18 Amendments of Jana TOOM related to 2022/2015(INI)
Amendment 43 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. Recalls that the widest possible public access to documents is essential to public scrutiny on all aspects of EU activity, and that trust of citizens in the Union directly depends on transparency;
Amendment 44 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Notes with great concern that in 2021, following a request for public access to text messages between the Commission President and the CEO of a pharmaceutical company regarding the purchase of COVID-19 vaccines, the Commission refused to even search properly for such text messages, let alone by the Commission with billions of euros of the tax payers' money, the Commission refused to acknowledge that such text messages fall within the definition of a “document” pursuant to Regulation (EC) 1049/2001, which specifies that a document means “any content whatever its medium (written on paper or stored in electronic form or as a sound, visual or audio-visual recording) concerning a matter relating to the policies, activities and decisions falling within the institution's sphere of responsibility”; and therefore fall under Regulation (EC) 1049/2001; notes that even though the Commission would have to register and search for such text messages, it can still decide not to grant full public access to them if the exceptions listed in the Regulation, such as commercial interests, apply; recalls that registering a document is a consequence of the existence of a document and not a prerequisite for its existence; supports the Ombudsman’s finding of maladministration by the Commission in this case17 ; _________________ 17 https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/deci sion/en/158295.
Amendment 48 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. Regrets that the Commission record-keeping policy excludes text messages arguing they would be “short- lived documents” by their nature and "are not meant to contain important information relating to policies, activities and decisions of the Commission"; points out however that in practice text messages are being used for this purpose; urges the Commission to bring its internal guidelines on document registration in line with Regulation (EC) 1049/2001 and register text messages relating to the policies, activities and decisions of the Commission; notes that in several Member States it has become common practice for public bodies to archive text messages relating to policies, activities and decisions, subject to access to documents laws;
Amendment 51 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 b (new)
Paragraph 2 b (new)
2 b. Regrets that President von der Leyen was absent in the plenary debate on the matter of access to documents;
Amendment 52 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 c (new)
Paragraph 2 c (new)
2 c. Deplores that the Commission has been deleting documents on a massive scale, including minutes from closed meetings, reports and internal documents, as a consequence of software introduced by former Commission President Jean- Claude Juncker in 2015, which deletes emails automatically after six months, unless they are registered .17a _________________ 17a https://www.spiegel.de/international/euro pe/a-new-controversy-erupts-around- ursula-von-der-leyen-s-text-messages-a- 6510951f-e8dc-4468-a0af-2ecd60e77ed9
Amendment 55 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Notes with concern that a common problem faced in requests for access to documents is the refusal of access by institutions on the basis of insubstantial arguments; reiterates that an institution invoking one of the exceptions to access has to make an objective and individual assessment and show that the risk to the interest protected is foreseeable and not purely hypothetical, and define how access to the document would specifically and effectively undermine the interest protected18 ; highlights that it might be possible to disclose some parts of a document when other parts need to be protected; notes with interest the case lodged against the Council for its frequent recourse to the informatakes note of the CJEU’s judgment in case T-163/21 De Capitani vs Council of the European Union, where the Court recognised the public’s right of access to documents from Council ‘working document’ predicate19groups acting in the context of a legislative process, but that access still needs to be actively requested; ; _________________ 18 Judgment of the CJEU of 22 March 2018, Emilio De Capitani v European Parliament, T-540/15, EU:T:2018:167; judgment of the CJEU of 1 July 2008, Sweden and Turco v Council of the European Union, Joined Cases C-39/05 P and C-52/05, EU:C:2008:374. 19 Case lodged on 7 May 2021, De Capitani v Council of the European Union, T-163/21.
