imbalance with regard to available information and thus to a structural advantage of the Council over the European Parliament; reiterates its call for the improvement of the exchange of documents and information between Parliament and the Council and for access to be granted to representativ incompatible with democratic principles; reiterates its call for the publication of all trilogue documents; stresses that the lack of transparency about the EU legislative process increases citizens’ distrust, with regard not only to the lawfulness of Parliament as observers to meetings of the Council and its bodies, an isolated act, but also to the legitimacy of the decision-making particular in the case of legislation;rocess as a whole
12. Considers it incompatible with democratic principles that, in interinstitutional negotiations between the co-legislators, the lack of transparency in the Council leads to an imbalance with regard to available information and thus to a structural advantage of the Council over the European Parliament; reiterates its call for the improvement of the exchange of documents and information between Parliament and the Council and for access to be grantedpublically available, as well as to representatives of Parliament, as observers to meetings of the Council and its bodies, in particular in the case of legislation;
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 constitutional setting of the Union, the European Parliament and the Council exercise as the co-legislators their powers 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. __________________ 1a Interinstitutional 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.
Charles GOERENS, Jasenko SELIMOVIC
12a. Encourages the Council to make significant and serious efforts towards transparency in the ongoing tripartite negotiations about a mandatory EU Transparency Register;
Martina ANDERSON, Kostadinka KUNEVA, Dennis de JONG, Kostas CHRYSOGONOS, Sofia SAKORAFA, Ángela VALLINA
13. Notes that the practices of the European Parliament, has been identified by the Ombudsman as having high standards of transparency; Demands that the Council, as one of the two components of the European legislature, aligns its working methods with the standards of a parliamentary democracy, rather than acting like a diplomatic forum; transparency that exist in the European Parliament;
Da. whereas the Charter introduces third general rights, as is the one to transparent administration and access to documents (Article 42).
13. Demands that the Council, as one of the two components of the European legislature, aligns its working methods with the standards of a parliamentary democracy, rather than acting like a diplomatic forum, which is not its intended function;
13a. Is of the opinion that Member States’ governments deprive citizens of their right to information and circumvent transparency standards as well as proper democratic control by preparing or predetermining far-reaching economic and financial decisions in informal formats such as the Eurogroup and the Euro-Summit; insists that – without delay – EU legislation on transparency and access to documents is applied to informal bodies within the Council, in particular the Eurogroup; calls to fully formalise the Eurogroup at the next revision of the Treaties in order to guarantee proper public access and parliamentary scrutiny;
13a. Reiterates its call to transform the Council into a true legislative chamber, thus creating a genuinely bicameral legislative system involving the Council and Parliament, with the Commission acting as the executive; suggests involving the currently active specialised legislative Council configurations as preparatory bodies for a single legislative Council, meeting in public, similarly to the functioning of the committees in the European Parliament, and where all final legislative decisions must be taken;
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. __________________ 1a Judgement of the General Court of 22 March 2018, Emilio De Capitani v. European Parliament, Case T-540/15, Digital Reports (unpublished).
Martina ANDERSON, Dennis de JONG, Kostas CHRYSOGONOS, Sofia SAKORAFA, Ángela VALLINA
14. Reiterates its call to transform the Council into a true legislative chamber thus creating a genuinely bicameral legislative system;Deleted
15. Considers voting in public to be a fundamental characteristic of democratic decision - making; urges the Council to make use of the possibility of qualified majority voting (QMV), and to refrain, where possible, from the practice of taking decisions by consensus and thus without a formal vote in publicvote publicly and record voting positions;
Paragraph 16 – point a
(a) to systematically record the identity of Member State governments and their representatives when they express positions in Council preparatory bodies;
b) to develop clear andimmediately develop a systematic and clear criteria, which is publically available criteria for how it, and detail how the Council designates documents as ‘“LIMITE’,” and that is in line with relevant EU law;
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; __________________ 1a CJEU, 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.
16a. Recommends that the principles of transparency and openness should apply to all democratic processes in Member States; notes that the British EU Referendum in 2016 was not a fully transparent process due to allegations of the leave campaign breaking electoral law; as an effect of this, notes that 1.8 million citizens in the north of Ireland may be disenfranchised from their democratic rights as citizens which limits European participative democracy; considers that forging a participative citizenship necessitates full transparency and participation in the democratic process for all European citizens;
source: 628.528
Filter history Activities Activities.committees Activities.committees.shadows Activities.date Activities.type Commission Committees Committees.date Committees.rapporteur Committees.shadows Docs Events Events.docs.url Links Other Procedure Procedure.dossier_of_the_committee Procedure.legal_basis Procedure.stage_reached Procedure.subject
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A8-2018-0420&language=EN
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-8-2018-0420_EN.html
url:	https://oeil.secure.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/sda.do?id=31893&l=en title:	Results of vote in Parliament
url:	http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P8-TA-2019-0045 title:	T8-0045/2019
The European Parliament adopted by 479 votes to 18, with 81 abstentions, a resolution on the Ombudsman’s strategic inquiry OI/2/2017 on the transparency of legislative discussions in the preparatory bodies of the Council of the EU. Following the inquiry into transparency, the Ombudsman found that the Council’s lack of transparency regarding public access to its legislative documents and its current practices with regard to transparency of its decision-making process – specifically during the preparatory stage at Coreper and working group level – constitute maladministration. On 9 February 2018, the Ombudsman made six suggestions for improvements and three specific recommendations to the Council regarding transparency of its preparatory bodies, and asked the Council for a reply. The Council did not reply to the recommendations contained in the Ombudsman’s report within the legally prescribed timeline of three months, and, the Ombudsman decided not to grant the Council any extensions beyond this deadline, and submitted the report to Parliament. Addressing the democratic deficit Recalling the current criticism of the European Union for its democratic deficit, Members stressed that the fact that one of its three main institutions takes decisions without the transparency expected of a democratic institution is detrimental to the European project. Members shared the Ombudsman's view that the Treaties impose a legal obligation to ensure that citizens are able to understand, follow in detail and participate in the legislative process, which is essential for the establishment of a modern democratic system. Improving transparency Parliament stated that the decision-making process at European level should be fully democratic and highly transparent in order to increase citizens' trust in the European project and the EU institutions, especially in the run-up to the European elections in May 2019. A high level of transparency of the legislative process is essential to enable citizens, media and stakeholders to hold their elected representatives and governments accountable but also act as a safeguard against the spread of speculation, fake news and conspiracy theories Preparatory meetings Members deplored that, unlike committee meetings in Parliament, meetings of preparatory bodies and the majority of debates in the Council are held behind closed doors, that a large proportion of documents relating to legislative files are not published proactively by the Council and that documents relating to legislative dossiers distributed in its preparatory bodies are systematically classified under the marking 'LIMITE'. Parliament stated that citizens, media and stakeholders must have access by appropriate means to the meetings of the Council and its preparatory bodies, including via live- and webstreaming, and that the minutes of these meetings should be published in order to ensure a high level of transparency in the legislative process. The resolution stressed that the lack of information prevents national parliaments from monitoring government action in the Council. It also leads to an imbalance in the information available and thus gives the Council a structural advantage over Parliament. Members also wanted a high level of transparency to be applied to trilogues, which have become commonplace in reaching agreements on legislative dossiers. Informal bodies Parliament criticised the practice of pre-determining far-reaching economic and financial decisions in informal formats such as the Eurogroup and the Euro Summit. It insisted that EU legislation on transparency and access to documents should be applied to informal bodies and preparatory bodies