Amendment 71 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Amendment 76 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 b (new)
Paragraph 6 b (new)
6 b. Regrets that the Parliament Bureau rejected the Ombudsman’s recommendation on the Bureau's refusal to grant public access to documents related to the revision of the list of expenses that might be covered by the General Expenditure Allowance (GEA), which she qualified as maladministration; urges the Bureau to set a good example and grant public access to documents proactively and not to interpret the exemptions too narrowly;
Amendment 79 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 c (new)
Paragraph 6 c (new)
6 c. Regrets the deliberate refusal of the Commission to provide full and detailed information on implementation and enforcement of EU law to Parliament, which allows for neither parliamentary nor public scrutiny; calls on the institutions to respect the principle of sincere cooperation and proactively publish this information;
Amendment 81 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 d (new)
Paragraph 6 d (new)
6 d. Regrets the Commission's refusal to publish statistics indicating the effectiveness of EU policies, which hinders any public scrutiny over policies significantly impacting fundamental rights; calls on the Commission to proactively publish such statistics in order to prove that policies are necessary and proportionate to achieve their objective;
Amendment 82 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 e (new)
Paragraph 6 e (new)
6 e. Reiterates its proposals made in previous reports on access to documents, such as the creation of clear and uniform rules for the classification and declassification of documents and an independent EU authority overseeing this, and regrets the lack of serious follow up by Commission and Council;
Amendment 83 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 f (new)
Paragraph 6 f (new)
6 f. Commends the Court of Justice for broadcasting the delivery of its judgments and the reading of the Advocate Generals' opinions live on its website, in order to allow citizens to follow hearings under the same conditions as if they were physically present; calls on the Court of Justice to also broadcast all hearings live.
Amendment 101 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Calls for a revision of the Staff Regulations, especially Article 22(c) thereof, in order to align them with the standards of the Whistleblower Directive; reiterates its call for a special committee tasked with identifying potential flaws in the European Parliament’s rules on transparency, integrity and corruption and with making proposals for reforms; recalls its commitment to setting up a committee of inquiry, following the outcome of the criminal investigations and possible court proceedings, to investigate cases of corruption and improper actions by non- EU countries seeking to buy influence in the European Parliament; recalls its position that the Commission should put forward a proposal to set up a new ethics body for the EU institutions as soon as possible;
Amendment 103 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)
Paragraph 11 a (new)
11 a. Calls on the Commission to be more transparent as regards contracts with third parties; calls on the Commission to proactively publish information about the tender process including the criteria against which third parties tenders are assessed, possible prior risk assessments, scientific evidence of the effectiveness of the product or service covered, the contract including the amount of EU funding spent and time period, the desired outcomes, possible audits and the assessment of the result;
Amendment 105 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Welcomes the Ombudsman’s practical recommendations on how to record text and instant messages sent or received by staff members in their professional capacity23 ; recognises that work-related text and instant messages are ‘documents’ within the meaning of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 on public access to documents and invites the other EU institutions, bodies, offices and agencies to also recognise this; calls on the other EU institutions, bodies, offices and agencies to use a broad interpretation ofstrictly apply theis concept of ‘document’, which is particularly important in an information society and in the context of new forms of communication, which are being used to discuss matters relating to the policies, activities and decisions; _________________ 23 https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/doc/ correspondence/en/158383.
Amendment 125 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Recalls that an application for access to a document must be handled promptly26 ; notes with great concern that the Ombudsman receives many citizen complaints about extreme delays in gaining access to requested documents; supports the Ombudsman’s views that access delayed is effectively access denied and that administrative processes should be streamlined to ensure that citizens receive access to documents in a timely manner; calls for more data on the institutions’ compliance with the deadlines; _________________ 26 Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, Article 7.
Amendment 128 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Notes with concern that at present, citizens can only challenge the refusal of an access-to-document request by bringing court proceedings against the institution and/or by making a complaint to the Ombudsmanmaking a complaint to the Ombudsman, whose recommendations are unfortunately not legally binding, or by bringing court proceedings against the institution in the CJEU, which entails extremely lengthy processes, the risk of high, even prohibitive costs, and uncertain outcome, putting an unreasonable and deterring burden on citizens who wish to challenge a decision to refuse (partial) access; emphasises that this means in practice that there is no effective legal remedy against a negative decision on a request for access to documents; calls for the EU institutions, bodies and agencies to adopt more accessible procedures for handling complaints about refusals to grant access; recommends, in this context, appointing independent, senior officials with the capacity to review, without undue delay, appeals concerning access-to-documents requests;
Amendment 132 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)
Paragraph 17 a (new)
17 a. Considers that the current way to find the voting history of Members of European Parliament, via pdf-files covering hundreds of votes on the Parliament's website, is not user-friendly and does not contribute to the EU's transparency; calls on the Parliament Bureau to develop a user-friendly system where for each roll-call vote the text voted and the voting results per group and per MEP are visible at the same time;