within the Council, in particular the Eurogroup. It requested that the Eurogroup be fully formalised during the next revision of the Treaties in order to guarantee proper public access and parliamentary scrutiny. Recommendations to the Council Members fully endorsed the European Ombudsman’s recommendations to the Council and urged the Council – as a minimum – to take all measures necessary to implement as swiftly as possible the recommendations of the Ombudsman, namely: - to systematically record the identity of Member State governments when they express positions in Council preparatory bodies; - to develop clear and publicly available criteria for how it designates documents as ‘LIMITE’, in line with EU law; - to systematically review the ‘LIMITE’ status of documents at an early stage, before the final adoption of a legislative act, including before informal negotiations in trilogues, at which point the Council will have reached an initial position on the proposal. Parliament reiterated its call for the improvement of the exchange of documents and information between Parliament and the Council and for access to be granted to representatives of Parliament as observers to meetings of the Council and its bodies, in particular in the case of legislation, in a way equivalent to which Parliament grants the Council access to its meetings. The Council is invited to: - align its working methods with the standards of a parliamentary and participatory democracy, as required by the Treaties, rather than acting as a diplomatic forum; - transform itself into a real legislative chamber in order to create a genuine bicameral legislative system involving the Council and Parliament, with the Commission acting as the executive; - use qualified majority voting and refrain, as far as possible, from taking decisions by consensus and therefore without a formal public vote.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P8-TA-2019-0045
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-8-2019-0045_EN.html
2019-09-04Show (4) Changes | Timetravel
name:	LEINEN Jo date:	2018-07-11T00:00:00 group:	Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats abbr:	S&D name:	TOOM Yana date:	2018-07-11T00:00:00 group:	Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe abbr:	ALDE
name:	BROK Elmar group:	European People's Party (Christian Democrats) abbr:	PPE name:	JAHR Peter group:	European People's Party (Christian Democrats) abbr:	PPE name:	KIRTON-DARLING Jude group:	Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats abbr:	S&D name:	MARIAS Notis group:	European Conservatives and Reformists abbr:	ECR name:	MESSERSCHMIDT Morten group:	European Conservatives and Reformists abbr:	ECR name:	PAGAZAURTUNDÚA Maite group:	Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe abbr:	ALDE name:	ANDERSON Martina group:	European United Left - Nordic Green Left abbr:	GUE/NGL name:	KUNEVA Kostadinka group:	European United Left - Nordic Green Left abbr:	GUE/NGL name:	ANDERSSON Max group:	Greens/European Free Alliance abbr:	Verts/ALE name:	AUKEN Margrete group:	Greens/European Free Alliance abbr:	Verts/ALE name:	CASTALDO Fabio Massimo group:	Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy abbr:	EFDD name:	EVI Eleonora group:	Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy abbr:	EFDD name:	ANNEMANS Gerolf group:	Europe of Nations and Freedom abbr:	ENF
2018-07-11T00:00:00 2018-07-11T00:00:00
name:	LEINEN Jo group:	Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats abbr:	S&D name:	TOOM Yana group:	Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe abbr:	ALDE
date:	2018-06-14T00:00:00 body:	EP type:	Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading committees:	body:	EP shadows:	group:	EPP name:	BROK Elmar group:	EPP name:	JAHR Peter group:	S&D name:	KIRTON-DARLING Jude group:	ECR name:	MARIAS Notis group:	ALDE name:	PAGAZAURTUNDÚA RUIZ Maite group:	GUE/NGL name:	KUNEVA Kostadinka group:	Verts/ALE name:	ANDERSSON Max group:	Verts/ALE name:	AUKEN Margrete group:	EFD name:	EVI Eleonora responsible:	True committee:	AFCO date:	2018-07-11T00:00:00 2018-07-11T00:00:00 committee_full:	Constitutional Affairs rapporteur:	group:	S&D name:	LEINEN Jo group:	ALDE name:	TOOM Yana body:	EP responsible:	False committee_full:	Legal Affairs committee:	JURI body:	EP shadows:	group:	EPP name:	BROK Elmar group:	EPP name:	JAHR Peter group:	S&D name:	KIRTON-DARLING Jude group:	ECR name:	MARIAS Notis group:	ALDE name:	PAGAZAURTUNDÚA RUIZ Maite group:	GUE/NGL name:	KUNEVA Kostadinka group:	Verts/ALE name:	ANDERSSON Max group:	Verts/ALE name:	AUKEN Margrete group:	EFD name:	EVI Eleonora responsible:	True committee:	PETI date:	2018-07-11T00:00:00 2018-07-11T00:00:00 committee_full:	Petitions rapporteur:	group:	S&D name:	LEINEN Jo group:	ALDE name:	TOOM Yana
date:	2019-01-14T00:00:00 body:	EP type:	Indicative plenary sitting date, 1st reading/single reading
group:	EPP name:	BROK Elmar group:	EPP name:	JAHR Peter group:	S&D name:	KIRTON-DARLING Jude group:	ECR name:	MARIAS Notis group:	ALDE name:	PAGAZAURTUNDÚA RUIZ Maite group:	GUE/NGL name:	KUNEVA Kostadinka group:	Verts/ALE name:	ANDERSSON Max group:	Verts/ALE name:	AUKEN Margrete group:	EFD name:	EVI Eleonora
group:	S&D name:	LEINEN Jo group:	ALDE name:	TOOM Yana
date:	2018-09-11T00:00:00 docs:	url:	http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE623.956 title:	PE623.956 type:	Committee draft report body:	EP
date:	2018-11-06T00:00:00 docs:	url:	http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE628.528 title:	PE628.528 type:	Amendments tabled in committee body:	EP
date:	2018-06-14T00:00:00 type:	Referral to joint committee announced in Parliament body:	EP
date:	2018-11-22T00:00:00 type:	Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading body:	EP
date:	2018-12-04T00:00:00 type:	Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading body:	EP docs:	url:	http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A8-2018-0420&language=EN title:	A8-0420/2018 summary:	The Committee on Constitutional Affairs and the Committee on Petitions have adopted an own-initiative report prepared jointly by Jo LEINEN (S&D, DE) and Yana TOOM (ALDE, EE) on the Ombudsman’s strategic inquiry OI/2/2017 on the transparency of legislative discussions in the preparatory bodies of the Council of the EU. Addressing the democratic deficit Recalling the current criticism of the European Union for its democratic deficit, Members stressed that the fact that one of its three main institutions takes decisions without the transparency expected of a democratic institution is detrimental to the European project. The decision-making process at European level should be fully democratic and highly transparent in order to increase citizens' trust in the European project and the EU institutions, especially in the run-up to the European elections in May 2019. Members shared the Ombudsman's view that the Treaties impose a legal obligation to ensure that citizens are able to understand, follow in detail and participate in the legislative process, which is essential for the establishment of a modern democratic system. A high level of transparency of the legislative process is essential to enable citizens, media and stakeholders to hold their elected representatives and governments accountable but also act as a safeguard against the spread of speculation, fake news and conspiracy theories. The report deplored that, unlike committee meetings in Parliament, meetings of preparatory bodies and the majority of debates in the Council are held behind closed doors , that a large proportion of documents relating to legislative files are not published proactively by the Council and that documents relating to legislative dossiers distributed in its preparatory bodies are systematically classified under the marking 'LIMITE' . The lack of information prevents national parliaments from monitoring government action in the Council. It also leads to an imbalance in the information available and thus gives the Council a structural advantage over Parliament. Members also wanted a high level of transparency to be applied to trilogues , which have become commonplace in reaching agreements on legislative dossiers. Recommendations to the Council Members fully endorsed the European Ombudsman’s recommendations to the Council and urges the Council – as a minimum – to take all measures necessary to implement as swiftly as possible the recommendations of the Ombudsman, namely: - to systematically record the identity of Member State governments when they express positions in Council preparatory bodies; - to develop clear and publicly available criteria for how it designates documents as ‘LIMITE’, in line with EU law; - to systematically review the ‘LIMITE’ status of documents at an early stage, before the final adoption of a legislative act, including before informal negotiations in trilogues, at which point the Council will have reached an initial position on the proposal. The report reiterated its call for the improvement of the exchange of documents and information between Parliament and the Council and for access to be granted to representatives of Parliament as observers to meetings of the Council and its bodies, in particular in the case of legislation, in a way equivalent to which Parliament grants the Council access to its meetings. The Council is invited to: - align its working methods with the standards of a parliamentary and participatory democracy, as required by the Treaties, rather than acting as a diplomatic forum; - transform itself into a real legislative chamber in order to create a genuine bicameral legislative system involving the Council and Parliament, with the Commission acting as the executive; - use qualified majority voting and refrain, as far as possible, from taking decisions by consensus and therefore without a formal public vote. Lastly, Members called for the Eurogroup to be fully formalised during the next revision of the Treaties in order to ensure appropriate public access and parliamentary control.
date:	2019-01-17T00:00:00 type:	Debate in Parliament body:	EP docs:	url:	http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20190117&type=CRE title:	Debate in Parliament
date:	2019-01-17T00:00:00 type:	Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading body:	EP docs:	url:	http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P8-TA-2019-0045 title:	T8-0045/2019 summary:	The European Parliament adopted by 479 votes to 18, with 81 abstentions, a resolution on the Ombudsman’s strategic inquiry OI/2/2017 on the transparency of legislative discussions in the preparatory bodies of the Council of the EU. Following the inquiry into transparency, the Ombudsman found that the Council’s lack of transparency regarding public access to its legislative documents and its current practices with regard to transparency of its decision-making process – specifically during the preparatory stage at Coreper and working group level – constitute maladministration. On 9 February 2018, the Ombudsman made six suggestions for improvements and three specific recommendations to the Council regarding transparency of its preparatory bodies, and asked the Council for a reply. The Council did not reply to the recommendations contained in the Ombudsman’s report within the legally prescribed timeline of three months, and, the Ombudsman decided not to grant the Council any extensions beyond this deadline, and submitted the report to Parliament. Addressing the democratic deficit Recalling the current criticism of the European Union for its democratic deficit, Members stressed that the fact that one of its three main institutions takes decisions without the transparency expected of a democratic institution is detrimental to the European project. Members shared the Ombudsman's view that the Treaties impose a legal obligation to ensure that citizens are able to understand, follow in detail and participate in the legislative process, which is essential for the establishment of a modern democratic system. Improving transparency Parliament stated that the decision-making process at European level should be fully democratic and highly transparent in order to increase citizens' trust in the European project and the EU institutions, especially in the run-up to the European elections in May 2019. A high level of transparency of the legislative process is essential to enable citizens, media and stakeholders to hold their elected representatives and governments accountable but also act as a safeguard against the spread of speculation, fake news and conspiracy theories Preparatory meetings Members deplored that, unlike committee meetings in Parliament, meetings of preparatory bodies and the majority of debates in the Council are held behind closed doors, that a large proportion of documents relating to legislative files are not published proactively by the Council and that documents relating to legislative dossiers distributed in its preparatory bodies are systematically classified under the marking 'LIMITE'. Parliament stated that citizens, media and stakeholders must have access by appropriate means to the meetings of the Council and its preparatory bodies, including via live- and webstreaming, and that the minutes of these meetings should be published in order to ensure a high level of transparency in the legislative process. The resolution stressed that the lack of information prevents national parliaments from monitoring government action in the Council. It also leads to an imbalance in the information available and thus gives the Council a structural advantage over Parliament. Members also wanted a high level of transparency to be applied to trilogues, which have become commonplace in reaching agreements on legislative dossiers. Informal bodies Parliament criticised the practice of pre-determining far-reaching economic and financial decisions in informal formats such as the Eurogroup and the Euro Summit. It insisted that EU legislation on transparency and access to documents should be applied to informal bodies and preparatory bodies within the Council, in particular the Eurogroup. It requested that the Eurogroup be fully formalised during the next revision of the Treaties in order to guarantee proper public access and parliamentary scrutiny. Recommendations to the Council Members fully endorsed the European Ombudsman’s recommendations to the Council and urged the Council – as a minimum – to take all measures necessary to implement as swiftly as possible the recommendations of the Ombudsman, namely: - to systematically record the identity of Member State governments when they express positions in Council preparatory bodies; - to develop clear and publicly available criteria for how it designates documents as ‘LIMITE’, in line with EU law; - to systematically review the ‘LIMITE’ status of documents at an early stage, before the final adoption of a legislative act, including before informal negotiations in trilogues, at which point the Council will have reached an initial position on the proposal. Parliament reiterated its call for the improvement of the exchange of documents and information between Parliament and the Council and for access to be granted to representatives of Parliament as observers to meetings of the Council and its bodies, in particular in the case of legislation, in a way equivalent to which Parliament grants the Council access to its meetings. The Council is invited to: - align its working methods with the standards of a parliamentary and participatory democracy, as required by the Treaties, rather than acting as a diplomatic forum; - transform itself into a real legislative chamber in order to create a genuine bicameral legislative system involving the Council and Parliament, with the Commission acting as the executive; - use qualified majority voting and refrain, as far as possible, from taking decisions by consensus and therefore without a formal public vote.
date:	2019-01-17T00:00:00 type:	End of procedure in Parliament body:	EP
Rules of Procedure EP 58
Rules of Procedure EP 55
Public access to information and documents, administrative practice
8.40.02
body:	EP shadows:	group:	EPP name:	BROK Elmar group:	EPP name:	JAHR Peter group:	S&D name:	KIRTON-DARLING Jude group:	ECR name:	MARIAS Notis group:	ALDE name:	PAGAZAURTUNDÚA RUIZ Maite group:	GUE/NGL name:	KUNEVA Kostadinka group:	Verts/ALE name:	ANDERSSON Max group:	Verts/ALE name:	AUKEN Margrete group:	EFD name:	EVI Eleonora responsible:	True committee:	AFCO date:	2018-07-11T00:00:00 2018-07-11T00:00:00 committee_full:	Constitutional Affairs rapporteur:	group:	S&D name:	LEINEN Jo group:	ALDE name:	TOOM Yana body:	EP responsible:	False committee_full:	Legal Affairs committee:	JURI body:	EP shadows:	group:	EPP name:	BROK Elmar group:	EPP name:	JAHR Peter group:	S&D name:	KIRTON-DARLING Jude group:	ECR name:	MARIAS Notis group:	ALDE name:	PAGAZAURTUNDÚA RUIZ Maite group:	GUE/NGL name:	KUNEVA Kostadinka group:	Verts/ALE name:	ANDERSSON Max group:	Verts/ALE name:	AUKEN Margrete group:	EFD name:	EVI Eleonora responsible:	True committee:	PETI date:	2018-07-11T00:00:00 2018-07-11T00:00:00 committee_full:	Petitions rapporteur:	group:	S&D name:	LEINEN Jo group:	ALDE name:	TOOM Yana
body:	EP shadows:	group:	EPP name:	JAHR Peter group:	S&D name:	KIRTON-DARLING Jude group:	ECR name:	MARIAS Notis group:	ALDE name:	PAGAZAURTUNDÚA RUIZ Maite group:	GUE/NGL name:	KUNEVA Kostadinka group:	Verts/ALE name:	AUKEN Margrete group:	EFD name:	EVI Eleonora responsible:	True committee:	AFCO date:	2018-03-21T00:00:00 committee_full:	Constitutional Affairs rapporteur:	group:	ALDE name:	TOOM Yana
body:	EP shadows:	group:	EPP name:	JAHR Peter group:	S&D name:	KIRTON-DARLING Jude group:	ECR name:	MARIAS Notis group:	ALDE name:	PAGAZAURTUNDÚA RUIZ Maite group:	GUE/NGL name:	KUNEVA Kostadinka group:	Verts/ALE name:	AUKEN Margrete group:	EFD name:	EVI Eleonora responsible:	True committee:	PETI date:	2018-03-21T00:00:00 committee_full:	Petitions rapporteur:	group:	ALDE name:	TOOM Yana
committees/0/rapporteur/0
committees/2/shadows/6
Rules of Procedure EP 055
2018-06-20Show (4) Changes | Timetravel
activities/0/committees/2/shadows/3
2018-06-16Show (5) Changes
date:	2018-06-14T00:00:00 body:	EP type:	Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading committees:	body:	EP shadows:	group:	EPP name:	JAHR Peter group:	S&D name:	KIRTON-DARLING Jude group:	ECR name:	MARIAS Notis group:	GUE/NGL name:	KUNEVA Kostadinka group:	Verts/ALE name:	AUKEN Margrete group:	EFD name:	EVI Eleonora responsible:	True committee:	AFCO date:	2018-03-21T00:00:00 committee_full:	Constitutional Affairs rapporteur:	group:	ALDE name:	TOOM Yana body:	EP responsible:	False committee_full:	Legal Affairs committee:	JURI body:	EP shadows:	group:	EPP name:	JAHR Peter group:	S&D name:	KIRTON-DARLING Jude group:	ECR name:	MARIAS Notis group:	GUE/NGL name:	KUNEVA Kostadinka group:	Verts/ALE name:	AUKEN Margrete group:	EFD name:	EVI Eleonora responsible:	True committee:	PETI date:	2018-03-21T00:00:00 committee_full:	Petitions rapporteur:	group:	ALDE name:	TOOM Yana
body:	EP shadows:	group:	EPP name:	JAHR Peter group:	S&D name:	KIRTON-DARLING Jude group:	ECR name:	MARIAS Notis group:	GUE/NGL name:	KUNEVA Kostadinka group:	Verts/ALE name:	AUKEN Margrete group:	EFD name:	EVI Eleonora responsible:	True committee:	AFCO date:	2018-03-21T00:00:00 committee_full:	Constitutional Affairs rapporteur:	group:	ALDE name:	TOOM Yana
body:	EP shadows:	group:	EPP name:	JAHR Peter group:	S&D name:	KIRTON-DARLING Jude group:	ECR name:	MARIAS Notis group:	GUE/NGL name:	KUNEVA Kostadinka group:	Verts/ALE name:	AUKEN Margrete group:	EFD name:	EVI Eleonora responsible:	True committee:	PETI date:	2018-03-21T00:00:00 committee_full:	Petitions rapporteur:	group:	ALDE name:	TOOM Yana
2018/2096(INI)
Ombudsman’s strategic inquiry OI/2/2017 on the transparency of legislative discussions in the preparatory bodies of the Council of the EU
Rules of Procedure EP 052 Rules of Procedure EP 055
1.20.04 European Ombudsman 1.20.05 Public access to information and documents, administrative practice 8.40.02 Council of the Union